During my time of peak activity with the Independent American Party, I penned 54 articles. Most of those were tragically deleted when the IAP changed web hosts several years back. A small handful, however, can still be found floating around the web. Independent Political Report, for instance, hosts some of them, such as the article I’ll share today.
I wrote the following piece in April of 2016. In the time since I wrote it, I’ve become more convinced of its truthfulness. These principles are accurate and true. We will stand accountable to God for everything we do, including everything we do in the realm of politics. There’s no escaping the fact that God will judge us, among other things, based on our politics.
Now begins my original article written in 2016:
It seems to me that the prevailing opinion in society is that politics and religion are two separate things. According to this view, one’s political decisions have no bearing upon one’s faith or standing before the Lord. My article is a refutation of that false notion. I want to impress upon your mind that your political beliefs, actions, and votes are a direct representation of your religious views and moral principles. If this is accurate, then it is true to say that we will be accountable to God for our political choices and attitudes. This fact should cause us to carefully study politics and to never compromise our soul to vote for the “lesser of two evils,” or for a candidate whose views are questionable, but who appears “viable.”
You cannot vote for a man whose views are contrary to your own personal beliefs without compromising your values. If you compromise your values so easily, what do you really believe in? Actions speak louder than words. If you claim to believe in one set of principles, but then vote for a candidate or support a party or program which espouses a different set of principles, logic dictates that you actually believe the latter. In such cases, your verbal profession of belief is disingenuous and you mark yourself, by your actions, as a hypocrite with no fidelity to your espoused principles. At a minimum, you prove that you do not have enough courage to stand for your convictions, but that you are an indecisive person who floats with the political winds and stands for nothing in particular. More candidly, however, you prove that in practice you believe in and advocate the principles and ideas of the person or program you have supported.
It is illogical to vote for a candidate while alleging that you do not agree with them. But, some might rationalize, you will never find someone you agree with 100% of the time, so you have to make compromises and go with the best candidate available. I reject this thought. When considering the relatively inconsequential details of a person’s policies, it may certainly be true that you are not in full agreement. There’s nothing wrong with that. However, it is a different thing entirely to support someone whose core principles do not align with your own, or whose platform contains planks which do not conform to your person beliefs, even if they appear to be the “best” candidate available.
If I see you vote for a person, I automatically assume you believe the same ideas and hold his identical principles. If not, why are you voting for him? If I see you support a Republican, for instance, I will generally assume that you support the Republican Party platform in its entirety unless you, or the individual candidate in question, specifically state otherwise. If you are unaware that a person’s views differ from your own, then it may be said you are acting in willful ignorance, which proves that you haven’t taken your civic duty seriously. It likewise proves your laziness.
Willful ignorance, in our information age, is contemptible. There is no excuse, absolutely no excuse, for feigning ignorance in this era when you hold access to the world’s knowledge in the palm of your hand. Therefore, I am justified in assuming that if you vote for a person, you are in full agreement with his particular set of values and principles. I hope you can see that your political decisions reveal your innermost convictions. If you think this assumption is unfair, change your votes to align with your principles. Otherwise, stand by your choices and cease to complain that they’re not a representation of your true beliefs.
I cannot relate to a person who would compromise their principles and beliefs for the sake of politics or out of a desire to win an election. And I don’t believe God will look favorably upon this either, if Revelation 3:15-16 is to be trusted. This passage states: “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.”
I do not believe we will be judged favorably if, when we stand before our Maker, we are compelled to confess that each election year we sold out our principles in order to win, or that we put our support behind a candidate we knew was the “lesser of two evils” in order to stymie another person who was “worse.” Either the Lord will say you have been “lukewarm,” or He will determine that your actions spoke louder than your words. In either case, you stand condemned. The only solution, then, is to establish a set of principles and never deviate – even if it means doing the unpopular thing and voting for an independent candidate or someone you know has no chance in a national election. What is more important, winning or doing what is right? Answer for yourself.
At this juncture, I wish to quote several paragraphs from Hans Verlan Andersen’s book “The Great and Abominable Church of the Devil.” In this work, Andersen tries to convince the reader that he is responsible to God for his actions regarding government, including his votes. Indeed, according to Andersen, our political views accurately reflect who we are on the inside. Let the author explain his reasoning to you:
“A person’s political philosophy is an expression of his moral beliefs because he cannot determine whether he favors or opposes a law without consulting his moral standards. Before he can approve of a law which forbids a certain act he must believe the forbidden act to be wrong or harmful . . .
“Similarly, before one can approve of a law which commands an act, he must believe the act to be good and a failure to perform it as a culpable omission deserving of punishment . . . It is contrary to logic for anyone to espouse a political philosophy which is inconsistent with his moral beliefs. On the other hand that philosophy is a formulation of his moral code.
“A person’s political philosophy not only reflects his moral convictions, but it represents his most intense feelings regarding good and evil. Those acts which are prohibited by the laws he favors are not only regarded by him as evil, but so objectionable are they that he is willing to physically punish anyone who commits them. His feelings are equally intense regarding those acts he thinks he has a moral right to compel others to perform.
“Suppose one were given unlimited power to use force on his fellow man without fear of retaliation, physical punishment, or condemnation by other members of society. Under such circumstances, the manner in which he treated others would be an accurate index of his moral character. The only thing left to restrain him or to determine the good or evil he would do with that force, would be his conscience. This is substantially the position a person would be in if he were given the power to secretly direct the affairs of government. He would have in his hands the supreme physical force in society and could use it to control others without incurring either physical danger or condemnation.
“In a society of self-governing people this is essentially the position the voter occupies. . . .
“Our political desires are an extremely accurate index of what we would do if the Lord made us a king, a judge, or a ruler with power to govern others.”
No elaboration is needed.
While contemplating Andersen’s statements, let me ask you several questions. As a sovereign citizen with the Freedom to choose your representatives, what do you choose? Do you choose to always do the right thing no matter how unpopular? Do you compromise and vote for programs or people which don’t share your same principles, thinking that somehow God will overlook your insincerity because it was seemingly for a good cause? Do you carelessly make your political decisions or do you thoughtfully and prayerfully research and then act? Do you go with the flow or follow the latest trend, or do you stand for something real, fixed, and concrete? Do you know what you believe and are you willing to die for it? Do you separate politics and religion in your mind, or do you approach politics as a religious duty for which you will give an accounting in the hereafter?
Our political actions, most importantly our votes, show who we are inside. They show what we believe in, which morals we cherish, and what our attitude is regarding our God-given Freedom and the equal rights of our fellow man. All Christians should be constantly cognizant of the fact that we will be judged according to our works – yes, all of our works, not just the so-called religious ones (see 1 Peter 1:17; Matthew 7:2,12; Luke 19:22; James 2:10-12,17,26; Revelation 20:12-13; Revelation 22:12). The honest course is to vote and act according to our principles – and to make sure these principles are just, good, true, and virtuous. To do otherwise is shameful.
I hope that I have impressed upon you the necessity of acting in harmony with your personal beliefs. I’m confident that you now see that your political choices are reflections of your religious opinions. I likewise hope that you will never again view politics outside of its religious context. Freedom is a Gospel principle, and our actions toward Freedom reveal the realities of our religious faith. We will each give an accounting to God for all of our actions, including which candidates we voted for, which political parties we favored, and which governmental programs we supported.
Let’s not be compromisers, ladies and gentlemen. Let’s stand for true and correct principles – constitutional principles, moral principles, religious principles. Let’s never be guilty of voting for the “lesser of two evils” – even if it means the hated Democrats win because you “divided” the Republican vote. A vote for the lesser of two evils is still evil and you will give an accounting of it to God no matter your rationalization. Let’s be men and women who prove our faith by our actions. If you will not do so, please abandon your faith and cease to pretend you’re someone you’re not. God help us to see the light of truth and to eschew error and oppose all people, programs, principles, or parties whose views do not uphold individual Freedom, morality, and religion. Never be ashamed of being unpopular. Do the right thing and your conscience will be clear. God help us restore our Liberty!
Traditionally, VE Day means Victory in Europe Day and refers to the end of the horrific Second World War. Today, I use VE Day to mean Victory on Easter Day. Easter is all about victory! Victory over death. Victory over sin. Victory over hell, the Devil, and misery. Jesus Christ is the Victor and it is to Him I pay tribute and give my eternal love, loyalty, and thanks.
Two thousand years ago, the Son of God was arrested, illicitly tried, spit on, abused, tortured, and cruelly crucified in front of a jeering mob on a forlorn hill outside of old Jerusalem. This Holy Man, called Jesus of Nazareth, suffered excruciatingly while those of His own people – those He had loved and served so diligently – mocked Him and exuded demonic hatred and malice for no reason. His pain, however, was not merely physical, but profoundly spiritual.
It was not only Jesus’ wrists, hands, and feet that were pierced, but His noble spirit had been pierced the night before this public humiliation and veritable ritual murder. It was in the tranquil Garden of Gethsemane that Jesus worked out the Atonement that allows me and you to lay our burdens and sins upon Him and become redeemed. There, Jesus suffered a private torment surpassing anything the Jews or Romans could have inflicted upon Him. It was while prostrate in that Garden of Glory that Jesus literally bled from every pore of His body because His anguish was so awful for the sins of mankind.
Despite the immense pain which required God the Father to send an angel to comfort His suffering Son during this most pivotal moment of eternity, Jesus endured, pushed forward, and conquered! He did what He tells us to do – He gave His heart and soul. He poured Himself out to His Father and our God, offering His sinless soul as an offering for our .
For some reason we don’t yet understand, blood – the life force of mortality – is required to ratify a sacrifice. To voluntarily spill His blood and give His life as the ultimate sacrifice, Jesus went from the Garden of Gethsemane to the Cross. There, on Golgotha, the Savior completed His work and fulfilled His Father’s Plan of Salvation. There on the Cross of Completion the Lord cried in anguish, but also with finality and exultation: “Father, it is finished, thy will is done” (Matthew 27:50, Joseph Smith Translation).
At that moment, Jesus was dead, yet He was never more alive. His spirit, freed from its suffering tabernacle of clay, simply transitioned from mortality to immortality; from the cruel earth to the paradise of the spirit world. There He reclaimed His spot as the Lord of Hosts. There He marshaled His forces to preach the Gospel to the spirits in prison. There He continued His work of salvation and prepared for the next act – placing the capstone on His perfect performance by rising from the grave in great glory.
It was in the early hours of Sunday morning, the Friday afternoon after He voluntarily gave His life for us on the Cross, that the Savior formally finished His Atonement and forever abolished death. Jesus, who is the Life and Light of the world, offered eternal life to each of us with the glorious hope of a future day of rest from earthly cares and pains, happiness with our families, and salvation in Heaven. Angels appeared to declare that He had fulfilled His promises; that He truly was the Master of Heaven and earth with power to save. It was a day unlike any other; a day that changed everything!
The empty tomb is the Tomb of Triumphant. The empty tomb is the ultimate symbol of Christ. Christians often remember the cruel Cross on Calvary. While it is essential to recall this event and to always keep in mind the suffering our Lord endured for us, it is more joyful and appropriate to remember the empty tomb and what it signifies. That tomb told the world that Jesus is the Christ, the Redeemer, the Savior, the All-Powerful Lord of the elements and of eternity. Let’s remember all that Christ has done for us and give Him particular thanks on this glorious Victory Day.
On an Easter morning many years ago, a modern prophet of the Lord gave this witness of the miracle of Christ’s Easter Victory. He proclaimed:
“There is one grand key in this vast divine program, and that is the redemption of mankind by the Lord Jesus Christ. . . .
“This is Easter morning. This is the Lord’s day, when we celebrate the greatest victory of all time, the victory over death.
“Those who hated Jesus thought they had put an end to Him forever when the cruel spikes pierced His quivering flesh and the cross was raised on Calvary. But this was the Son of God, with whose power they did not reckon. Through His death came the Resurrection and the assurance of eternal life. . . .
“Whenever the cold hand of death strikes, there shines through the gloom and the darkness of that hour the triumphant figure of the Lord Jesus Christ, He, the Son of God, who by his matchless and eternal power overcame death. He is the Redeemer of the world. He gave His life for each of us. He took it up again and became the firstfruits of them that slept. He, as King of Kings, stands triumphant above all other kings. He, as the Omnipotent One, stands above all rulers. He is our comfort, our only true comfort, when the dark shroud of earthly night closes about us as the spirit departs the human form.
“Towering above all mankind stands Jesus the Christ, the King of glory, the unblemished Messiah, the Lord Emmanuel. In the hour of deepest sorrow we draw hope and peace and certitude from the words of the angel that Easter morning, “He is not here: for he is risen, as he said” (Matt. 28:6). . . .
“He is our King, our Lord, our Master, the living Christ, who stands on the right hand of His Father. He lives! He lives, resplendent and wonderful, the living Son of the living God. Of this we bear solemn testimony this day of rejoicing, this Easter morning, when we commemorate the miracle of the empty tomb” (President Gordon B. Hinckley, “This Glorious Easter Morn,” General Conference, April, 1996).
I add my testimony to President Hinckley’s. Death is nothing. The Devil is nothing. They have no power over us because we are Christ’s and Christ is King – the Triumphant Victor. Life is endless and eternal because of our Eternal God, Jesus Christ, who is the Life and Light of all. I know without any doubt that life goes on and that Jesus the Christ, the Redeemer of the world, lives!
What greatest message can we give to the world than that Jesus, the very same who was crucified in Jerusalem 2,000 years ago, lives at this very moment? If He lives, then He was and is truly the Savior He said He was. And as that living Savior, He has the power to help us and save us even now. As one man of God said of our Redeemer:
“He is so accessible. I bear witness that He is alive right now. Jesus is saving and helping and healing and forgiving right now. He is quick to forgive and slow to anger. He is mighty to save” (Elder Kyle S. McKay, “There Must Needs Be a Christ,” BYU Devotional, March 23, 2021).
And so He is. Jesus is the One who saves, who purifies, who rescues, who heals, who changes us into better men and women, and who promises us eternal life with Him and our Father if we but turn to Him and give Him our heart. This Victory on Easter Day, let’s remember the redeeming power of Jesus Christ and the grace He so freely offers each of us. Yes, let’s remember the abundant life He offers us and has the power to offer us because He redeemed us in the Garden of Glory, died for us on Cross of Completion, and gave us unending hope by raising from the Tomb of Triumph.
As the Lord’s prophet on earth, President Russell M. Nelson, said this morning in a worldwide message about the Savior:
“No other message is more vital to our happiness now and forever. No other message is more filled with hope. No other message can eliminate contention in our society. Faith in Jesus Christ is the foundation of all belief and the conduit of divine power” (President Russell M. Nelson, General Conference, April 4, 2021).
Amen to that testimony. It is true. It’s all true. And because it’s true, each of us can cry in our hearts, in our prayers, and boldly before the world:
“O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? . . . .
Earlier, I saw a picture with the caption: “Speak the truth, even if your voice shakes.” My immediate reaction was: “Have a knowledge of the truth and your voice won’t shake.” As I thought about it, I became even more convinced that this is true. Knowledge yields the fruit of confidence, boldness, and decisiveness. When we truly know something, not merely think it or believe it, we stand unshaken before the scoffing, antagonism, and threats of the bewildered world.
When the Lord Jesus Christ stood before the enraged Jewish rulers who wanted to murder Him for His teachings, He stood His ground and stated:
“[N]ow ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God. . . .
“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.
The Lord stood with boldness before the homicidal political rulers of His day because He knew the truth. He didn’t merely believe or hope that what He was saying was accurate. His knowledge was of God. His knowledge made Him unshakable and unruffled in every situation.
We sometimes forget that though He was the very Son of God, Jesus still had to learn obedience, suffer temptation, and grow from grace to grace as any other person. He was not born perfect, He was “made perfect” (Hebrews 5:8-9). Because of His perfect fidelity and honor, He grew more rapidly than normal people and came into possession of all truth and knowledge, leaving Him firm and steadfast and in a unique position in the human race.
It was this Son made perfect who shared His knowledge and helped all around Him rise to a greater stature one step at a time. Integral in this process of ascending to Heaven is truth. The Lord proclaimed: “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). He could say this with perfect surety because He was and is the truth: “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh to the Father, but by me” (John 14:6).
All those who come to Jesus and learn of Him – that is, who learn the truth – become unshaken and immovable. Our voice won’t shake when we proclaim the truth, because we know it in every fiber of our being and feel it in the marrow of our bones. The Apostle Paul, who heard the resurrected Lord and talked with Him face to face and knew that He lived and stood supreme over death and hell, boldly stood before judges, jailers, kings, and mobs, proclaiming the truth he had received from the Lord of all truth. This supreme confidence is reflected in numerous passages of Paul’s writings, such as the following:
“For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. . . .
“We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair. . . .
“We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak;
“Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus. . . .
Because Paul had his own personal experience, ratified repeatedly by the Holy Spirit which impresses truth on our hearts, he was able to promptly teach truth and commend others to the Redeemer. I particularly love this encouragement found in his epistle to his fellow Hebrews:
“For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
“Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need” (Hebrews 4:15-16).
The children of God were never intended to fearfully cower before their Savior, nor were they supposed to kowtow with their eyes averted when they approached their Lord. Rather, we’re meant to “come boldly” to our Savior. But this boldness is much more difficult to come by if we don’t have a firm knowledge of the One we’re approaching.
Truth is a knowledge of things as they really are. Possessing truth, then, is to have knowledge. When we have knowledge, we can’t simultaneously have doubt. Knowledge and doubt are incompatible. If we truly know a thing, we can have full confidence in it at all times and in all situations. And if we have knowledge and confidence, we can’t fear or quake in speaking what we know.
To deny or fearfully stay silent on what we know is to deny ourselves, because truth, when acquired spiritually, becomes part of us – woven into our very sinews. Boldly telling the truth when we have a sincere knowledge is easy because it’s who we are. Our voice should never shake when speaking truth because it’s a mere expression of our inner selves.
To know something is true but to shrink from saying it is cowardly and shameful. I excuse the telling of sacred manifestations or higher truth because sometimes it’s not wise to cast your pearls before swine. But in a general sense, when it’s time to tell the truth, we either do it or we blot our soul, stifle our spiritual growth, and mark ourselves as liars and hypocrites.
When we have firsthand, personal knowledge of the truth – a witness born of the Spirit – we can stand before the world like Peter and boldly proclaim: “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). To so stand may earn us the displeasure of the mob, the hatred of our community, the abandonment of friends and kin, bodily harm, or even the sacrifice of our life, but what else can we do except stand if we’re filled with the knowledge of truth?
When people turn against us for doing and saying what’s right, regardless of peer pressure and the prevailing attitude of society, we should remember that the very Son of God was hated, persecuted, hunted, and slaughtered in a public spectacle for telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth. His apostles were likewise driven, exiled, and hunted. Paul once lamented: “Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?” (Galatians 4:16). Telling the truth comes with a price; but it also comes with eternal rewards that liars and cowards will never receive.
We should be so filled with conviction and the fire of truth that we can enthusiastically repeat the words of the hymn:
“Oh say, what is truth? ‘Tis the fairest gem,
That the riches of worlds can produce. . . .
“Yes, say, what is truth? ‘Tis the brightest prize
To which mortals or Gods can aspire. . . .
“Then say, what is truth? ‘Tis the last and the first,
For the limits of time it steps o’er.
Tho the heavens depart and the earth’s fountains burst,
Truth, the sum of existence, will weather the worst,
Eternal, unchanged, evermore” (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Hymn No. 272).
Let’s tether ourselves to truth. Let’s boldly speak of things as they really are and never quiver when opposed by offended, ignorant, or violent individuals, mobs, or governments. Their protests mean nothing in the eternal scheme of things. But our fidelity to the truth which has been imprinted on our soul by the caresses of the Holy Spirit produces rewards that last forever. Or, as Paul said: “Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward” (Hebrews 10:35).
The scripture tells us that “the righteous are bold as a lion” (Proverbs 28:1). The Holy Book also tells us that Jesus is the “Lion of the tribe of Juda” (Revelation 5:5). Let’s be righteous. Let’s be like our King, the Lion of righteousness! Let’s proclaim the truth – His eternal truth – with no hint of wavering or doubt in our voices. Fear is for the faithless; those filled with truth can speak with calm certainty because they know. So, let’s faithfully stand like Peter, like Paul, and like our beloved Messiah, and log our names in the book of life.
In their 2018 exposé, Forbidden Facts shockingly revealed:
“Did you know that the origin of Valentine’s Day comes from a red plot to weaken Western defenses on a predictable day, to aid with an invasion? It is not a coincidence that we are giving RED roses on this holiday!”
Valentine’s Day is a Bolshevik conspiracy! . . . Or is it? Communist plots are a dime a dozen and enemy agents really do lurk around every corner. Fortunately, though, Valentine’s Day is not one of their schemes. Cupid was not commissioned by the Kremlin; you don’t have to fear the sweet sting of his arrow. Forbidden Facts was simply practicing its satirical skills. However, this satire hits closer to home than the authors are likely aware. The communists actually do have a plot to crush the very notion of love and replace it with unrestrained hatred.
The Soviet chief of “education,” Anatoly Lunacharsky, gave piercing insight into the communist mentality when he raved:
“We hate Christians and Christianity. Even the best of them must be considered our worst enemies. Christian love is an obstacle to the development of the revolution. Down with love of one’s neighbor! What we want is hate. . . . Only then can we conquer the universe” (W. Cleon Skousen, The Naked Communist, 308).
To hate is what the Soviets actively taught their subjects to do. They used schools as indoctrination centers. In these brainwashing factories, Christians were depicted by their Judeo-Bolshevik overlords as dangerous radicals and threats to justice, peace, and unity. The controlled press also kept up a constant barrage of virulent anti-Christian diatribes.
Lunarcharsky was not alone in his Satanic sentiments. In the Congressional Record, we find this blunt quotation from Bolshevik dictator Vladimir Lenin: “We must hate – hatred is the basis of communism” (Introduced into the Congressional Record April 12, 1933 by Senator Arthur R. Robinson, 1539). Lenin is also said to have remarked: “Children must be taught to hate their parents if they are not communists.”
Lenin was a sadist. He was cruel and brutal. He relished the suffering of his fellow human beings. He forced them into starvation, cannibalism, concentration camps, slavery, and the killing fields all to further his Marxist agenda of world domination. We have this anecdote from socialist Bertrand Russell who visited Lenin in Moscow:
“When I put a question to him about socialism in agriculture, he explained with glee how he had incited the poorer peasants against the richer ones, ‘and they soon hanged them from the nearest tree – ha! ha! ha!’ His guffaw at the thought of those massacred made my blood run cold” (Richard Pipes, A Concise History of the Russian Revolution, 209).
Hatred for others and a glaring lack of compassion for suffering are common traits among the communists. Stalin was particularly devoid of compassion and love toward others. He once described his thought process for murdering his associates:
“When I have to say good-bye to someone, I picture this person on all fours and he becomes disgusting. Sometimes I feel attached to a person who should be removed for the good of the cause. What do you think I do? I imagine this person s***ting, exhaling stench, farting, vomiting – and I don’t feel sorry for this person. The sooner he stops stinking on this earth, the better. And I cross this person out of my heart” (Richard Wurmbrand, Marx & Satan, 52).
“Callous disregard” for others is too light a description. Rather, “Satanic hatred” is perhaps more apt. When we cross others out of our hearts and cease to love them, anything and everything cruel and degrading becomes possible.
The Jewish Soviet propagandist Ilya Ehrenburg learned his craft well from Lenin, Lunacharsky, and Stalin. During World War II, he wrote a screed titled “Убей!” or “Kill!” It was distributed to the rapacious Red Army hordes on the front lines in 1942. In it, Ehrenberg encouraged the troops with similar thoughts to those voiced by Stalin:
“Germans are not humans. Henceforth, the word ‘German’ is the most horrible curse. Henceforth, the word ‘German’ unloads a gun. We have nothing to say. We will not get excited. We will kill. If you have not killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day . . . If you cannot kill a German with a bullet, then kill him with your bayonet. If your part of the front is quiet and there is no fighting, then kill a German in the meantime . . . If you have already killed a German, then kill another one – there is nothing more amusing to us than a heap of German corpses. Don’t count the days, don’t count the kilometers. Count only one thing: the number of Germans you have killed. Kill the Germans! – This is what the old woman asks. Kill the Germans! – This is what the child cries for. Kill the Germans! – This is what your motherland demands . . . Kill!”
As recently as 2018, the Israeli news outlet Haaretz had the audacity to call this murderous order “poetry.” The poetry of hell, perhaps. It was, to any normal person, a command to destroy human life, to cross love out of one’s soul, to act like a devil.
Having lived in Russia from 2006-2008, I can personally attest that foreigners are routinely cursed at with the term “Немцы!” or “Germans!” Ehrenberg’s foul words not only enticed the Red Army of the Second World War to gangrape two million German women and brutally murder millions of other innocent Germans, but still wield influence over many in the modern Russian generation.
What we’re dealing with in all of these examples is not mere disdain, but pathological, violent, savage hatred. Remember, “hatred is the basis of communism,” according to Lenin. But why did the Bolsheviks hate their enemies so virulently – virulently enough to murder them to the tune of 160 million or more? And why are they so enraged to this day that they’re willing to start wars, release plagues, crash economies, murder their opposition, and repress billions of souls? I mention but two reasons.
First, and most importantly, communists then as now are filled with demonic hatred because they have rejected God. “God is love,” as John told us (1 John 4:8). To reject Him is to reject His attributes such as love, mercy, and compassion. Many high-level communists are not only atheists and Darwinistic humanists, they’re outright Satanists. They’re literal anti-Christs – high priests to their Dark Master. They know God exists and they resent Him and wish to crush Him and His followers.
Now and then, communists admitted their true affiliation. Karl Marx, the Jewish Satanist, wrote, “I wish to avenge myself against the One who rules above” (Wurmbrand, Marx & Satan, 7). A Soviet general once told a captive Christian priest one of the most intriguing things I’ve ever read. He said: “We are Satan’s elite, but you, are you God’s elite?” (Wurmbrand, Marx & Satan, 74). When the Bolshevik savages tortured Christians, they sometimes branded them with pentagrams or forced them to deny Christ before killing them. Why would communists make these hapless Christians deny a being they don’t believe exists? Is it perhaps that they do know He exists, but that they hate Him and, on orders from the Dragon, make war against His followers? (Revelation 12:17)
The second reason why communists are so filled with hatred is that many of them are Jews. This is not “anti-Semitism,” it’s historical fact. Karl Marx, the author of The Communist Manifesto, was a Jew. Marx was converted to communism by the Jew Moses Hess, who was an early founder of Zionism. Hess also converted Engels from Christianity to communism. Lenin was part-Jewish, was married to a Jewess, and spoke Yiddish. Stalin was married to a Jewess. Most of the early Bolshevik higher-ups, from Trotsky to Radek to Zinoviev, were Jews or married to Jewesses. Even in foreign lands, from Spain to Hungary to Mexico to Germany, Jews led local communist movements and uprisings. And of course these radicals received significant funding from Jewish bankers and businessmen abroad (synagogues around the world also raised money to support the Bolshevik coup in 1917). Again, this isn’t a smear; it’s a statistic.
Don’t doubt for one moment that the Jewish upbringing of the early Soviet leaders didn’t play a major role in their enduring hatred of Christians. It absolutely did. They particularly hated the Christian tsars and the Russian Orthodox Church because Jews had been, in the distant past, relegated to second-class status within the Russian Empire. This had changed, however, and Jews were allowed to enter normal professions within the Empire, often coming to totally dominate many sectors long before the Soviet days. In fact, so ironclad was their control that organic pogroms sometimes erupted for the ruthless way Jews took advantage of non-Jews. Their grievances, therefore, were ancient history and largely unfounded. Indeed, it was the average Russian peasant who had a real grievance against the minority Jewish population that came to power over them.
The Bolshevik leaders were mostly Jews, yes, but predominantly secular or Satanic Jews; that is, non-practicing. But they grew up in the materialistic, eye-for-an-eye Jewish culture and some certainly imbibed Judaism’s occult teachings found in the Kabbalah and Talmud. If you have never researched the anti-Christ nature of the Babylonian Talmud and the Kabbalah (specifically, see Sabbatean Kabbalism), do so. Those Jews who divorced themselves totally from their religious roots adopted either Gnosticism (founded by the Jew Simon the Sorcerer) or communism as their religion, their purpose, their mission. The promise of a worldwide communist state became their desired utopia – their new “promised land.”
These amoral Judeo-Marxists ran the infamous GULAG. They headed the Soviet intelligence apparatus. They dominated in leading positions within the bureaucracy and leadership organs. For many of them, their newfound power was used to exact what they considered “revenge” against Christians for the way Christians had supposedly treated them for centuries.
Nuns and priests were singled out for horrific defilement, sexual abuse, torture, and slaughter. Christians were stripped of their churches, which were often turned into museums promoting atheism and paganism after they had been looted of all valuables. A favorite Bolshevik method of tortuous murder was crucifixion – a form of mockery against the Christian population. Christian scriptures were taken and bastardized by the Soviets. For instance, the Lord’s Prayer was rewritten as a worship of the USSR with words like: “Our Party which rulest in the Soviet Union, Hallowed be thy name.” Nothing was too crass, blasphemous, or evil for this lot of vengeful Soviet Jews.
Whether because of cultural revenge or because of spiritual sickness, the fact is that the communists made a concerted effort to preach hate and crush love. They hated “Christian love” and recognized it as a legitimate obstacle to their global revolution. Instead of love and happiness, communists sought the misery of all mankind. They were like their father the Devil, who was a murderer and liar from the beginning (John 8:44). Because they were anti-Christ, they were also inevitably anti-love and opposed to all the goodness, geniality, selflessness, mercy, and honor that flows from the loving heart.
When we reject the radiant allure of love and wholesome relationships, we begin the tragic trek towards godlessness and communist thinking. Society is slipping into the Marxist morass because it is forgetting how to love. Our hearts are growing cold. We’re becoming numb towards others and even towards things of beautify, light, and truth.
This Valentine’s Day is the perfect opportunity to take a gut check and evaluate how well we qualify as the Savior’s disciples. He said: “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another” (John 13:35). Yes, Valentine’s Day is the perfect time to recommit to love of God and love of one’s neighbor. It’s the perfect time to rekindle the flame in our relationships and to extend the hand of friendship to strangers, mercy to those who have offended us, and love to all we meet.
According to the legends, Emperor Claudius Gothicus of Rome outlawed marriage because he needed soldiers, but married people were often excused from military service. A Christian named Valentinus, or Valentine, supposedly disobeyed the emperor’s edict, secretly marrying couples and promoting the institution of marriage, the ideal of chastity, and the virtue of Christian love. For his rebellious deed, Valentine was executed on February 14 in the year 269 A.D. In later centuries, the mythological character Cupid (aka Eros) and various pagan traditions were blended with the story of “Saint” Valentine to produce Valentine’s Day.
The story of Valentine performing secret marriages may well indeed be embellished. We have very little actual, verifiable information about this man or the reasons for his martyrdom. Several accounts do, however, tell of one Christian named Valentine who was arrested and murdered in Rome. Regardless of the reasons or the particulars, the Catholic Church made Valentine’s Day, though unknown by that name until centuries later, a formal celebration in 496 A.D.
In that year, Pope Gelasius I ordained this holiday. The reasons he did so are obscured by rumors and myths. One of the prevalent theories, though likely only partially true, is that Valentine’s Day was created to offset the Roman pagan holiday of Lupercalia. The Feast of Lupercalia was in part a fertility festival. During this three-day revelry, the Luperci, priests of Lupus, the she-wolf that legend says nurtured Rome’s founders Romulus and Remus, performed ritual animal sacrifices promoting both fertility and purification.
This article was never meant to be an exhaustive history, so, in essence, we can say that Valentine’s Day is a melange of Catholic religious veneration, Roman paganism, and more modern effusions of love by Chaucer and others. Consumerism has shaped the holiday in its own image, turning it into a day to spend money on chocolates, flowers, fancy dinners, jewelry, and sappy movies. Modern hedonists also use the holiday to promote their amoral ways, transforming love into lust.
This Valentine’s Day, set back the Adversary’s agenda by remembering to love. To love is not to lust or use others for your own amusement. Love is a Christlike quality. Love is the most powerful force in the galaxy because “love is of God” and “God is love” (1 John 4:7-8). We need this power more now than ever before.
Love changes people. Love uplifts. Love animates. Love lets light into the soul. Love casts out fear and pumps courage through the veins. Love motivates us to self-sacrifice for that which we love – for our Faith, our Families, and our Freedom.
As the wise Professor Dumbledore once said, we are often protected by our ability to love. Love is the most powerful kind of magic in existence; the prime motivating force in the universe. God loved us so He sent His Son Jesus Christ (John 3:16-18). Christ loved us and laid down His life for us. Each drop of His holy blood is a drop of divine love that can heal, cleanse, and save.
Without love, we’re nothing as individuals or societies. Without love, we walk in darkness. Without love, life is bland, undesirable, and a constant drudgery that leads us into the downward spiral of selfishness. Without love, we have no chance of defeating communism, the rising tide of societal filth, or the machinations of the Evil One. To the Devil, Christian love is the supreme obstacle. If we have this pristine love in our souls, he has no power over us.
Dear reader, we need love! This Valentine’s Day, let’s let love into our lives. Said otherwise, this holiday, let’s let God into our hearts. When we love God, He loves us and manifests Himself to us in a million beneficial ways (John 14:21, 23). Let’s love God. Let’s love our spouses and families. Let’s love our neighbors. Let’s love truth, beauty, light, success, virtue, honor, righteousness, and Liberty. In a word, let’s love life and live in love!
This January, I launched a subscription-based newsletter called Red Alert. Red Alert is an anti-communist, anti-corruption, anti-conspiracy report issued once weekly. It discusses both the current and historical intrigues and machinations of the global communist conspiracy and its myriad of front groups. This article is written to inform you about Red Alert and encourage you to subscribe and join the growing Red Alert family at https://redalertnewsletter.com/.
What do you get when you subscribe to Red Alert? Is it worth $35 a year? Only you can decide the latter question, but let me explain the first. Each newsletter contains six elements:
1) A primary, long-form article that dives deeply into a specific topic. That topic may shine the spotlight on an historical event related to the origin, rise, and legacy of communism, such as the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, or may cover current events that tie into the machinations of global communism, such as the Great Reset or the communist coup that toppled President Donald Trump. So far, I’ve covered only current events, though I plan to start introducing historical flashbacks soon. The four published issues of Red Alert have been titled: “What is Communism?” “Communist Coup,” “Weaponized Racism,” and “America Will Never be a Socialist Country – or Will She?”
2) An update on the advance of cultural Marxism. In particular, I deal with the feminist and LGBT assault on families, the home, and traditional moral values. In Red Alert No. 1, for instance, I talked about feminist Jessa Crispin who laments that today’s feminists are not radical enough for her anti-family agenda. She raged that the Coronahoax lockdowns have brought women back into the home instead of at the office or workplace where they belong. She called for the destruction of the institution of marriage, the overthrow of the “patriarchy,” and so on.
3) A section on recent updates from Putin’s Russia. For instance, in Red Alert No. 2, I covered the Russian roll-out of the terrible new ICBM, the RS-28 Sarmat, or Satan 2. I noted the Russians’ boast that the Satan 2 could supposedly destroy an area the size of Texas or France.
4) A section on Chinese schemes and international moves. For example, in Red Alert No. 3, I discussed China’s irrational rage at Taiwan’s introduction of a new passport that made it very clear Taiwan is a separate nation. The Reds called this impudence “seccessionism.” Additionally, in response to a planned diplomatic trip to Taiwan by former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Kelly Craft, Beijing threatened both Taiwan and the United States with a war of “annihilation.” Yes, literally.
5) A recommendation of a book or other information source. I usually share an excerpt from the books I recommend to give you the flavor of the content. As one example, in Red Alert No. 2, I recommended Unrestricted Warfare by the Chinese military colonels Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui. This book outlines the unconventional tactics, from terrorism to cyber warfare to information warfare, that China uses to attack its enemies – primarily the United States.
6) A sourced quote from a communist, ex-communist, or ideological comrade, usually relevant to the topic of the main article in each issue. To wit, in Red Alert No. 3, I quoted Marxist professor Kamau Kambon who said in a public forum: “We have to exterminate white people.”
Altogether, through four issues, I’ve presented over 28,000 words worth of information – an average of 7,000 words per issue! These are not pithy, haphazardly-thrown-together articles. They’re detailed, in-depth pieces that try to really show you how the topic fits into the overall Satanic scheme against our Faith, Families, and Freedom.
And that’s what faces humanity – a Satanic conspiracy. The time for mincing words is past. We must either acknowledge that we’re under full-scale assault by a demonic adversary hell-bent on destroying everything good in life, or we will lose. Red Alert seeks to educate and intellectually arm you for this struggle. While providing a wealth of details, quotes, and sources, the most important aspect of my analysis is that I really show you the broad principles and big-picture perspective that are necessary to comprehend in order to make sense of the individual moving parts.
A craftsman might be an expert in woodworking, but that doesn’t mean he knows how to build a house; it doesn’t mean he has the full blueprint. By analogy, you can find people who understand specific aspects of conspiracy better than I do or who have more expertise about a certain thing, such as James Perloff on the Council on Foreign Relations or G. Edward Griffin on the Federal Reserve cartel. But, in my self-confident opinion, there aren’t many people who understand the big picture as well as I do; who see how these disparate parts connect together into one whole; who truly understand the nature of this is spiritual warfare.
To me, comprehending the big picture is the key. If you’re an expert on the Rothschild dynasty, but don’t have a clue how the Rothschild fortune has been used to mold world events or to which end it is mobilized, your knowledge amounts to little more than a set of fun factoids. But if you know that the Rothschilds are Sabbatean Kabbalists who have united their fortune with the wealth of other occult-minded families and entities, such as the Order of Illuminati or the Warburgs, and use it to lead humanity headlong into a one-world state crowned by a one-world Luciferian religion, then all those “factoids” have real value.
The key to it all, in my opinion, is knowing that Satan is the head of the conspiracy against mankind. His top echelon of earthly high priests worship him. He personally gives them instructions and they follow his blueprint for the conquest of the globe. The ideas and institutions of communism have proven to be their chief weapon in this fight. This becomes easier to comprehend when you understand that communism is actually the dogma formulated by Adam Weishaupt and pushed forward by the Order of Illuminati. As I’ve written in this newsletter:
“The Communist League, under that name, came into existence in 1847 less than a year prior to the publication of The Communist Manifesto. But the organization, the “secret society,” existed long before. The previous name it went by was the League of the Just, sometimes rendered League of Just Men. If you trace the pedigree of this secret society, you go back to the League of Outlaws, among others, and eventually arrive at the Order of Illuminati. Yes, the Communist League is a direct descendant of the Illuminati!
“When you realize that communism is Illuminism – the identical ideology of the Bavarian Illuminati – it unlocks your comprehension of the global conspiracy network. From this movement, founded in 1776 by Adam Weishaupt and expanded to include international bankers, certain sects of Freemasons, and radical Jews in 1782, has sprung nearly all the organizations that currently assist one another in suppressing Freedom around the globe: The communists; Fabian Socialists; Bilderburgers; Committee of 300; Council on Foreign Relations; Club of Rome; United Nations; BRICS; etc.”
And again, I’ve explained:
“Karl Marx was hired to write The Communist Manifesto by a shadowy group known as the League of the Just. The League of the Just was an Illuminati front group; or, perhaps you could say, an offshoot from the Illuminati. The League changed its name to the Communist League and published Marx’s Manifesto. The group went through various name changes until Lenin came to head the group and used it, with Western money, to overthrow Russia and create the Soviet Union. As this group was evolving and growing in Eastern Europe, Marx launched another movement that remained largely in the West – the Socialist International. Out of the Socialist International sprang Fabian Socialism, which is the particular brand of socialism that has wrapped its tentacles around the United States.
“When you look at mainstream socialism, then, you find that it is the brainchild of Karl Marx and the Illuminati offshoot the League of the Just. Thus, both communism and socialism come from the same source. Both philosophies preach the same principles: World government; domination by the state; abolition or state control of private property; the creation of a welfare state; etc. That socialism works by less invasive means to come to power is of no consequence. Both socialism and communism have the same impact on Liberty.”
It is these types of powerful links and connections I draw in Red Alert. One may study and write about communism his entire life (and many have) and not realize that the entire scheme was concocted decades before Marx by the Illuminati. Subscribers to my newsletter get this sort of information right from the start. Having this umbrella of information to work under is invaluable and helps put the more minute details into proper perspective.
In addition to the weekly newsletter, I upload a video report each week as part of the subscription package. In this Sit-Rep, or situation report, I talk about sometimes random and sometimes specific things. These videos are less focused and more extemporaneous. In the future, I’d like to develop my format and setting to make it into a more professional production. I’ve heard from more than one subscriber that they love this feature as much, if not more, than the actual newsletter.
Finally, on the last week of every month, I plan to host a live online event. I haven’t hammered out the specifics yet, such as which platform I’ll use or how precisely I’ll conduct them, but I envision these events as a way to connect more with my audience. Whether it’s a live chat, a Zoom conference, or a teleconference call, I want to develop stronger relationships and connections with like-minded patriots, answer questions if any arise, and discuss these topics more deeply.
Now that you know what you get when you subscribe to Red Alert, you can decide whether it is worth $35/year to you. To me, information is power. I thirst for knowledge. I always want to dig beneath the surface and understand why things happen. I want to understand my enemy so I know how to defeat him and safeguard my family. People who fall into the same category will likely find Red Alert a useful resource.
I close by sharing a paragraph from Red Alert No. 2 which sets the stakes of the vicious struggle we’re in. After reading it, decide whether subscribing to Red Alert would help you in the fight:
“America has been sliding into the abyss for decades, but now, because a large number of Americans were beginning to wake up, the enemy has been forced into the open. The global cabal has brazenly stolen the presidency and the Senate. They’ve locked down the nation and shut down our economy. And they openly say they’ll remake the Supreme Court, add new Democratic states to the Union, take our firearms, promote godless cultural programs, institute anti-white schemes like reparations, herd us into cities to be easily controlled, crush our sovereignty by tethering us to international communist bodies like the U.N. and treaties like the Paris Climate Accords, crack down as never before on free speech and silence America-firsters, forcibly vaccinate people with a dangerous bio-weapon and arrest anyone who refuses to be a human guinea pig, foist a Chinese-style social credit system upon us, and so much more. They will move toward their goal of world order rapidly now. We must unite against this hostile takeover – this communist coup!”
On Christmas night, 1776, General George Washington led an audacious military assault on Hessian mercenaries fighting for the despotic British monarchy. The assault required General Washington’s ragtag band of underfed, badly clothed, and poorly trained soldiers to cross the frozen Delaware River in the dead of night, march nineteen miles in a blizzard, and attack professional, well-supplied Hessian soldiers. The plan was improbable at best and General Washington knew it was a do-or-die situation not only for his men, but for the American Revolution. As he set out to attack the enemy in Trenton that Christmas Day in 1776, the General issued a countersign, a challenge, and a command to his men: “Victory or Death.”
“Victory or Death” was no exaggeration. It was a dire situation for Washington and the fledgling American nation. In his phenomenal book The Making of America, W. Cleon Skousen described the condition of the Continental Army as Christmas 1776 approached:
“With December drawing to a close, Washington found that he had not only been deserted by Congress, but 6,000 of his soldiers were anxious to leave for home in two weeks when their enlistments ran out. Meanwhile, General Howe, who had chased Washington across New Jersey, had so little regard for what was left of the ragtag American army that he retired to New York to enjoy his new honor of being knighted for capturing New York. He left Lord Cornwallis at Princeton and assigned approximately 1,200 Hessians to guard Trenton. Howe felt any new action could wait until spring.
“But Washington could not wait for even two weeks. His troops were not only demoralized, hungry, and ill-equipped, but most of them would soon be leaving.
“On December 23 Washington formed his bedraggled Americans into ranks and had them listen to a stirring message written by Thomas Paine. It included the famous words which have been recited by Americans from that day to this:
““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”” (W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution, 79).
Paine’s patriotic message roused Washington’s beleaguered troops to a degree and the General staked the Revolution on a daring attack on the invading enemy which sat encamped across the river in Trenton. On the same day, December 23, General Washington wrote to Colonel Joseph Reed of his battle plan:
“Christmas day at Night, one hour before day is the time fixed upon for our Attempt on Trenton. For heaven’s sake keep this to yourself, as the discovery of it may prove fatal to us, our numbers, sorry I am to say, being less than I had any conception of—but necessity, dire necessity will—nay must justify any [attack]” (George Washington to Joseph Reed, December 23, 1776).
“Dire necessity” and sheer desperation compelled Washington to strike. With Thomas Paine’s words in his mind, the General issued his “Victory or Death” password to his men. Dr. Benjamin Rush, one of the Founding Fathers, visited the General on Christmas Eve. He described what happened during their conversation:
“[General Washington] appeared much depressed, and lamented the ragged and dissolving state of his army in affecting terms. I gave him assurance of the disposition of Congress to support him, and while I was talking to him, I observed him to play with his pen and ink upon several small pieces of paper. One fell upon the floor near my feet. I was struck with the inscription upon it; it was ‘Victory or Death’. The next day I had reason to believe, that in my interview with Washington that he had been meditating his attack on the Hessians for I found that the countersign of his troops at Trenton was Victory or Death.”
To prepare for his triumph or demise, General Washington devised a three-pronged attack on Trenton. His force of 2,400 men was to attack Trenton directly, supported by two additional groups totaling 2,600 soldiers. The General, ever a master of deception and strategy, had hidden boats painted black along the river which would be used for the crossing. So, as Christmas Day came to a close, the patriot army moved out with “Victory or Death” weighing heavily on their minds.
Setting off at 11 P.M., the men struggled to row their boats across the frozen river as the wind howled and sleet hit. An article describes the feat as follows:
“Henry Knox, Washington’s chief of artillery, had organized the crossing, which would be imperiled by floating ice. Men who got wet faced grave risks of frostbite and freezing to death. Because of the ice and bad weather, the crossing, which was to be complete at midnight, was not finished until early the next morning.”
Because of the severe winter weather, only General Washington’s assault force managed to cross the Delaware that night, upending the three-pronged attack plan. Once across the river, Washington’s freezing men began a long march through snow toward Trenton. An officer close to General Washington during these events, James Wikinson, made a famous remark about the sacrifices made by the troops that decisive night:
“I received the necessary directions, and proceeded in quest of the troops, whose route was easily traced, as there was a little snow on the ground, which was tinged here and there with blood from the feet of the men who wore broken shoes” (James Wikinson, Memoirs of My Own Times, Vol. 1, 127).
Tired, wet, cold, and bleeding, Washington’s ill-prepared men arrived on the outskirts of Trenton around 8 A.M. They immediately attacked the surprised Hessians with cannon and bayonets, pushing them back into, and then out of, the town. Washington’s warriors killed 22 Hessian mercenaries, wounded 92 more, and captured 918. Four hundred escaped and fled to their British employers. On our side, only two men lost their lives due to the frozen weather. Not one soul died in the battle. It was a total, sweeping victory for forces of the Revolution!
The Battle of Trenton, and the precarious river crossing that made it possible, lit a fire that fueled the dwindling Revolution. It breathed fresh air into the patriots’ lungs. It gave them confidence that yes, victory was indeed an option. And, for many, it fossilized confidence in General Washington’s capacity to snatch victory from the jaws of looming defeat. In short, Washington’s Crossing saved the War for Independence.
“An inspired Washington and his troops, who adopted the motto “Victory or Death,” crossed the Delaware River during a Nor’easter on Christmas Day and routed the Hessian garrison at Trenton.
“The much-needed victory galvanized the Revolutionary forces and the Continental Congress. Troops decided to re-enlist as Washington’s forces won a second battle at Trenton and a key engagement at Princeton.”
Though we could devote many pages to discussing the Battles of Trenton and Princeton, the two additional Delaware crossings that took place during the famous campaign, and the many ins and outs of the whole affair, the preceding information is sufficient to impress the reader with the great importance of Washington’s victory. The General’s resolute determination to win or fall, to claim victory or suffer death at Trenton, is an enduring part of the American story.
Against all odds, the American “rebels,” as their enemies called them, routed the invading British and their homegrown Tory supporters and planted the standard of Liberty on this continent. They established a Constitution which is unrivaled still today and which, when properly followed, secures our God-given rights unlike any form of government known to man. The blood that flowed in these good patriots’ veins flows in ours. The same spirit which animated them and urged them to fight for their Faith, Families, and Freedom is the same which inspires all patriots today to stand against the combined forces of tyranny.
As 2020 draws to a close, every sincere soul knows that our national situation is becoming dire. Those of us who love Freedom, God, and the Republic, have figuratively been pushed across the Delaware and the enemy is encamped on the other side preparing for their final assault. Many in our ranks are demoralized and frustrated. The deck seems stacked against us. Our supply lines have grown thin. We face a better-organized, better-trained, better-positioned internal enemy aided by mercenaries from foreign nations. The storm is howling, the ice is blocking our path, and many of our allies have fallen by the wayside and are either unwilling or unable to help us. Yet, notwithstanding the hardship and the odds, we are led in the front by the spirit of General Washington and his timeless motto: Victory or Death.
This is our time, fellow patriots. 2021 is our time to do the unexpected and cross our own Delaware. It might seem improbable, insane, or potentially fatal to face down the Establishment and fight such an entrenched enemy, but what other option do we have? We can surrender and sink into boot-licking serfdom or we can fight. We can slavishly submit to four years of an illegitimate presidency packed with the worst degenerates ever to enter American politics or we can resist. We can watch as usurpers take a chainsaw to our remaining Liberties or we can do what the men of 1776 did and say “Victory or Death.”
In his famous 1775 speech, Patrick Henry told his fellow countrymen who waffled and wondered whether it was prudent to fight against government tyranny that the war has already begun! The war, he noted, was not theoretical, but existed in actual fact, even if it did not yet exist in name. He asserted:
“Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
America is at war. We are besieged by traitors within and enemies without. The homegrown traitors and the foreign enemies share a common goal – the destruction of American Freedom and the incorporation of our nation into a global dictatorship controlled by a sadistic socialistic Elite. This is the harsh reality. Ignoring it won’t make it go away and won’t lessen the severity of the struggle or save you from becoming a casualty.
This enemy has, over the course of many decades, infiltrated our government, press, and society, usurping tremendous power. On November 3, the cabal showed its power by blatantly stealing the election from President Donald Trump and handing it to a corrupt Chinese puppet, Joe Biden, and his gaggle of gangsters, Marxists, and thugs. The international conspiracy used its corrupt machinery of state to silence the voices of 75 million Americans who selected Donald Trump as their president. Instead, the conspiracy dictates that we shall march obediently into high-tech slavery patterned off of Soviet Russia and Red China.
Here’s the catch: Real Americans don’t obey tyrants; we shoot them. We cross frozen rivers, march in freezing rain, and attack on the holidays if need be. We use deception, guerrilla warfare, and don’t play fair. When our families are threatened with slavery; when our Freedom is hunted without mercy; and when our nation faces conquest by a murderous communist leviathan with an unrivaled track record of bloodshed and treachery, there’s nothing we wouldn’t do to stop it.
Will we, as Americans, rally to stop the steal taking place so brazenly before our eyes? We’ve allowed so much of our Freedom and prosperity to be bartered away already. Are we willing to allow the rest to be stolen from us and, with it, any hope of ever reforming our country without bloody civil war? Now is our time. January 2021 is our do-or-die moment. It is now that we will decide whether we will reap victory or death. If we do not act like real men and face the freezing storms, bitter marches, and professional mercenaries, our Republic will be taken from us once and for all and only blood will win it back.
The same James Wilkinson quoted above made another comment worth remembering as we contemplate doing what needs to be done in 2021 to save our Republic. He wrote:
“Born with iron nerves, and an unbending dignity of port, which distinguished all his actions, and struck the most presumptuous with awe, General Washington amidst those those scenes which “tried men’s souls,” serene, tranquil, and self-possessed, excited the admiration of his followers, and exhibited the heroic example of a chief determined to brave danger and dare death in support of a just cause, and the defence of the most precious rights and interests of mankind; whilst the invincible firmness of Congress . . . exhibited to the world the rare example of a popular assembly, united in principle, inflexible in purpose, and regardless of consequences. Not to one man then, but to such a Congress and such a chief, supported by the handful of brave men who adhered to the cause of their country, are these United States indebted for the cheap purchase of their liberty; and I shall be acquitted of vanity when I acknowledge the sweet solace I derive from the consciousness, that I was one of the little band who faced the storm, when the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot hid their heads” (James Wilkinson, Memoirs of My Own Times, Vol. 1, 122).
Are you prepared to follow in the blood-stained footsteps of “the handful of brave men who adhered to the cause of their country” and fought the American Revolution so that we might be free? Are we prepared to “face the storm” even when the sunshine patriots and summer soldiers turn away, hide their faces, and cower in their homes? Are we prepared, truly and honestly, to brave the dark winter that we’ve been thrust into by our enemies and fight them by every means until either victory is ours or death carries us to our Maker?
General Washington may not be with us in the flesh, but his dauntless spirit rides before us. The standard of Liberty erected by faithful men in 1776 remains despite all attempts to topple it. The Constitution, written by inspired and wise men, still safeguards our rights whenever we hearken to its counsel. I pray that we may cross our own Delaware this coming January and show such as spirit of resistance that we stop the theft of the presidency by our eternal communist foes. If we do not rectify this situation and restore the ballot box, only the bullet box remains to secure our God-given Freedom. One way or the other, we will have victory or we will have death. There is no alternative.
Christmas is a season of light and love. It is a time of rejoicing and happiness. It is a time to gather with family and create rich memories that you will carry with you to the end of your life. This Christmas, I call upon everyone to remember who they are – children of our Father in Heaven – and to reject the perverse attempts to cancel Christmas, extinguish the Christmas spirit, and keep families apart. Instead, gather with your family, worship the Savior Jesus Christ, and celebrate this holiest of holidays with a heart full of gratitude and joy.
In Gene Autry’s original version of the now classic Christmas song “Here Comes Santa Claus,” we find these piercingly true declarations:
“Here comes Santa Claus, here comes Santa Claus, right down Santa Claus Lane
He doesn’t care if you’re rich or poor, he loves you just the same
Santa Claus knows we’re all God’s children, that makes everything right
So fill your hearts with Christmas cheer, ‘cause Santa Claus comes tonight
“Here comes Santa Claus, here comes Santa Claus, right down Santa Claus Lane
He’ll come around when chimes ring out that it’s Christmas morn’ again
Peace on Earth will come to all if we just follow the light
So let’s give thanks to the lord above, ‘cause Santa Claus comes tonight.”
Dear reader, you are a son or daughter of God! He is the literal Father of your immortal spirit. You are His literal child and He loves you more than you have the capacity to comprehend. Your true origin – your real home – is Heaven. Your destiny, if you follow the laws and principles our Father has revealed through His Son, our Redeemer, is to return to live in eternal joy with our earthly and Heavenly family. Doesn’t this knowledge “make everything right”?
In my book The Lineage of the Gods, which discusses in great detail our Parent-child relationship with God and the incredible potential we all have as children of the Most High, I wrote:
“It is an incredible thing to realize whose children we are. This is life-changing knowledge! To know that we are literal spirit children of the literal living God should cause a paradigm shift in every mind. It should humble us and also give us confidence to know that we have some portion of divinity within us; that we are as eternal as God; that we have an inherent intelligence within us that can expand and grow indefinitely. . . .
“When we see our fellow man, we see a glimmer of God. When we deal with our brothers or sisters, we are dealing with beings endowed with godly potential. It is an incredible and humbling thing to realize we are associating with heirs of Heaven – and that we ourselves have a largely untouched reserve of divine potential inherent in ourselves. . . .
“Each of us has an untapped reservoir of divinity within us. We are all – even the very weakest and most vicious among us – potential heirs of Almighty God. Our spirits are as immortal and eternal as the Spirit of God. We have a portion of His character, attributes, and potential inside us because we are His immortal spirit children.”
Embracing the reality that we are the children of God should make everything right. It certainly puts life, our trials, and our choices, in proper eternal perspective. This sublime knowledge inspires us to do better and be better. It encourage us to treat others with more respect. It helps us please God rather than man. It propel us toward truth even if that truth is unpopular – such as the truth that we are the children of God with unimaginable potential for growth. It urges us to get on our knees and communicate with our Father in Heaven and pour out our soul to Him in prayer.
Prayer can change people. In fact, it can change nations and, ultimately, the world. This is because prayer reminds us who we are and what our true standing is before Heaven. Know that you are a son or daughter of God and that He loves you perfectly. Speak with Him heart to heart and person to person. He’s your Father; He will listen; He will respond. Develop that personal Parent-child bond and learn to rely on Him, trust Him, and follow His compassionate counsel.
We often say that “Jesus is the reason for the season.” This is true. Christmas is a time to remember and praise the Great Immanuel. And what did Jesus teach us? Among other things, the Lord came to earth in order to reveal the unequaled love of God. The Savior said:
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
“For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved” (John 3:16-17).
Jesus’ mission was to offer salvation to mankind, to be the Lamb sacrificed for the remission of sins, and to lift the children of God up to Heaven. He was and is the Light of the world and came to shine His brightness into the darkest corners of the earth. He came to “heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised” (Luke 4:18). During His ministry, Jesus revealed truth, because the truth sets us free – truth such as knowing our genuine Parentage. In the end, our Savior came to share God’s profound love with the all His children.
The holy scriptures are full of affirmations of God’s love for us. In a passage that applies well to Christmastime, the Apostle John taught:
“God is love. . . .
“In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
“Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. . . .
“. . . God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. . . .
God our Father is the personification of love. And His Son, our Redeemer, equally exemplifies this eternal love. Together, the Father and Son, and the Holy Spirit which manifests Them to us, have given the world the ultimate gift of love in the Atonement of Jesus Christ. The Savior’s Atonement redeems us from death and hell. It offers us the ultimate hope of eternal peace and joy. It provides a refuge from the torment of guilt and regret. It offers us cool water and relaxing shade on a scorching hot day. It warms us when all is cold and dark.
In a vision of “the tree of life,” an ancient prophet was asked by an angel if he knew the symbolic meaning of tree. The prophet responded:
“Yea, it is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men; wherefore, it is the most desirable above all things.”
The angel confirmed the interpretation and added emphatically:
God’s love is the most joyous and desirable thing to the human soul. It is the antidote to fear and loneliness, depression and pain. The Savior’s love, mercy, and grace have the capacity to transform the world into paradise. God first loved us and when we show Him love in return by following His Son, the Lord has promised “my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him” (John 14:23).
It is because the Lord loves us, heals us, and saves us, that the Apostle Paul declared:
“For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
“Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,
“That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;
“That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
“May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;
“And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God” (Ephesians 3:14-19).
Dear reader, the Apostle Paul knew of God’s love for His children and that it “passeth knowledge” and fills our hearts. John the Beloved witnessed of this profound love as well. Ancient prophets in all ages have spoken of this love. And I also testify that our Father and His Son love us! I have felt Their love. I know the peace and buoyancy it brings. I know that “God so loved the world. . .” is not just wishful thinking, but the only reality that matters.
It is my fervent Christmas wish that you remember who you are, remember you are a child of God, and remember that He loves you and sent His Beloved Son, the perfect babe of Bethlehem, to reveal His love, set you free from worry, sin, and sorrow, and lead the way back to our Heavenly Home. Unto us was a Savior truly born, who is Christ the Lord. Through Him we access the love of God our Father. In Him culminates all good, all happiness, all love.
“Peace on Earth will come to all if we just follow the light.” The Light is Jesus Christ. He is the reason for the season. His birth marked the beginning of the end for Satan’s rule on earth. When the Lord died and then rose from the grave, He forever shattered the powers of darkness. The Lord’s light is stronger than anything the Adversary possesses. His love is the most joyous to the soul, heals the brokenhearted, obliterates fear, has the power to transform our dark winters into bright ones, and frees all captives now and forever.
Give thanks to the Lord above this Christmas. Talk to your Father and express your gratitude for His Christmas gifts to you – foremost among which is His Son, Jesus Christ. Thank Him for His love and share this love with others. And remember who you are – a known and loved child of God. Merry Christmas!
The utterly fraudulent 2020 general election is the reason the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College. The Electoral College was intended to be the ultimate check on the ignorance of the voting public, on the best efforts of tyrants to trick and swindle the American People, and on deliberate intrigue or conspiracy. If ever there was a time that this check needed to be employed to prevent the leadership of the Republic from falling into the wrong hands, it is now.
Before I begin my analysis, a few facts: 1) Joe Biden is not the president-elect; 2) the ballots have not all been counted; 3) multiple recounts are underway; 4) numerous lawsuits are in the courts; 5) there are verifiable instances of election tampering and fraud that are being investigated and adjudicated; 6) the Electoral College, which usually has the ratifying say in who becomes president, has not convened and voted yet and will not do so until December 14; and, 7) the Constitution provides additional methods, which may be invoked through a specific process, whereby Congress may select the president regardless of popular vote or the results of the Electoral College. The takeaway from these facts is this: The 2020 election is not over and anyone who says so is either mistaken or lying to promote an agenda.
The Founding Fathers were justifiably concerned about giving the People the ability to directly choose their leaders because they correctly understood that the average person is not particularly qualified to make such an important decision. They were students of history and knew that democracies have always imploded. James Madison, for instance, said that “democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths” (James Madison, Federalist No. 10). The Founders knew that when the People are given too much say in the routine affairs of government, without proper checks and limitations, they become mobocratic and eventually divide into factions and tear themselves apart.
The Founding Fathers were more worried about factions dividing the nation than perhaps any other thing. Again, they were keen students of history and knew that there has never been an instance of a democracy not destroying itself through division and internal strife. America was therefore never intended to be a democracy where 51% of the population could dominate the 49%. Rather, we were created as a Republic based on rule of law, written constitutions, and carefully divided powers.
Self-rule is a sacred principle in our nation. Yet, the American conception of self-rule is very different than it is in the few other nations that have tried it. Our version of self-government is designed to maximize the individual’s control over his life on the local level – that level which touches the vast majority of a person’s affairs. The federal government, however, was intended to be the purview of statesmen who were specialized and best suited for the purpose of administering nation-wide programs and foreign policy – those aspects of life not particularly familiar to the average citizen. These national representatives would still be public servants, but were expected to be more highly qualified men who stood out from their peers in terms of virtue, patriotism, and wisdom.
For clarification, in our constitutional republic, the People act through representatives. We directly control our own local affairs in everyday matters, but from there our political power extends outward to representatives in our communities, then counties, then states, and, finally, the federal government. This bottom-up flow of power is further filtered through a host of mechanisms to restrain and divide it. Perhaps no mechanism exemplifies this division of powers and careful checks on raw democratic expression than the Electoral College.
Founding Father Elbridge Gerry summed up his colleagues’ opinion on leaving the appointment of the president in the hands of the People:
“A popular election in this case is radically vicious. The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the Union, and acting in concert, to delude them into any appointment” (W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution, 524).
If the People are too liable to be deceived and divided by conniving conspirators, the popular vote is therefore out of the question. How then did our Founding Fathers establish the selection of the president if not by direct popular vote? Of course, they set up the Electoral College system. What is this system and how does it function?
In Arthur J. Stansbury’s once popular text Elementary Catechism on the Constitution of the United States, we find a Q & A format for learning about our nation’s founding document. After learning that the constitutional scheme of divided powers “is the great safeguard of freedom,” we find this exchange describing the process of electing a president:
“Q. How does any man become President of the United States?
A. He is elected [chosen] by the people of the United States.
Q. How is this done; do the people themselves at once choose the President?
A. No; this might lead to great confusion. But the people choose the Legislatures of the different States, these Legislatures appoint electors, and those electors choose the President.
Q. Explain this more particularly.
A. You know what is meant by the Legislatures of the States; they consist of persons chosen in each State to make the State laws. These persons, when met together, appoint, in any way they think proper, a number of persons who are called Electors, because they afterwards choose the President.
Q. How many of these Electors of President are appointed in each State?
A. As many as the state has members in both Houses of Congress. For instance; a state which is entitled to two Senators and eight members of the House of Representatives must appoint ten electors of President; a state which has two Senators and twenty members of the House of Representatives, must appoint twenty-two electors.
Q. May any person they please be appointed an elector?
A. Not every person may; Senators of the United States, members of the House of Representatives, and all persons who hold any office of trust or profit under the United States, are incapable of being electors of the President.
A. For fear any President of the United States might use improper means to get himself chosen again when his time of service should expire. The President has frequent opportunities to see the members of Congress and persuade them; and as he himself has the appointment of most persons who hold offices, he might threaten to remove, or promise to keep them in their places, and thus destroy their freedom of election.
Q. How do these electors proceed?
A. The electors appointed by each state meet in the states that appointed them, and vote by ballot for the President, and for another officer called the Vice President of the United States. The electors all meet on one and the same day in their several states; the day is fixed by Congress.
Q. What do you mean by voting by ballot?
A. When it is wished to conceal the manner in which each particular person voted, and yet to know what is the opinion of the greater number of voters, the voters instead of speaking their minds, put each a piece of folded paper into a box; these papers are called ballots, and when all have voted, these ballots are examined and counted. . . .
Q. What does the President of the Senate do with these lists [of ballots]?
A. He opens them in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives, who are all met in one hall to be present when the votes are counted. Each House appoints some of its own members who unite in a committee and count all the votes; when the person having the greatest number of votes for President is declared to be the President” (Arthur J. Stansbury, Elementary Catechism on the Constitution of the United States: For the Use of Schools, 44-47).
That is how the Electoral College works. It’s actually somewhat simple. And it has worked for over two centuries. Alexander Hamilton noted that the Electoral College system was one of the most unanimously supported parts of the entire U.S. Constitution:
“The mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system, of any consequence, which has escaped without severe censure, or which has received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents” (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 68).
The Electoral College has been greatly bastardized, as we will discuss below. However, now that we know how the Electoral College was originally designed to work, let’s address how this system remedies the dangers mentioned above by Elbridge Gerry. Let’s again consult Alexander Hamilton to see why the Electoral College was so heartily approved by our wise Founding Fathers. Notice the motivation behind the creation of this peculiar mechanism:
“It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.
“It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.
“Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty” (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 68).
What were the reasons the Constitutional Convention created the Electoral College according to Alexander Hamilton? First, this function was established in order that a small group of people who “possess the information and discernment” might select the highest officer in the land. Second, taking the burden of choice away from the great mass of people and endowing a small number of rotating electors with the duty to select the best man for the job was intended as a check on democratic passions. Choosing the president on the state level, rather on the national, was intended to prevent “tumult and disorder” and “violent moments” that might lead to civil war.
Thirdly, the Electoral College was set up to guard against “the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils” and to thwart the machinations of “cabal, intrigue, and corruption.” It was believed that this body of electors, chosen just prior to the selecting of the president and comprised of different people every election, could not be sufficiently influenced by the bribery or intimidation of a conspiracy. Spread out as they were across a large country and selected locally instead of by a single national body, these electors could also not coordinate their efforts to vote in a bloc for a predetermined candidate. Rather, their “immediate act” would be stripped of the time and coordination needed for a conspiracy to form among them, thus ensuring, theoretically, that the electors could remain “detached” from the bias of party, faction, or intrigue, and instead put their country first.
And this is the crux of the matter – the Electoral College was never meant to be bound to the popular vote, but instead was left free to select the best candidate for the presidency. Because of its undemocratic nature, communists, socialists, and liberals of all types – those who promote “democracy” as essential to their ploys – have targeted the Electoral College for destruction. They’ve launched a massive effort to abolish the Electoral College altogether, which would pave the way for them to capture a total monopoly of power because it is they who rule in the high population centers like California and New York which would determine the officers of state in a popular vote.
One of the dirty tricks designed to void the efficacy of Electoral College is for states to “legally” (albeit unconstitutionally) bind electors to the popular vote in their state. For instance, under this conception, if the majority of Californians voted for Joe Biden, then the Californian electors would be compelled to cast their votes for Biden regardless of their personal wishes, their desires for the success and well-being of their nation, or any conscientious objections they may have. This backdoor way of gutting the Electoral College is known as the Uniform Faithful Presidential Electors Act (UFPEA). It has been adopted by nearly half the states in the Union.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court gave its opinion that the states may indeed bind their electors and punish those who exercise their lawful agency to vote their conscience. Unbelievably, most “conservatives” supported and cheered the Supreme Court’s opinion, grossly misunderstanding the way in which it could be used to undermine the current electoral system. In a lengthy article I penned on the issue, I wrote:
“What exactly does the Constitution say about the Electoral College? The most relevant portion regarding the Electoral College, Article 2, Section1, Clause 2, mandates:
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.”
“Justice Kagan and her comrades on the Court interpreted “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof my direct” as carte blanche state control over electors – including over the candidate electors vote for. Said differently, they interpret this wording as implying state control over electors’ votes. As we see, the “implied powers” strike again.
“The notion of “implied powers” has haunted this nation for generations. Power-hungry bureaucrats love to read between the lines and imply authority that is not explicitly contained in the Constitution. In our present case, for example, the Constitution does not say that states have carte blanche over electors’ votes. Nowhere does it say that they may force electors to vote for a specific candidate, punish them if they vote their conscience, or otherwise limit their free will in the matter. It simply says that state legislatures may determine how electors are appointed.
“A federal government website gives readers a basic understanding of the Electoral College that the members of the Supreme Court seem to not have. It explains the process and obligations simply:
““Each state gets as many electors as it has members of Congress (House and Senate). Including Washington, D.C.’s three electors, there are currently 538 electors in all. . . .
““Each state’s political parties choose their own slate of potential electors. Who is chosen to be an elector, how, and when varies by state.
““After you cast your ballot for president, your vote goes to a statewide tally. In 48 states and Washington, D.C., the winner gets all the electoral votes for that state. Maine and Nebraska assign their electors using a proportional system.
““A candidate needs the vote of at least 270 electors—more than half of all electors—to win the presidential election.
““In most cases, a projected winner is announced on election night in November after you vote. But the actual Electoral College vote takes place in mid-December when the electors meet in their states.
““The Constitution doesn’t require electors to follow their state’s popular vote, but it’s rare for one not to.” . . . .
“The Electoral College is part of the Constitution. It helps preserve our republican institutions. It gives middle America a voice. It maintains a balance of power so that the nation cannot be dominated by socialist California and New York. God help We the People to see the error of our ways and reject the seductive voices calling for more democracy! Lord help us, while we still can, to compel our state and national representatives to overturn the venomous Supreme Court opinion which essentially binds our electors to the popular vote and erases the fail-safe put in place by our wise Founding Fathers to prevent corruption and civil war! And may the Constitution stand now and forever!”
Unfortunately, we’ve done nothing to free up our electors. Now, as this article goes live, we have electors all across the nation casting their votes under duress and threat of punishment instead of voting for the benefit and preservation America. Because we were apathetic and allowed an activist court to subvert the Constitution, many of our electors are now compelled to cast their all-important votes in accordance with an utterly fraudulent and fabricated popular vote.
Can you begin to see the wisdom of disassociating the election of the president from the popular vote – a vote which can so easily be manipulated and fudged? As our system stands now in its perverted and altered condition, a few key states can manipulate their popular votes, bind their electors to these fraudulent tallies, and thereby steal a presidential election.
Let me say that again more clearly: Right now we are witnessing as several key states with large populations, like Pennsylvania, have outright fabricated their popular vote tally in favor of Joe Biden. The state’s electors now must vote for Biden even though Biden did not actually win the real popular vote and in spite of the Constitution nowhere permitting states to bind electors. By this method, the Democrats and their Red backers are literally stealing the election in front of our eyes.
Can you see our Founding Fathers’ wisdom in creating an undemocratic body like the Electoral College to choose the president instead of allowing popular vote tallies to determine the matter? The chaos we see today has come about not because of their ingenious system, but because we have not followed it. We have allowed states to pass laws binding their electors. We have allowed courts to approve these unconstitutional laws. And now we have allowed criminals to steal the popular vote. When added together, this combination is toxic and results in the theft of the presidency and the final destruction of the American Republic.
Had the Electoral College functioned properly, the Republic would have been spared the misrule of despots ranging from Lincoln to Wilson to FDR to Obama. Sadly, almost from the inception, the Electoral College has not fulfilled the measure of its creation. As much as we might want to, we cannot change the past. But the future has not been written yet. Though the Electoral College did not function properly in 1860, 1912, 1932, 2008, and any other number of election years where traitors ascended to power, there’s no reason why it cannot work in 2020 if patriots will simply ignore unconstitutional laws and court opinions.
I think it highly unlikely that the electors will muster the courage to overrule the fraudulent popular vote and select Donald J. Trump – the rightful winner of the legally cast ballots – as the next president. Yet, the point I’m laboring to make is that it is not a foregone conclusion. Though the Electoral College has been undermined by the courts and by large states seeking to dominate smaller ones, there is still time for these individuals – these special electors – to do the right thing. There is still the opportunity, if these 538 electors will but grasp it, to rebuke Joe Biden and the corrupt clique of gangsters attempting to steal the presidential election and rob 75 million Americans of their voice.
If these electors go along with the swindle and select Bolshevik Biden as the next president, they will one day stand before a higher Judge and account for it. I would not want to be in their position when they have to explain to God why they thought it was ok to sell out the United States of America to a group of conniving communists criminals.
Finally, I have predicted that President Trump would prevail in his legal challenges against the overwhelming election fraud and remain president. In particular, I said that even if he only wins a fraction of the lawsuits, he’ll be reelected because of how mammoth, obvious, and coordinated the fraud was. I’m not yet prepared to say “I was wrong,” but the window of opportunity is closing rapidly as judges show their true colors and deny President Trump’s suits, as state legislatures fail to find their spines and allow electors to be sent to the Electoral College despite the fact that they’re representing a fraudulent vote tally, and as Republicans high and low waffle on whether to stand with the duly-elected president or with the Establishment they’ve secretly served for so long.
In many instances, such as with the communist BLM/Antifa rioting this summer, President Trump is all talk and no action. In our present case, he’s allowing his legal team to fight this battle for him and is largely keeping himself out of it. This is a grave mistake that could cost him the presidency. He ought to be holding daily rallies and giving daily speeches to the American People detailing the conspiracy to steal the election and disenfranchise the voting public. It will be much harder after the Electoral College votes against him, as they will almost certainly do.
Furthermore, the president has power that can be brought to bear on the criminals who are attempting to steal the election away from him. So far, President Trump has failed to use a single one. Perhaps he is not even aware of the options available to him, though his 2018 executive order suggests he is aware of the lengths he can go to stop the conspiratorial theft of the election. In an upcoming article, I’ll discuss the remedies available to President Trump regardless of what happens on Monday in the Electoral College or on January 6 when Congress formally counts the votes.
Pray for the electors. Pray for the president. Pray for anyone and everyone engaged in the fight against the communist conspirators foreign and domestic who stand on the verge of openly stealing the election and using the power it will give them to once and for all plunge America into the abyss of socialist hell. Now is the time to peacefully but forcefully protest while also preparing in earnest to resist tyranny with every tool in the patriot’s arsenal. Let the spirit of Lexington and Concord, of 1776, of Bunker Hill, and of the Delaware crossing flow through you. It’s time to show which side we’re really on. It’s time to conquer of die. Sic Semper Tyrannis. Long Live Liberty!
The deadly attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 was a quintessential false-flag event known about ahead of time and permitted to unfold by the evil Establishment that rules in Washington, D.C. Despite the lies of court historians and biased talking heads on the radio, FDR absolutely did have foreknowledge of the Japanese attack on our military men in Hawaii and allowed it to happen to fulfill his sick desire to thrust our nation into a war that our People did not want to be involved in. This is conspiracy fact, not conspiracy theory. This article will not dive too deeply into the mass of material proving foreknowledge, though I will reference the basics and refer you to some excellent sources. I will, rather, focus on two of the reasons the Japanese felt they needed to fight back against U.S. aggression in order to safeguard their nation.
The late Robert B. Stinnett wrote in his foundational book Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor that not only did President Franklin D. Roosevelt have foreknowledge of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, but he was part of a small group who initiated an 8-point plan to provoke war with Japan. Stinnett outlined the plan in great detail, including this overview:
“Lieutenant Commander McCollum’s five-page memorandum of October 1940 (hereafter referred to as the eight-action memo) pull forward a startling plan—a plan intended to engineer a situation that would mobilize a reluctant America into joining Britain’s struggle against the German armed forces then overrunning Europe. Its eight actions called for virtually inciting a Japanese attack on American ground, air, and naval forces in Hawaii, as well as on British and Dutch colonial outposts in the Pacific region.
“Opinion polls in the summer of 1940 indicated that a majority of Americans did not want the country involved in Europe’s wars. Yet FDR’s military and Stale Department leaders agreed that a victorious Nazi Germany would threaten the national security of the United States. They fell that Americans needed a call to action.
“McCollum would be an essential part of this plan. His code name was F-2. He oversaw the routing of communications intelligence to FDR from early 1940 to December 7, 1941, and provided the President with intelligence reports on Japanese military and diplomatic strategy. Every intercepted and decoded Japanese military and diplomatic report destined for the White House went through the Far East Asia section of ONI, which he oversaw. The section served as a clearinghouse for all categories of intelligence reports, not only on Japan but on all the other nations of eastern Asia.
“Each report prepared by McCollum for the President was based on radio intercepts gathered and decoded by a worldwide network of American military cryptographers and radio intercept operators. McCollum’s office was an element of Station US. a secret American cryptographic center located at the main naval headquarters at 18th Street and Constitution Avenue N.W. about four blocks from the White House.
“Few people in America’s government or military knew as much about Japan’s activities and intentions as Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum. He felt that war with Japan was inevitable and that the United States should provoke it at a time which suited US interests. In his October 1940 memorandum McCollum advocated eight actions that he predicted would lead to a Japanese attack on the United States:
“A. Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of British bases in the Pacific, particularly Singapore.
B. Make an arrangement with Holland for the use of base facilities and acquisition of supplies in the Dutch East Indies [now Indonesia].
C. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government of Chiang Kai-shek.
D. Send a division of long-range heavy cruisers to the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore.
E. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient.
F. Keep the main strength of the US Fleet, now in the Pacific, in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands.
G. Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic concessions, particularly oil.
H. Completely embargo all trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed by the British Empire” (Robert B. Stinnett, Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor, 7-8).
Look carefully at these recommendations and think of the audacity – the pure evil – of concocting such a plan; a plan that would deliberately drag tens of millions of people to the hell of war. Each move was calculated to hem in the Japanese in the Pacific, hurt the Japanese economy, isolate Japan from her allies and resources, aid Japan’s enemies at a time of war (which itself is a violation of international law and an act of war), and place American servicemen directly in harm’s way as a sort of bait or sacrifice.
Of point four of FDR’s perverse plan, Stinnett wrote:
“Roosevelt’s “fingerprints” can be found on each of McCollum’s proposals. One of the most shocking was Action D, the deliberate deployment of American warships within or adjacent to the territorial waters of Japan.11 During secret White House meetings, Roosevelt personally took charge of Action D. He called the provocations “pop-up” cruises. “I just want them to keep popping up here and there and keep the Japs guessing. I don’t mind losing one or two cruisers, but do not take a chance on losing five or six.” Admiral Husband Kimmel, the Pacific Fleet commander, objected to the pop-up cruises, saying: “It is ill-advised and will result in war if we make this move.” . . . .
“From March through July 1941, White House records show that FDR ignored international law and dispatched naval task groups into Japanese waters on three such pop-up cruises. . . .
“Action D was very risky and could have resulted in a loss of American lives approaching that of Pearl Harbor. In the end, however, no shots were fired during the cruises. It would take not just one, but all eight of McCollum’s proposals to accomplish that” (Stinnett, Day of Deceit, 9-10).
I now cover two of the reasons the Japanese themselves gave for opposing, and ultimately attacking, the United States: 1) U.S. economic warfare against Japan; and 2) the imminent threat of communism.
U.S. Economic Warfare Against Japan
In his book Bankrupting the Enemy: The U.S. Financial Siege of Japan Before Pearl Harbor, author Edward S. Miller presented evidence leading the careful reader to a straightforward thesis: The United States compelled Japan to war through economic strangulation. Miller began his book by contextualizing Japan’s decision to go to war:
“The judgment of history is that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and launched the Pacific War to thwart American resistance to its designs of imperial conquest in East Asia. U.S. opposition included diplomatic pressure, military preparations, and, above all, economic sanctions. Historians have emphasized the de facto embargo of oil as the most deadly sanction because Japan’s navy and army depended on U.S. exports of fuel, a situation the military leaders effectively in control of Japanese policy perceived as an intolerable weakness. But the U.S. action of 26 July 1941 was not just a trade embargo. It was an emasculation of Japan’s laboriously accumulated international money reserves, imposed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt by invoking an obscure 1917 law, the Trading with the Enemy Act.
“I propose that the most devastating American action against Japan was the financial freeze. Money mattered. In 1941 war had congealed the financial systems of other great powers, rendering their currencies inconvertible. Abroad, the yen itself was illiquid, that is, not acceptable for payments outside the Japanese Empire. The United States stood in the extraordinary position of controlling nearly all the world’s negotiable money resources. It applied its extraordinary power to “bankrupt” Japan.
“Bankruptcy is a condition imposed by a court of law to compel settlement of debts. A bankrupt person of company that is judged insolvent lacks sufficient assets to pay. A sovereign nation, however, is not subject to a court’s jurisdiction, and in any case, on 25 July 1941, Japan held ample liquid assets – dollars in U.S. banks and gold bars in Tokyo vaults – to purchase vital imports and service its relatively small international debts. Japan was not insolvent, then or later. Only 26 July, however, a stroke of the pen rendered it illiquid. The freeze isolated Japan economically from the outside world, voiding its monetary assets, both sums on hand or obtainable in the future. Consent to buy strategic good in the United States, or in any country that exported for dollars, was withheld by the United States in conjunction with parallel freezes by the British and Dutch empires. Japan’s commercial sphere shriveled to the “yen bloc” of its colonies and conquered regions in East Asia. . . .
““Bankrupt” and “impoverished” are terms often used interchangeably. Japan’s international illiquidity would, beyond doubt, have impoverished the nation within a couple of years. The U.S. freeze presented Japan with three choices: suffer economic impoverishment, accede to American demands to yield its territorial conquests, or go to war against the United States and its allies” (Miller, Bankrupting the Enemy, 1-2).
This information is not new. Every historian admits these basic facts. We know that FDR intentionally crippled Japan’s economy. We know FDR slapped Japan with costly sanctions. We know FDR cut off Japan from its money supply and from international trade. We know that FDR applied pressure on Asian nations to not do business with Japan. What court historians taken for granted, however, is the reason FDR took these provocative steps. They couch it as a last-ditch effort to stop Japan’s murderous aggression. In reality, these policies purposefully provoked war between nations whose peoples had no bone to pick with each other in order to meet sinister ends that will be noted later.
Japanese writers at the time pointed to the intolerable political and economic pressure applied on Japan by the United States and Britain as prominent reasons why the war eventually happened. Along with relentless economic warfare, the United States leveled endless propaganda against the Empire of the Rising Sun – propaganda which is mindlessly repeated by politicians, school teachers, the media, Hollywood, and Establishment historians even today.
In the early 20th Century, Japan was far and away the most technologically, economically, and militarily advanced Asian nation. They projected a vision of an independent Asia that looked beyond traditional racial and ethnic hostilities and promoted the greater good of the entire region. They created the aptly-named Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere to promote their vision of an Asia free from Western intervention and free from economic strangulation. In short, they desired a unified Asian brotherhood of economically and politically independent nations.
This course of action naturally led Japan into the arms of Hitler’s Germany which promoted a similar, albeit European version, of the same goal. The two nations shared a very similar ideological outlook. They believed in nationalism, self-determination, and the end of the internationalist Establishment’s chokehold on world affairs and the global economy. They also believed that their position of power in their regions – each being the most advanced nation in their individual spheres – gave them the responsibility to led out in overthrowing those forces which oppressed them and in establishing regional peace and stability.
To strengthen their respective efforts, Germany, Japan, and Italy concluded the Tripartite Pact on September 27, 1940. This followed their signing of the Anti-Comintern Pact, which will be discussed in the next section. The Japanese writer Nobumasa Suyetsugu explained the goal of the Tripartite Pact and why the West’s objections to it were totally unfounded. In November 1940, he wrote:
“[T]he Japanese-German-Italian pact is not directed against any other particular Power, nor is it to be construed in any way as having been concluded for the purpose of waging war against any one particular Power. . . .
“Then what has brought about this agreement? It is the outcome of mutual ideological antagonism between those Powers which seeks to maintain the old political, economic and other structures and those which are dissatisfied with the injustice of the old order and are determined to bring about a fundamental reform in the existing international and national structures. Recent intensification of this antagonism has been so great that it finally lead to the conclusion of the treaty in question as nothing but a natural outcome. The Powers upholding the old order virtually formed a league of their own, and, in order to preserve what they have, they kept opposing the rightful claims of the nations hitherto treated unfairly in international affairs. Consistent efforts were made to bring political and economic pressure to bear upon the latter countries. Finding their positions intolerable under the series of pressures, the reformist Powers felt that the only way of survival and future growth for them was in a firm combination on the basis of their ideological similarities. What actually has developed into the three Power pact, therefore, is the result of forced circumstances and was a historical necessity. . . .
“As has been mentioned, the special feature of the treaty is its ideological aspect . . . Heretofore, alliances and treaties have been based chiefly on the interests of the participants. When those interests faded the agreements were conveniently forgotten or openly discarded. Present treaty, of course, embodies the interests of the three signatories, but its fundamental spirit lies in the unity of thought and ideology. Therefore, it may be applied in complete disregard of the material interests of the participating parties as the occasion demands. Its overwhelming power and influence lie in the very fact that it was not signed for temporary gains or effects, but was conceived rather with a definite conception of human life and of the world and how men and nations should live therein . . . It is a concrete expression of the irrepressible demands inherent in the peoples of the three countries. . . .
“If the Japanese-German-Italian combination harboured any intention to bring the entire world under its control after the fashion of the Anglo-American Powers, which established and now are trying to maintain financial hegemony over the world, the mutual antagonism between the two groups inevitably would become stronger, regardless of the peaceful attitude of the former. That would mean merely replacing one kind of world hegemony for another. Happily, however, the objective of the tripartite pact, with its ideological origin, is not so aggressive as to attempt to bring the world within its grasp. It opposes emulating the Faults of the old order. The Pact has as its chief objective the establishment of the most natural geographic, economic and racial spheres and the liberation of the peoples of these respective regions from the shackles of controlling influences which heretofore have preyed on them from the outside. One cannot but be struck by the similarity between the present treaty and the position of the United States, which is doing its utmost to create solidarity among the nations of the American continents on the basis of Pan-Americanism and the Monroe Doctrine, although there is an admitted difference in the fundamental ideas. No one openly attacks the Monroe Doctrine as such, and it follows logically that there is no reason why the aims of the tripartite agreement should be made the butt of adverse criticism. As the pact envisions the establishment of a sphere of common prosperity in Greater East Asia, as well as the establishment of a new order in Europe under Germany and Italy, it would be well for its critics to postpone their unwarranted attacks until after they have exhausted their verbal ammunition against the Monroe Doctrine, lest their arguments sound hollow with inconsistency.
“It is regrettable that the world at present is wholly lacking in stability. War is the general order of things and peace is merely an ideal. Even in time of peace, there is hardly any sense of security among mankind and most nations prepare feverishly for the next war. Such conditions are suicidal for humanity. It would be good and well if peace and well-being could be secured for mankind. This can never be, however, until the old order of politics, entrenched as it is in financial control of the world and directed solely toward the continuation of such control, has been eradicated, because it constitutes the fundamental cause of world unrest. To do away with this old structure and restore world peace on a new and lasting foundation is the ultimate purpose of the three Power pact.
“Let us now consider the situation in Greater East Asia, whose people comprise more than half of the total world population. The Western plutocracies have forced their influence upon them and have caused them to suffer through the exercise of financial control. Under such conditions there never can be stability in East Asia. Without stability in East Asia, there can be no security for Asia at large and, consequently, the world in general cannot become tranquil . . . Properly speaking, territorial sovereignty should belong to the people who have inhabited the land for a long time. Seeds of trouble are sown when this sovereignty is usurped by outsiders . . . Unless these causes of trouble are removed, the chaotic condition of the world can never be remedied. . . .
“The Greater East Asia sphere of common prosperity, whose establishment we earnestly espouse, means nothing more than the restoration of the lands, peoples and sovereignties inherent to East Asia to their original and therefore natural status . . . Unfortunately, until recently its fulfilment has been prevented by various political, economic and diplomatic factors. But with the world turning toward an epochal change, the long pent-up demand has taken a practical turn. It is the role of the Japanese-German-Italian Treaty to mould and give definite shape to the aspirations of these peoples of East Asia for their satisfaction” (Nobamasu Suyetsugu, “The Three Power Pact,” in Joshua Blakeney, ed., Japan Bites Back: Documents Contextualizing Pearl Harbor, 216-223).
Please note that the Japanese viewed – mostly correctly, I might add – that the West’s economic interventionism in Asia had shackled the native nations. This was particularly true in China where Britain and the United States had launched unnecessary and highly immoral wars to force the Chinese regime to capitulate to their economic demands. Other nations had similarly caved to Western pressure and existed as mere vassal states at the start of the Second World War.
Additionally, Japan blasted the blatant distortions and lies about the purposes of their treaties with Germany. Japan, like Germany, sought to promote regional independence from internationalist forces – bankers, corporations, the Soviets, etc. They wanted Asia for Asians without outside interference, just as Germany wanted Europe for Europeans without foreign interference. Had the West – and the United States in particular – not foisted itself upon Asia and tried to check Japan’s Pan-Asianist efforts, it may have never felt the necessity of joining forces with Germany for survival.
As it turns out, FDR wanted Japan and Germany linked so that by initiating war against Japan, an excuse might be found to join the war against Germany which had scrupulously avoided and tolerated FDR’s provocations in order to avoid such a devastating conflict. This is called the “back door to war” strategy and has been copiously documented, despite Establishment cries of “false!” One of those to document FDR’s brazen path to world war was historian Charles C. Tansill who wrote Back Door to War: The Roosevelt Foreign Policy, 1933-1941. I leave you to do your own research and continue with the Japanese perspective on these tragic events.
In a lengthy article titled “Genesis of the Pacific War,” a Japanese writer confirmed the nature and aim of the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy:
“[B]y the terms of Article III of which the three Powers undertook to “assist one another with all political, economic and military means, if one of the High Contracting Parties should be attacked by a Power not at present involved in the European war or in the Sino-Japanese conflict.” From this stipulation, one can clearly see that the three Powers did not wish to have any third Power intervene either in the European war or in the China affair. The then Foreign Minister Yosuke Matsuoka referring to the Tripartite Axis Pact said that “Japan does not challenge any country.” The Foreign Office spokesman affirmed: “It is a pact to end wars, not to start them.” Regarding the allegation of the United States that the Tripartite Pact was solely directed against it, Yosuke Matsuoka in his statement of October 10, 1940, made clear its implications, so far as Japan was concerned, in the following words:
““Japan wishes earnestly to bring about an all-around peace in China at the earliest possible date. No other people have been more eager than the Japanese to see peace restored between Japan and China. As a matter of fact Japan has been and is actually bending every effort to that end. The conclusion of this pact with Germany and Italy is in a way another attempt to achieve the same end . . . I might add that the Tripartite Pact has not been entered into with the intention of directing it “against” the United States, but it is, I should say, directed, if at all, “for” the United States. To state frankly, the parties to the pact wish earnestly that such a powerful nation as the United States in particular and all other nations at present remaining neutral will not be involved in the European war, or come by any chance into conflict with Japan because of the China affair or otherwise. Such an eventuality, with all the possibility of bringing an awful catastrophe upon humanity, is enough to make one shudder if one stops to imagine the consequences. In short, the pact is a pact of peace.”
“President Roosevelt, however, in his fireside chat on December 29, 1940, assailed the Tripartite Pact in scathing terms. He persisted that “the three totalitarian Powers have, by the pact of September 27, 1940, joined together in the threat that if the United States interfered with or blocked their expansion programme, a programme aimed at world control, they will united in military action against the United States”” (“Genesis of the Pacific War,” in Joshua Blakeney, ed., Japan Bites Back, 310-312).
Truly, the Tripartite Pact would have proved a benefit to the United States had we remained neutral. The Axis powers would have obliterated the Soviet Union, prevented China from turning communist, and secured both Europe and Asia as safe zones outside the control of international bankers and fraudsters. As it turns out, our leaders were part of the internationalist cabal and chose a radically different course. The author listed just a few of FDR’s provocations and efforts to undermine genuine stability and peace in Asia:
“On November 30, 1940, Wang Ching-wei and General Nobuyuki Abe, Japanese special envoy to Nanking, signed a treaty of basic relations between China and Japan. Four documents initialled, giving Japan the right to station troops in North China and Inner Mongolia “for defence against Communist activities” and naval units in China, besides making it obligatory on Japan to co-operate with China in the development of China’s resources, especially minerals “required for national defence.” In a joint declaration issued by Nanking, Tokyo, and Hsinking, Wang Ching-wei recognized the independence of Manchoukuo; Japan agreed to surrender its extra-territorial rights, as well as its concessions in China in consideration of China opening its territory to the domicile and business of Japanese subjects; China undertook to pay compensation for “damages to the rights and interests” of Japanese subjects caused by the hostilities; and Japan undertook to withdraw all its troops from China, except those in North China and Inner Mongolia, within two years from the date when general peace was restored and a state of war had ceased to exist. President Roosevelt, in order to advertize that this Sino-Japanese Basic Treaty could not prove a deterrent to the intervention of the United States in the affairs of East Asia, granted a new loan of $100,000,000 to Chiang Kai-shek. . . .
“The United States Government, in addition to intensifying its assistance to Chiang Kai-shek against Japan and embargoing the export of raw materials to Japan, started the building of a “two-ocean” Navy. . . .
“Evidently President Roosevelt believed that if the supply of oil to Japan were cut off the war was inevitable. And two days afterwards, on July 26, 1941, he issued an order “freezing” all Japanese assets in the United States, thus stopping all trade relations with Japan, including the sale of oil. The Army Department announced on the same day that all troops under the Hawaiian Command had been ordered to be placed “on a training and precautionary alert status” at once. It was also announced that the President had created a new Army Command known as the U.S. Army Forces in the Far East. It would include 75,000 American troops and about 180,000 Filipino armed forces. Obviously President Roosevelt decided in favour of a war with Japan at the time when he issued the freezing order . . . Concurrently with the freezing of Japanese assets in America, the British Empire and the Dutch administration in Batavia took similar actions against Japan in their respective zones. Thus eighty per cent. of the export and import trade of this country was brought to a standstill at a moment’s notice . . . It needs no amplification to assert that this excessive Anglo-American move virtually amounts to the strangulation of the whole Japanese nation” (Blakeney, ed., Japan Bites Back, 312-314, 322-323).
Largely because of these provocations and acts of economic sabotage, Japan lashed out against America, turning FDR’s political-economic war into a shooting war. Pursuant to the Tripartite Pact, Hitler declared war against the United States on December 11. In his remarkable speech, Hitler stated:
“I cannot be insulted by Roosevelt for I consider him mad just as Wilson was. I don’t need to mention what this man has done for years in the same way against Japan. First he incites war then falsifies the causes, then odiously wraps himself in a cloak of Christian hypocrisy and slowly but surely leads mankind to war, not without calling God to witness the honesty of his attack – in the approved manner of an old Freemason. I think you have all found it a relief that now, at last, one State has been the first to take the step of protest against his historically unique and shame less ill-treatment of truth, and of right – which protest this man has desired and about which he cannot complain. The fact that the Japanese Government, which has been negotiating for years with this man, has at last become tired of being mocked by him in such an unworthy way, fills us all, the German people, and think, all other decent people in the world, with deep satisfaction. . . .
“As a consequence of the further extension of President Roosevelt’s policy, which is aimed at unrestricted world domination and dictatorship the U.S.A. together with England have not hesitated from using any means to dispute the rights of the German, Italian and Japanese nations to the basis of their natural existence. The Governments of the U.S.A. and of England have therefore resisted, not only now but also for all time, every just understanding meant to bring about a better New Order in the world. Since the beginning of the war the American President, Roosevelt, has been guilty of a series of the worst crimes against international law; illegal seizure of ships and other property of German and Italian nationals were coupled with the threat to, and looting of, those who were deprived of their liberty by being interned. Roosevelt’s ever increasing attacks finally went so far that he ordered the American Navy to attack everywhere ships under the German and Italian flags, and to sink them – this in gross violation of international law. American ministers boasted of having destroyed German submarines in this criminal way. German and Italian merchantships were attacked by American cruisers, captured and their crews imprisoned. With no attempt at an official denial there has now been revealed in America President Roosevelt’s plan by which, at the latest in 1943, Germany and Italy were to be attacked in Europe by military means. In this way the sincere efforts of Germany and Italy to prevent an extension of the war and to maintain relations with the U.S.A. in spite of the unbearable provocations which have been carried on for years by President Roosevelt, have been frustrated. Germany and Italy have been finally compelled, in view of this, and in loyalty to the Tri-Partite act, to carry on the struggle against the U.S.A. and England jointly and side by side with Japan for the defense and thus for the maintenance of the liberty and independence of their nations and empires.”
To recap, one of the two major reasons why the Japanese felt compelled to strike the United States at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, was to end the U.S. stranglehold on Japan’s economy and resources. FDR deliberately undercut Japan’s resources – most importantly, steel and oil – and cut off Japan from her international monetary assets. These acts of economic warfare compelled Japan to either submit to internationalist political demands, allow their nation to be bankrupted and economically impoverished, or fight for a chance of survival. They chose, as any respectable nation would, to fight rather than slavishly submit to a hostile foreign power.
The Threat of Communism
I’ve covered the communist origins of World War II in my various writings and podcasts for years, such as in chapter eleven of my book A Century of Red, in my article “Victory Day – For Whom?” and in my Liberty Wolf podcast episode titled “Who Really Started World War II?” The Reds and their Western allies on Wall Street, in banking, and in government from London to Washington, prodded and provoked and manipulated events in Europe, Asia, and America until they sparked a global conflagration that furthered their agenda of world revolution. After overthrowing the Russian government, this international cabal used the Soviet Union – and the resources that poured into it from Western sympathizers and co-conspirators in the “capitalist” world – as a base of operations. From this base, they launched coups, wars, and uprisings in Spain, Hungary, Germany, Mexico, China, and beyond. It is the Soviet thrust into China that particularly concerns us today.
In his September 1938 article “Japan’s Continental Policy,” Katsuji Inahara explained that Japan was deeply worried about the encroachments of communism into China and the Asian mainland. It was, he said, their #1 foreign policy concern. Peace and stability on the mainland – especially with China and Russia – was paramount to the Japanese leaders and strategists. He thus reasoned:
“Many factors determine a nation’s foreign policy, of which the most fundamental is probably its geographical position. . . .
“. . . it should be easy to understand from Japan’s proximity to the mainland of Asia why she is so vitally interested in what takes place there. Willingly or not, she is bound to see to it that no strong foreign Power should dominate the mainland in order to ensure her own peace, or even her very existence. Therefore Japan cannot remain indifferent to the conditions prevailing in Russia and China and to the activities of these two countries . . . The governing factor in the relations between Japan and the mainland of Asia has always been the problem of security, and must always be so. . . .
“It was for no other reason than to ensure her national safety that Japan fought China in 1894-5 and Russia in 1904-5. Indeed, it is impossible to find any outstanding event in Japan’s foreign policy that has not been affected by this fundamental attitude of hers towards the mainland. Far back under the Czars the ideal of Russia’s empire builders was the control of Eastern Asia; and although no newly instituted form of government ever went to such lengths in the overthrowing of the established order as the Soviet regime, the present government of Russia has not abandoned for one moment its interest in the Far East, despite declarations to the contrary made in the early stages of its accession to power. True, with replacement of Czarist diplomats by Soviet commissars, the methods may have changed, but the aim and substance of Russian diplomacy still remain the same. Not only that, but it would seem that Russian ideals have gathered a much greater momentum than under the Czars, so that the present dream of the Soviet in East Asia appears to be much more ambitious than that of Czarist Russia. For it is that of a Communist China, with its huge population of 400,000,000, accepting the direction of Moscow in carrying out its policies in the Far east.
“In the final analysis the present Sino-Japanese conflict springs from the twin root of Chinese Nationalism and Russian Communism. In the early stages of the Soviet rule, Moscow adopted what is known as the “Asia detour” policy, the purpose of which was to strike at Western Imperialism out in Asia. The first object of the Red machinations was Great Britain, as witness the virulent anti-British campaign in China in 1925-27. The extent to which Moscow was behind the Kuomintang in its anti-British agitation is shown by the fact that the party’s slogan was the denunciation of the exploitation of China by Western capitalism raised to a higher and more violent form than had ever been known before. It was by Moscow’s aid that Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalist army were able, in 1926, to advance as far as the Yangtze Valley . . . The retreat of the British brought particular joy to the Chinese, for it was certainly an epoch-making event in the annals of China’s foreign relations, and so quite easily they succumbed to the dangerous illusion that, since such a powerful country as Great Britain had submitted to their threats of coercion, they could easily extort what they wanted from less powerful countries by similar methods.
“And so Japan became the next object of attack. . . .
“It is true that there was a rift in the Soviet-Nationalist combination in April, 1928, when Chiang Kai-shek staged a coup against the Left wing of the Kuomintang, the effect of which was to send Borodin and this comrades scurrying back to Moscow. Nevertheless, the Soviet ferment had already had enough time to permeate no small section of the Chinese people, so much indeed that it had taken practical shape in the formation of Chinese Communist armies. These Red forces Chiang Kai-shek had to tackle, but only with little success. For the Communist armies, under native leaders but assisted by Russian advisers, moved northward and established contact with the Soviet forces in Outer Mongolia, which, in fact, if not in name, is Soviet territory.
“Despite the temporary setback following on Chiang’s coup, Moscow, never wavered in its faith in Communist China. It knew how to bide its time, until the coveted opportunity arrived at last in December, 1936, in the shape of the Sian episode . . . as a result of the episode, the Soviet-Nationalist entente was reestablished. The common front on which this reunion was achieved was expressed by the slogan “Fight Japan!” . . . Prior to the Russo-Japanese war Russia had been able to hoodwink the world by means of a secret treaty of alliance signed with China on the strength of which she flooded Manchuria with Russian troops. Now the same thing had come to pass again, though on a much larger scale . . . Moreover, just as her apprehensions regarding Czarist Russia drove Japan to enter into an alliance with Great Britain in 1902, so the danger of Soviet aggression drove her to see an anti-Comintern pact with Germany in November, 1937.
“The present Sino-Japanese conflict started on July 7, 1937, when Chinese forces, at Marco Polo Bridge near Peking, made an attack on the Japanese troops stationed there in accordance with the Boxer protocol. . . .
“The war aim of Japan in the current conflict is the establishment of peace on the mainland and security in East Asia. . . .
“The peace and safety – security in one word – of a nation signifies something more than the mere preservation of its homeland or even of its territories beyond the seas from external attack. This is only the beginning of security. Real security must also include the maintenance of its economic interests so that it may be able to feed its people. . . .
“Geographical and political necessity as well as historical association impels Japan to take due note of whatever happens on the continent of Asia. She has always to be on the watch against anything inimical to her existence that might arise there. Thus, in the final analysis, she has either to help shape events on the mainland or else herself become the passive victim of those events. . . .
“When the Japanese talk of national safety in relation to the continent of Asia, they more usually have Russia in mind than China as a possible menace. “While the Communist creed and Communist propaganda,” observes a writer, “served to imbue Japan with deep distrust of Soviet Russia, it was not until 1929 that Russia once more loomed up as a serious military menace and to arouse Japanese anxiety on the score of national defence.” When Manchoukuo came into existence, the Japanese people thought that an effective dam against Russian inroads into this part of Asia had been set up. In thinking so, however, they were mistaken, for the march of events was such that the tableland of Mongolia, theoretically Chinese territory, was turned into a Russian province by means of Red activities. . . .
“. . . to all intents and purposes, Outer Mongolia is now Soviet territory, if not in name. And since a Power that controls Sinkiang and Mongolia also controls China, the Soviet domination of Mongolia constitutes a serious menace to the security of the Japanese position not only in Manchuria, but in Eastern Asia in general. Russia who was obliged to retreat beyond the Amur in Manchuria is now again casting a covetous eye upon it and Japan’s position there from across the Mongolian deserts. . . .
“What would happen if the stabilizing influence of Japan were to be withdrawn from Eastern Asia? In that event, Russia would be left the sole dominant Power in this part of the world. There would be nothing to check the Sovietization of China and finally of the whole of Asia, supposing that Russia does not forego her present policy of Red penetration. It would be difficult to see what benefit Britain or any other capitalist country would derive, if such a thing should come to pass. Japan, brought to her knees, would no longer be in a position to exert her influence as the one Power ready to check the extension of the Soviet system to East Asia. The present conflict in China is not solely between Japan and that country. It is in many respects a conflict between Capitalism and Communism. Could it be seriously maintained that the cause of real democracy is advanced by aiding and abetting Communism? Again, it should be borne in mind that any war between major capitalist Powers would only serve to benefit Communist Russia. . . .
“Germany and Japan have long been recognized as bulwarks against the advance of Communism in Europe and Asia. The pact signed between the two Powers in November, 1937, is directed against the machinations of the Comintern. . . .
“The issue of maintaining peace and prosperity in Eastern Asia is a vital one for this country, since its security largely and directly depends upon it. It is necessary, therefore, that Japan should fight for it when such becomes unavoidable” (Katsuji Inahara, “Japan’s Continental Policy,” in Blakeney, ed., Japan Bite Back, 85-92, 95, 162-164, 174-177).
What has been called the “revenge of geography” is a pressing reality for Japan. If you glance at a map, you find that the Korean Peninsula sticks out from the Asian mainland like an arm reaching towards Japan. In fact, the distance between Korean and Japanese territory is only about 31 miles at the narrowest point of the Korean Strait. The distance between Russia’s and Japan’s closest disputed islands today is so meager that you can stand on Japanese soil and view the Russian-held islands across the water. And, depending on which disputed point you judge by, Japan is a mere 400 miles from Chinese-claimed territory. In the 1930s and 40s, the distances were indeed longer, but still sufficiently close for Japan to keep their eyes riveted on the continent.
Think about it in context. If the Soviet Union and hostile China sat mere miles from the American mainland, would we go about our merry lives ignoring the threat, or would we be hypervigilant? Perhaps modern Americans would ignore the threat, as they’ve done with Cuba, but rational people would not – especially when their families and civilization are targeted for destruction. Rather, they would move to secure their borders, project strength outward, and reach out to stabilize their surroundings when necessary.
As pointed out earlier by one of the Japanese writers cited, the Japanese viewed their role in East Asia in a similar manner as Americans have traditionally viewed the Americas. Just as we issued the Monroe Doctrine for the legitimate protection of our own interests and to make this hemisphere one of Freedom and peace, so, too, did Japan declare a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere and seek to thwart the advance of communism, liberate Asian nations from Western domination, and stabilize the region in order to protect the interests of all involved.
Japan has always been embroiled in controversy in Asia because of its proximity to the mainland. However, the rise of communism endowed the conflict with a greater sense of urgency and danger. Communism is the most murderous and treacherous system in world history. Nothing has ever equaled it in brutality and destructiveness. More people have been raped, pillaged, enslaved, dehumanized, and slaughtered by the Reds than by any other group or combination of groups in all of human history. Thus, when Japan saw communist banners being raised practically along its borders, it had to act decisively.
The Bolsheviks were smart and went after China first, knowing that the successful conquest of that great people would be sufficient to turn the rest of Asia Red. China had been beaten down, humiliated, and impoverished by the West. The Bolsheviks therefore agitated and stirred up hatred for the West among the Chinese populace. They promised the peasants a paradise if they would support the revolution. Ironically, it was only with the help of the hated West that China ultimately went communist, as I outlined in my article “The Great Betrayal – How China Turned Red.”
Before China descended into the hell of Maoist Marxism, however, Japan recognized the danger and attempted to thwart the plot. As Japan moved into China to safeguard the region against the communists, the international press – controlled by socialists and communists – excoriated Japan and claimed they were acting in unwarranted aggression. They also fabricated “atrocities,” just like they did against Germany. As always, communists flip the narrative and project their own guilt on their enemies and opponents.
The Soviets waged a war of subversion, deception, and insurrection in China for decades before it finally succumbed, with crucial U.S. intervention and support, in 1949. During the struggle, communists controlled large swaths of China. One Japanese writer, writing in 1937, noted the massive communist infiltration into the Chinese government:
“Who governs China today? This may seem a strange question, but, none the less, it is an important one, since the answer to it will explain, as nothing else will, the genesis and true meaning of the present conflict. The answer that most people would make to the question is that General Chiang Kai-shek governs China, for to all appearances he reigns supreme at Nanking. But, as is so often the case, appearances are deceptive. As a matter of fact, it is not he, but the extremist elements of the Kuomintang Party allied to the Communists that actually hold the reins of power both at Nanking and all over the country.
“To give a brief historical summary, it was some twenty-five years ago that Sun Yat-sen administered the final push to the tottering structure of the Chinese Empire. Thus the National Party entered into power, but it experienced grave difficulties in coping with powerful warlords. In its emergency, the Kremlin came to its assistance. This was in 1927.
“Evidently Russia saw here a supreme opportunity of bolshevizing China, or, at the least, of throwing out of gear the international machinery working there. . . .
“With the aid of Russian men and money the National Party was able to overcome its opponents, but when Chiang Kai-shek felt that he and his party were well entrenched in power he broke away from his Communist associates, including Borodin and Galen (Bluecher), who had been serving him as supreme political and military adviser respectively. Thus, for the time being the bond between Nanking and Moscow was severed.
“It was very soon destined to be renewed, however. The Seventh World Congress of the Comintern held at Moscow in 1935 decided upon a reorganization of its methods. Propaganda in favor of direct revolution was abandoned and in its place the more indirect method of rallying the radicals and socialists in various countries into a People’s Front, which would seize control of their respective governments and thus eventually consummate the revolution. Moreover, Poland and Japan were singled out as the two countries against which special efforts should be made. The Chinese Communists carried out thoroughly the instructions received, and began to win the people of China to their side by means of the slogan, “Fight Japan!” . . . .
“Since the mainspring of this combination is complete anti-Japanism, it is not difficult to realize how it is that the little incident in Lukouchiao has been so quickly magnified into the conflict of the present scale” (“The Sino-Japanese Conflict: A Short Survey,” in Joshua Blakeney, ed., Japan Bites Back, 43-45).
Almost inevitably when you research deeply into modern conflicts, you find communists lurking somewhere near. Their Red fingers have been in everything from world wars to national uprisings to local strikes to assassinations to drug pushing. Their subversive movement is of course aimed at all nations. However, in the 20th Century, three nations gave them a particular headache and nearly derailed their conspiracy altogether. I speak of Germany, Japan, and Italy.
Isn’t it curious that these three nations – the three which openly entered into an anti-communist pact and swore to fight the spread of communism – are the three which are most heatedly attacked, smeared, and held up as the epitome of evil in the controlled press, Hollywood, and centers of indoctrination we call schools and universities? On November 25, 1936, Germany and Japan, followed later by Italy, concluded the Anti-Comintern Pact. The Comintern was the international wing of the communist conspiracy. On orders from Moscow, it directed the revolutionary activities in individual countries throughout the world using homegrown communists advised and aided by Soviets.
Understanding this subversive machinery and the dire threat it posed, Germany and Japan signed the Anti-Comintern Pact which read in part:
“The Imperial Government of Japan and the Government of Germany,
“In cognizance of the fact that the object of the Communistic International (the so-called Komintern) is the disintegration of, and the commission of violence against, existing States by the exercise of all means at its command,
“Believing that the toleration of interference by the Communistic International in the internal affairs of nations not only endangers their internal peace and social welfare, but threatens the general peace of the world,
“Desiring to co-operate for defense against communistic disintegration, have agreed as follows.”
Among the things Germany and Japan agreed to were to “keep each other informed” of the Comintern’s activities, carry out defensive measures “in close co-operation,” and to “jointly” help other states “whose internal peace is menaced by the disintegrating work of the Communistic International.” It boggles the mind why a nation like the United States would not approve of such a treaty and give their blessing to Germany, Japan, and, later, Italy. Is it not in our best interest for the communist conspiracy to forever go out of existence? Do we not claim to be the chief rivals of the communists?
Sadly, in the run-up to World War II, a Marxist named Franklin Delano Roosevelt ruled in the White House instead of a true patriot who actually gave a damn about his country. FDR – Wall Street’s man – loved mass-murderer Joseph Stalin, affectionately calling him “Uncle Joe.” FDR’s administration made the United States the first major nation to recognize the barbaric Soviet regime of robbers and revolutionaries as a “legitimate” government, thus giving a massive boost to the Soviet economy and prestige. FDR surrounded himself by known Soviet moles, such as his closest adviser Harry Hopkins, Alger Hiss, and Harry Dexter White who helped trigger Pearl Harbor, as well as rabid Zionist agitators like Henry Morgenthau, Jr. and Bernard Baruch. FDR was the biggest traitor to ever sit in the White House and the world suffered greatly because of his influence.
Adolf Hitler was likely the most virulently anti-communist head of state in history. His National Socialist movement won favor with the German people precisely because of their anti-communist platform. Hitler banished communists, Freemasons, international bankers, occultists, and other such criminals from his country when he came to power in 1933. After six years of constant anti-Germany agitation, internationalist forces – led by Zionists and Soviet communists in Britain, France, Russia, Poland, and, yes, the United States – again plunged Germany into a war that she did not wish to fight.
As Germany defended herself against the Western powers, the Soviet Union gleefully prepared an invasion of its own, scheduled for 1941. Stalin planned to crush Germany and become sole hegemon of the continent. Knowing of the scheme, Hitler preempted him by launching Operation Barbarossa. Stalin knew that Hitler would attack when threatened, but he believed he would be the first on the trigger. Fortunately for the world, Hitler struck first – catching the Soviet Union off guard and routing them all the way back to the suburbs of Moscow.
Why am I talking about the German-Soviet war in an article about Pearl Harbor? Simple: FDR pushed his provocations against Japan into overdrive after Germany struck the USSR. FDR wanted to spark a war with Japan to have an excuse to fight Japan’s ally, Germany, and save his beloved Soviet comrades from the jaws of defeat. You will recall that it was in the summer of 1941, just after the Germans hit the Soviets and were well on their way to victory, that FDR froze Japan’s economic assets, bankrupted their nation, and made war inevitable.
Soviet spies and agitators in America, including in FDR’s administration, harangued the president to quickly get in the war and save America’s Soviet “ally.” Incomprehensibly, FDR sent billions of dollars worth of equipment to Soviet Russia via the Lend-Lease program. When I lived in Russia, I personally spoke with a Red Army tanker who fought in the war who shared his conviction that without American tanks and materiel, the USSR would have crumbled. I believe he is right. To our eternal shame, the United States saved the Soviet Union – we saved Joseph Stalin and his murderous gangsters from justice!
In order to save the communist mass murderers, FDR sacrificed over two-thousand American lives at Pearl Harbor. He waged economic warfare against Japan and backed communist operations in Asia until Japan, feeling the hurt of bankruptcy and the looming threat of communism on their frontier, felt it had no other option but to retaliate with force. This is the real story of why the Japanese struck Pearl Harbor that fateful day 79 years ago.
I believe the evidence forces us to acknowledge the truthfulness of Emperor Hirohito’s December 8, 1941 declaration of war. He affirmed:
“To insure the solidity of these ages and contribute to world peace is the far-sighted policy which was formulated by our great, illustrious, imperial grandsire and our great imperial sire’s experience, and which we lay constantly to heart; to cultivate friendship among nations and to enjoy prosperity in common with all nations – has always been the guiding principle of our empire’s foreign policy.
“It has been unavoidable and far from our wishes that our empire has been brought to cross swords with America and Britain.
“More than four years have passed since China, failing to comprehend the true intentions of our empire, and recklessly causing trouble, disturbed the peace of East Asia and compelled our empire to take up arms.
“Although there has been re-established the National government of China, with which Japan has effected neighborly intercourse and co-operation, the regime which has survived at Chungking, relying upon American and British protection still continues its opposition.
“Eager for the realization of their inordinate ambitions to dominate the Orient, both America and Britain, supporting the Chungking regime, have aggravated disturbances in East Asia. Moreover, these two powers, inducing other countries to follow suit, increased military preparations on all sides of our empire to challenge us. They have obstructed by every means our peaceful commerce and finally resorted to direct severance of economic relations, menacing gravely the existence of our empire.
“Patiently have we waited and long have we endured in the hope that our government might retrieve the situation in peace.
“But our adversaries, showing not the least spirit of conciliation, have unduly delayed a settlement, and in the meantime they have intensified the economic and political pressure to compel thereby our empire to submission.
“This turn of affairs would, if left unchecked, not only nullify our empire’s efforts of many years for the sake of the stabilization of East Asia, but also endanger the very existence of our nation.
“The situation being such as it is our empire, for its existence and self-defense, has no other recourse but to appeal to arms and to crush every obstacle in its path.”
While I’m truly saddened at the loss of so many fine American men at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and honor them for their willingness to sacrifice for their country, I cannot condemn and blame Japan – a nation which we had harassed and waged economic war against for years. Those men did not need to die at Pearl Harbor. FDR sacrificed them on the altar of the global communist conspiracy. All of the pain and loss and tragedy must be laid at FDR’s feet and at the feet of those in America who voted for FDR and turned a blind eye to his treasonous treachery.
Remember Pearl Harbor and honor the men we lost. But also remember who was responsible. Remember that FDR and his fellow communists at home and abroad coordinated their plans to pressure Japan into attacking us so that we could fight Germany and save the Soviet butchers from defeat. The court historians have tried to conceal this damning information for eight decades, but now you know the truth. Make it count.
This Thanksgiving, we turn our minds back to the men and women who laid the foundation for the greatest nation in human history, the United States of America. In particular, we review the values and ethics the early American colonists brought with them and carefully cultivated in this New World. As we examine the faith and fortitude of the Pilgrims, it is my wish that a part of their intrepid spirit will rest upon you and that you will not only feel grateful for them and their sacrifices to forge a civilization on this wild continent, but that you will seek to be more like them in fighting for a better world.
The other day, a friend posted a copy of the Mayflower Compact on social media. A person commented on the post that they had never read the document until then. It made me wonder how many other people have never read this foundational text. For those who may have never read this Pilgrim constitution, I reproduce is below. First, however, let me provide important context for the European settlement of America.
Seventeenth Century Europe was a place of religious, economic, and social oppression. Popes, kings, and tsars oppressed all who disagreed with them. Christian sects persecuted each other. Church and state were combined in an exceptionally dangerous union. In Rome and many parts of Europe, the pope governed not only in ecclesiastical, but secular matters – often tyrannizing, hunting, and killing so-called “heretics” for dissent. In the British Isles, the Church of England wielded the power of the state against its dissenters. In Russia, the empire forced Russian Orthodoxy on the populace and ostracized “Old Believers.” Though the Dark Ages had formally ended, darkness prevailed throughout Europe in actual fact.
At the time of the War for Independence, the fiery patriot Thomas Paine described the world’s situation:
“O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of the old world is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted round the globe. Asia, and Africa, have long expelled her. Europe regards her like a stranger, and England hath given her warning to depart. O! receive the fugitive, and prepare in time an asylum for mankind.”
The “asylum for mankind,” of course, was and is America. In another spot in Common Sense, Paine wrote:
“But Britain is the parent country, say some. Then the more shame upon her conduct. Even brutes do not devour their young, nor savages make war upon their families; wherefore the assertion, if true, turns to her reproach; but it happens not to be true, or only partly so, and the phrase parent or mother country hath been jesuitically adopted by the king and his parasites, with a low papistical design of gaining an unfair bias on the credulous weakness of our minds. Europe, and not England, is the parent country of America. This new world hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every part of Europe. Hither have they fled, not from the tender embraces of the mother, but from the cruelty of the monster; and it is so far true of England, that the same tyranny which drove the first emigrants from home, pursues their descendants still.”
Paine was correct. Freedom was a phantom in nearly all parts of the globe. The Dark Ages prevailed in a very real sense in Africa, Asia, the Pacific, Latin America, Europe, and the uncivilized parts of North America. Only in the aptly-named New World did the fire of Freedom and Independence burn. This Liberty inferno was sparked by the Pilgrims over a century before.
The Pilgrims, as Paine noted, came not only from Britain, but from numerous nations in Europe. Germans, Swedes, English, French, Dutch, Irish, Scottish, Danes, Swiss, and many others, often risked life and limb to abandon Europe and make America their home. These European outcasts threw off their shackles and became among the first Americans.
These men and women came to this continent for Freedom, prosperity, a second chance at life, to escape immorality and worldliness, and to practice their religion free from oppression of other sects. While it is true that some colonists set up their own politico-religious jurisdictions that discriminated against others not of their particular sect, their overarching ideal, which found its ultimate expression in the American Revolution and U.S. Constitution, was that all men should be free to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience and without oppression.
The core group of early Pilgrims were in fact English. They did not, however, subscribe to the Church of England’s theology and practice. Some were Puritans who wanted to purify the Church of England’s corrupt theology. Others were labeled Separatists because they rejected the Church of England altogether. These groups were persecuted for their non-conformity. Many eventually fled to the Netherlands where they were allowed to worship God in a manner pleasing to them. This is important: They did not flee from England to the Netherlands for crass economic reasons! Their motivation was religious Freedom.
After a short time, however, the Pilgrims found the Netherlands, like England, to be unsuitable. They disliked what they considered Dutch worldliness. They also worried about the Netherlands’ embroilment in European wars and intrigues. With their minds fixed on the welfare of their children and of their immortal souls, the Pilgrims left the Netherlands seeking a new hope in the New World.
The first batch of Pilgrims to arrive in America made their now famous voyage in September 1620 aboard the Mayflower. Though they sought to land in Virginia, which received its first settlers in Jamestown thirteen years previous, inclement weather had a different plan. In November of 1620, the little ship arrived off the coast of Massachusetts near Cape Cod. The Pilgrims eventually made a nearby location, which they called Plymouth, their permanent residence. Before they disembarked the Mayflower, however, they gathered to form a new government – the Mayflower Compact.
The Mayflower Compact is a significant document. Not only did the Compact govern Plymouth for 71 years, but it set forth the ideological concept of America and sparked the tradition of establishing governments through formal compacts and written constitutions. Before discussing the Compact, I encourage you to read it now in full:
“IN the Name of God, Amen. We whose Names are under-written, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Soveraign Lord King James, by the grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King, Defendor of the Faith &c. Having undertaken for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our Kng and Countrey, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the Northern parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God and one another, Covenant and Combine our selves together into a Civil Body Politick, for our better ordering and preservation, and furtherance of the ends aforesaid: and by virtue hereof do enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Officers, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our Names at Cape Cod, the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Soveraign Lord King James, of England, France and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty fourth, Anno Dom. 1620.”
The document was then signed by forty-one individuals, among whom were William Bradford, Myles Standish, John Carver, and other personalities of note. Please highlight the reason these settlers gave for coming to the New World: The “advancement of the Christian Faith.” Religious Liberty has often been called “the First Freedom.” So it was for the Pilgrim fathers. They fled England not for gold or glory, but for God. They bound themselves together “into a Civil Body Politick,” established “ordered” Liberty, and pledged to work together to advance Christendom. This Christian settlement at Plymouth, not that at Jamestown, was the true birth place of the American nation.
In an article released just in time for Thanksgiving 2020, Eric Patterson and Rebecca Blessing highlighted and underscored the fact that the Mayflower Compact, as you have just seen for yourself, was not created because of politics, social theory, or activism, but was, rather, an organic outgrowth of the Pilgrims’ Christian faith:
“In November 1620, the individuals we know as the Pilgrims created the first social contract in the New World. It was their Protestant faith, rather than some sort of political theory, that provided the idea of covenanting together to form a civil body politic. . . .
“What are we to learn from this today? Most important, the organizing principle for the Compact was the theological motif of covenant. The idea of dedicating oneself to others, before God, in a covenant relationship was essential to many Puritans as well as the Separatists. Covenantalism became a fundamental theological principle for how Presbyterian and Congregationalist churches operated in the 16th and 17th centuries, as well as how they operate today. Therefore, the claim that the social contract theory is necessarily and uniformly secular is utterly inaccurate: the Pilgrims created a theologically informed, non-coercive social compact sans Leviathan. . . .
“At a time when some challenge the morality and religious character of America’s first founders, the plain facts of the 1620 Mayflower Compact, a theologically informed social compact for believers and non-believers alike, remind us of the good seeds planted in our shared past. It is up to us to cultivate those seeds in our own time.”
The Pilgrims of New England planted the good seeds of Faith, Family, and Freedom that were later cultivated and tended to by later generations of Americans; most notably, the generation that won American Independence and nourished the tree of Liberty with their own blood. The Pilgrims established the religious, cultural, social, and even economic patterns that were followed by later Americans and finally codified in our constitutional system. The standout quality of these early Americans was, of course, their reliance upon God – or, as later Americans would declare, their “firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.”
My own family line, the Strong family, arrived in America in 1635. The first of our clan, Elder John Strong, settled his family in Hingham, Plymouth Colony, and, later, Northampton, Massachusetts. A man by the name of Benjamin W. Dwight, in researching his own family history, found so much information about the influence of the Strongs in early America that he wrote a lengthy book in 1871 detailing our family history up to that point. At the beginning of the book, he made several observations that apply to the Pilgrims generally. I heartily second these words:
“If any part of the world’s history hitherto deserves to be cherished in grateful and admiring remembrance, it is that of this country from its first settlement to the present hour; and the men, that wrought under God all the great benefits which we now enjoy into their present shape, deserve, for the moral purity of their characters, the heroism of their lives, and the greatness of the social results achieved for this nation and for all mankind by their industry and their virtue, to be embalmed forever in the hearts of their descendants. Whatever may occur in future years to change greatly the elements or courses of our development as a people, the fact can never be impaired, that the real builders of this nation, and the inspirers of its aims and purposes, were the Puritans of New England and their immediate descendants. Who and what they were in their every day life; how they spread from point to point over this wide land, first conquered by themselves to Christian civilization, penetrating every part of it with the ideas and institutions of their early homes; and how, from the precious seed which they bore forth and scattered, and often with much weeping, in the waste parts of the wilderness before them, the glorious harvest of our times has grown up for us, it is pleasant to find for one’s self, and to be able to show unto others. The processes of the early settlement of this country, and of the wide-spread development of the active principles of home colonization, which have made out of a few religious strangers here at the first, one of the mightiest nations of the world in so short a time, are among the greatest marvels of human history.
“The Puritan element, whose influence has been so all-conquering and beneficent among the social forces that have made us what we are as a people, is becoming manifestly every year a more and more diminishing quantity among the agencies at work to perpetuate and enlarge our greatness among the nations of the earth. How carefully, therefore, should we secure the memorials, while we may, of the long procession of true-hearted men and women that have borne down, with many tears and toils and prayers, the precious ark of God’s covenant and of our liberties to the present hour. We will not, we cannot, forget those who toiled and dared and endured so much for God and for us. To enjoy the splendid heritage of good which they so laboriously and lovingly prepared for us, as if that were all that we of this day cared for, and to forget them as the magnanimous bestowers of its rich benefits upon us, would be the strongest possible proof of our utter degeneracy from the noble historic stock to which we belong.
“Our fathers were workers. They ate their own bread, and were almost all of them at the first honest and earnest tillers of the ground. Self-help was the universal law of life. Nothing, next to vice itself, was more odious to them than idleness. Ministers and people alike, husbands and wives, fathers, mothers, and children, all helped themselves and helped each other. Self-indulgence was no part of the original fabric of our constitution as a people. It is pleasant to convey the records of the lives and deeds of such a sturdy and God-fearing ancestry as ours, to those who shall succeed us, as among the most precious remembrances of all past times. These were they who used to pray regularly at their firesides, and in their sanctuaries, that “God would bless their children and children’s children to the latest generation;” and in what a fullness of all good things has the blessing that they prayed for, been rained down upon us! The aroma of their many virtues, which is so fresh in our hearts, who live within the very precincts of their times, we would fain perpetuate, if possible, in the happy consciousness of all their posterity” (Benjamin D. Dwight, The History and Descendants of Elder John Strong, of Northampton, Mass., Vol. 1, 1-2).
These glowing praises are not unfounded. The early Pilgrims, while not perfect, were God-fearing, hard-working, pious, virtuous, and zealous. They were humble men and women who put God, family, and community above self. Their principles of “self-help,” community service, faith in God, reliance on the Almighty, and “moral purity,”distinguished them. They forged a community dedicated to Jesus Christ, virtue, and personal Liberty.
Our Pilgrim fathers were made of the stuff that all true Americans in every age have been made of. They possessed integrity, heroism, diligence, discipline, and faith. We owe an unpayable debt to these humble “Separatists.” Had they not separated themselves from the corruptions and contentions of Europe, the makeup of this nation – if we would have become a nation at all – would be vastly different. As it turned out, the Pilgrims infused their religion and ethics into the very fabric of America, recreating this land in their image. The Mayflower Compact which they drafted firmly established America as an outpost of Christianity – an asylum for all who wished to be free and worship their God in peace.
Paul Strand has observed of our Pilgrim ancestors:
“The Pilgrims didn’t just give America Thanksgiving celebrations. They believed religious freedom and liberty were worth dying for. They made the Bible America’s most-read guide to life. And the Pilgrims’ covenant with God and man in 1620 and the form of self-rule they pioneered would eventually shape America’s Constitution and the entire government.”
This Thanksgiving, let us remember that the Pilgrims “toiled and dared and endured so much for God and for us.” They set the example of writing constitutions to bind people together in voluntary compacts for the greater good and for the advancement of Christendom. They left us a legacy of fervent faith in God Almighty, as well as an example of hard work and perseverance. These good men and women would not have seen themselves as heroes, but we rightly view them today as larger-than-life figures who crossed an ocean, left behind everything they knew, tamed a wilderness, forged a new nation through written contracts, and did their best to put into practice their noble values.
I give sincere thanks on this special day to my God for the Pilgrims, including for my own Strong family – past and present. I cherish the heritage of Faith, Family, and Freedom handed down by these faithful individuals. God help us remember them, honor their sacrifices, and reenthrone their values – the values that made America great – so that we may win for ourselves and our countrymen God’s marvelous protection, blessings, and grace. All of this and more can we accomplish if we will do as our forebears did and enter into a covenant to serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ. Happy Thanksgiving.