“An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” – U.S. Supreme Court, Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)
Today, I was cited $150 in fines for ludicrous and contrived traffic violations in Panama where I temporarily live. I want to devote this article to explaining, yet again, what tyranny is, why most government operations – including police functions – are tyranny under a different name, and where true political authority comes from.
Before I discourse on what tyranny is, let me say what crime is not. Crime is not violating the law. That’s not crime, because “the law” is often unjust, tyrannical, arbitrary, oppressive, unequal, disproportional, and, consequently, invalid and illegitimate. It is no crime to disobey and reject unjust, unequal, and rights-violating “laws.”
This idea comes directly from our unique American heritage and is foreign in most nations. Rebellion to tyrants is the American tradition. Our Founding Fathers rebelled against their government, shot or tarred and feathered government agents, waged war against their government, and created a new legal system and society. Had their revolution failed, they would have been executed as “traitors” because they indeed committed “treason” according to the atrocious “laws” of Great Britain and its corrupt king.
Five of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, in fact, were captured, tortured, and murdered. Other signers were killed by the British in the course of their revolt against tyranny. Yet, despite the laws and edicts prohibiting them from doing what they did, our forefathers “illegally” rebuffed Parliament’s unjust laws, “rebelliously” defied the king’s immoral edicts, and “treasonously” rose in armed rebellion against their oppressors.
I repeat: It is no crime to merely disobey a law if that law is unjust or otherwise immoral. Don’t just take my word for it. Here is what the great Thomas Jefferson said:
“[R]ightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’; because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual” (Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, April 4, 1819).
The law is often – I would say usually – “the tyrant’s will.” And it is always tyranny when it steps on, violates, abrogates, infringes upon, or ignores your God-given, natural, individual rights in any way, shape, form, or fashion. Every law loses its force and validity the moment it steps one toe across the line of your Liberty.
It was not only Thomas Jefferson who espoused this view. All of the Founding Fathers believed in a similar fashion and wrote in many different ways, under varied circumstances, about what constitutes illegitimate government. Theophilus Parsons expressed this sentiment at the Massachusetts ratifying convention:
“No power was given to Congress to infringe on any one of the natural rights of the people by this Constitution; and should they attempt it without constitutional authority, the act would be a nullity, and could not be enforced” (Theophilus Parsons, in Neil L. York, ed., Toward a More Perfect Union: Six Essays on the Constitution, 163).
Roger Sherman explained another situation where government acts are void:
“The powers vested in the federal government are only such as respect the common interests of the Union, and are particularly defined, so that each State retains its sovereignty in what respects its own internal government, and a right to exercise every power of a sovereign State not delegated to the United States. And tho’ the general government in matters within its jurisdiction is paramount to the constitutions and laws of the particular States, yet all acts of the Congress not warranted by the constitution would be void. Nor could they be enforced contrary to the sense of a majority of the States. One excellency of the constitution is that when the government of the United States acts within its proper bounds it will be the interest of the legislatures of the particular States to support it, but when it overleaps those bounds and interferes with the rights of the State governments, they will be powerful enough to check it; but distinction between their jurisdictions will be so obvious, that there will be no great danger of interference” (Roger Sherman, December 8, 1787).
The famed St. George Tucker observed:
“All men being by nature equal, in respect to their rights, no man nor set of men, can have any natural, or inherent right, to rule over the rest.
“This right cannot be acquired by conquest. . . .
“The right of governing can, therefore, be acquired only by consent. . . .
“Legitimate government can therefore be derived only from the voluntary grant of the people, and exercised for their benefit.
“Since the union of the sovereignty with the government, constitutes a state of absolute power, or tyranny, over the people, every attempt to effect such a union is treason against the sovereignty, in the actors; and every extension of the administrative authority beyond its constitutional limits, is absolutely an act of usurpation in the government, of that sovereignty, which the people have reserved to themselves” (St. George Tucker, in Warren L. McFerran, The Principles of Constitutional Government: Political Sovereignty, 48-49).
Founding Father Oliver Ellsworth, who was a lawyer, the third chief justice of the Supreme Court, a senator from Connecticut, and played a key role at the Constitutional Convention, stated:
“This Constitution defines the extent of the powers of the general government. If the general legislature should at any time overleap their limits, the judicial department is a constitutional check. If the United States go beyond their powers, if they make a law which the Constitution does not authorize, it is void; and the judicial power, the national judges, who to secure their impartiality, are to be made independent, will declare it to be void. On the other hand, if the states go beyond their limits, if they make a law which is a usurpation upon the federal government the law is void; and upright, independent judges will declare it to be so.”
Next, one of the first Supreme Court justices under President Washington, James Iredell, discussed this principle by giving us a hypothetical:
“If any future Congress should pass an act concerning the religion of the country, it would be an act which they are not authorized to pass, by the Constitution, and which the people would not obey. Every one would ask, “Who authorized the government to pass such an act? It is not warranted by the Constitution, and is barefaced usurpation.””
“[S]hould an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter. But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole.”
We could do this all day, but those few statements give you the flavor of our Founders’ thoughts. When government oversteps its bounds, it abdicates its authority, violates the social compact, and its acts become null and void. This is true of individual officers as well as government considered collectively. No one is bound by the illegitimate acts of government. No one must submit to illegitimate government. No one must demand compliance with unconstitutional, immoral, arbitrary, unjust, or oppressive “laws” no matter how many congresses, presidents, judges, and voters approve them because, as Samuel Adams put it in “The Rights of the Colonists” in 1772:
“If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.”
Political sovereignty transmits outward from the People. And the People is comprised of individuals. Each individual holds equal rights and authority as any other. No police officer or government agent has any authority greater than the lowest citizen. While many of the above statements concerned the relationship between the states and the federal government, I affirm that they apply in local and state situations. In fact, they apply always and forever because the matter of authority vs usurpation is always and forever present and preexisted government, the Constitution, or manmade conventions.
Here, then, is the greatest litmus test to determine whether an action, policy, law, rule, or regulation is appropriate, just, and right: Do you have the authority and right to do it? If so, then you may delegate that authority to a police officer or to government, as the case may be. However, if you personally, as a private citizen, do not have a right to do a thing, you cannot delegate any such authority to another person no matter who he is. You can’t delegate what you don’t by right possess.
Hans Verlan Andersen, in his must-read book Many Are Called But Few Are Chosen, explained:
“The danger that we will abuse the police power any time that it is made subject to our direction is most likely for several reasons:
“1. It is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. (D&C 121:39) “2. When we use force upon each other through government, we do so without fear of retaliation or condemnation, so conscience alone remains to restrain us. “3. We are easily deceived about government, because we are inclined to accept the following fallacies:
“(a) Anything legal is also moral. “(b) We are not individually responsible for government action. “(c) A different moral law applies when men act in concert, than it does when they act alone” (Hans Verlan Andersen, Many Are Called But Few Are Chosen, 2-3).
Let’s apply these principles to several situations and see what we surmise. Can you randomly pull up behind someone in your car and force them to pull over onto the side of the road? Can you randomly demand to see another person’s identification? Can you stop another person and compel them to pay a toll to pass a random point? Can you take away a person’s means of self-defense? Can you confiscate a person’s property or wealth or earnings? Can you take a child out of a family’s home, excepting, of course, if that child is in authentic danger? Can you even enter another person’s house or property without permission? Can you demand that a person pay you money for the privilege of traveling, or getting married, or driving a vehicle, or entering public land, or lighting a fire outside, or walking across a street at an “unauthorized” point, ad infinitum?
No cop, no government representative, no judge, no IRS agent, no military general, no mayor, no president, no priest, no teacher, no school board stooge, no border patrol agent, no security guard, no banker, no neighbor, and no posse, has any ounce of moral authority to strip another peaceable individual of his personal property, which includes his earnings, money, and livelihood. Period.
We do not have power over other people. We may not interfere in their lives. We only have the authority and right to direct our own personal stewardship. So, too, when acting together in government, we don’t have the authority to interfere in other people’s lives. Only when someone surrenders his rights by violating the rights of another person or of society may we then act to take from that person his life, Liberty, or property, according to the severity of the crime.
Apply this understanding to your daily life and you will see that most of what government does is illegitimate and unauthorized by any reasonable sense of justice. Marriage licenses, driver’s licenses, building permits, death taxes, property restrictions, are all illicit and immoral. They all constitute gross usurpations and overreach.
Now let me make this personal. I opened this article by stating that I was cited for $150 worth of bogus traffic violations by a traffic cop clearly behind in his quotas. While the corpulent cop who randomly flagged me down at a pseudo checkpoint where a gaggle of officers sat licking their chops to rob passersby of their hard-earned money indeed had a “legal” right to arbitrarily steal $150 from my pocket, this authority is illegitimate because, as a private citizen, he has no such right.
Even when his fellow officer wanted to ignore the situation, he persisted and eagerly tallied up all the infractions he could think up while ignoring the petitions of my wife who was made late for work by this incident. I broke no law of any substance, even though I was indeed in violation of arbitrary regulations that would never be on the books in a sane society – such as having an outdated license plate (i.e. failing to give more of my money to the government for no good reason).
Think about it more deeply. If a random person cannot randomly accost you and take your money (that is called theft in most places), neither can a cop who gets 100% of his authority from that random person. The law allowing this mini-tyrant to steal property from other people is tyrannical, oppressive, and unjust. The law be damned! The servile line-toers and enforcers of the law be damned as well!
In situations like these, the people I am with always get mad at me and tell me to calm down instead of getting indignant at the unjust tyranny-enforcer (they must not be fond of me calling police “parasites” and describing, in so many words, why public execution of tyrants should be brought back. It made me even angrier to think that, at that very moment, I had a pocket Constitution and Declaration of Independence in my pocket, but that it is not recognized in this banana republic). My blood can’t help but boil because I understand my rights, I know what tyranny is when I see it, and I am not one of those of whom Thomas Jefferson said “all timid men . . . prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty” (Thomas Jefferson to Philip Mazzei, April 24, 1796).
I am not a timid man and I curse the timid who comply, submit, and slavishly follow those in so-called “authority.” If only they knew it, these bootlickers are the true sovereigns who hold every ounce of power and authority that those in uniform hold on loan from them. In a coming day, there will be confrontation between those with legitimate authority – that is, the People – and the usurpers of all stripes, whether they be local police, IRS agents, federal judges, presidents, senators, or Kathy on the schoolboard. Tyrants will be hurled down from their false thrones. They will be humbled. Their corrupt temple of lies and infamy will be demolished. The tree of Liberty will be nourished once more with the blood of traitors.
Revolutionary patriot James Otis was a fiery figure who rebuffed the British government for its usurpations and oppression. In one article, he took off the gloves and stated the qualities of a true patriot and representative of the People and what we should do when our rights are trampled:
“Integrity, with a sincere love for liberty & the British constitution, are also absolutely necessary; without integrity you cannot rely on his wisdom or abilities, and without a regard for liberty and the British constitution, he may value his own interest before that of his country; such a man will be always unfit to represent a free people, as he will be liable to yield to bribery of one kind or other, and sacrifice the public good to his private emolument, whenever he shall be tempted. Prudence and fortitude are likewise essential; if he has not prudence he may needlessly irritate your enemies; if he has not fortitude he may timidly give up your just Rights. There is however no character so dangerous to liberty as the man of prudence. You may possibly be right, but at this juncture it is not prudent to insist upon it, is the language of artful courtiers, and has done more hurt than can well be imagined. When our rights are invaded, it is high time to throw aside prudence, and believe me my countrymen, he is not worthy your suffrages who on such an occasion wou’d prudently resign them for the sake of peace. He that is afraid to speak his mind, and is for suffering injury, injustice or oppression, rather than disturb public tranquility or more properly dangerous security, is not to be confided in; for it is always safer to oppose any the least infraction of our happy constitution, than prudently to acquiesce for the preservation of peace. He that does not know ambition as well as avarice in rulers is never satisfied, and to yield in the material point only makes way for another, and so on till there is no more to give, must be a novice indeed; and he that knowing this, still persists to act on maxims of prudence, where our charter rights are concerned, is no better than a traitor to his country. A free government never degenerated into tyranny all at once, it is the work of years. There is nothing however will in the end more surely work the destruction of liberty, than a prevailing opinion that it is better tamely to submit than nobly assert and vindicate our priviledges. Prudence is necessary and only desirable to temper his conduct, and preserve him from ill timed and over heated zeal, in affairs of little or no moment, and which cannot affect the constitution: but he that is constantly preaching up this doctrine as suitable on all occasions is not to be trusted; as by that means he may ignorantly if not willfully betray your rights, and resign them into the hands of such men as are watching for your destruction” (James Otis, April 27, 1767).
Dear reader, our rights are being invaded daily by oath-breakers, usurpers, and totalitarians. War is being waged against us. Governments in all lands have exceeded their mandate, violated the rights of their citizens, and lord over people as if they have a natural right to rule them. Shackles are being fastened on our wrists. Our pocketbooks are being systematically robbed in what Frederic Bastiat called “legal plunder.” In fact, he observed: “The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!”
Yes, police play a crucial role in the march of tyranny. If police refused to enforce unjust laws, there would be no unjust laws. It would be as if they didn’t exist and the People would remain free. Yet, police have, by and large, sided with the enemy. They, like the sad example of a man who legally robbed me today, have chosen the path of power over others instead of the Liberty wherewith the Lord has made us free. All of this evil, including legalized plunder, enslavement of populations, and literal genocide, is being perpetrated against our world by a cult of criminals and their gaggle of local power-hungry enforcers. Are you ready yet to cast aside prudence?
When will we rise? When will the slaves rise up against their masters? We virtue signal and say that slavery is wrong, but our actions show that we don’t really believe it. If we did, we would rebel at the creeping attempt by usurpers to shackle us economically, politically, and spiritually. Slavery is evil no matter whether it is Jews in Israel enslaving Eastern European women or Europeans enslaving blacks or Africans enslaving Africans or Arabs enslaving white women or Thai people enslaving each other or Mexican cartels enslaving children and trafficking them across the open U.S. border or governments enslaving their peoples from China to Australia to Chile to France. It’s all the same and it’s wrong.
This corrupt temple will be cleansed. Will you help cleanse it or will you timidly go along with the lies that police and governments can do whatever they want, that they have authority over you, and that they submitting to them is a virtue? If parasitic police stealing your money based on asinine traffic violations that have no modicum of justice and legitimate authority to support them makes you angry, it should! Get angry! Our rights are being invaded, restricted, and deleted on a daily basis. It must end. But it will only end when those with legitimate authority – that is, you – care enough to stand up and fight.
“Let the people, the whole American people, rise up and say they will have these abuses regulated, and no longer suffer political demagogues to gamble away their money, but turn them out of office to attend to their own business. Let the people make a whip, if not of good tough rawhide, of small cords at least, and walk into the temple of the nation, and cleanse it thoroughly out, and put in men who will legislate for their good, instead of gambling away their money and trifling with the sacred interests of the nation which have been entrusted to their keeping.” – Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, 13-14, July 4, 1854.
One day, the lights will go off, the news will stop broadcasting, gas pumps will cease to function, the highways will bog down and become impassable, trucks will stop delivering food, food will vanish from store shelves, police will stop arresting criminals, law and order will collapse, mobs and gangs will own the streets, bullets and bombs with explode with fury, mushroom clouds will be seen where once stood great cities and military bases, and panic will be palpable in the air. Many people roll their eyes at this type of warning. “It can never happen here,” they boast. Oh, but it can. And it will.
Not only can it happen here, but many of the items on the list have already happened at various times. In our history, we have been invaded by foreign foes, rocked by civil war, endured uprisings, watched as cities were burned by Marxist thugs, lived through a great depression, participated in two world wars, suffered droughts, floods, severe blizzards, and myriad natural disasters, weathered terror attacks and false flags, lived through plagues both real and fictitious, witnessed presidential assassinations, rigged elections, and de facto coups, seen mass roundups of dissidents and other innocent people, and so forth. To say “It can’t happen here” is one of the most asinine and ignorant statements a person could ever utter.
Furthermore, America is considered the “main enemy” of the communist regimes in Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and beyond. They and their Western allies – traitors in our own government, on Wall Street, in Hollywood, and in every stratum of society – have devoted their lives to collapsing the United States and drawing us into a Bolshevist-style high-tech feudalism. Wicked individuals like George Soros have publicly pledged to destroy America and pour billions of dollars into the coffers of militant groups, judges, politicians, media personalities, think tanks, perverse movements that undermine healthy and moral culture, and so forth.
The amalgam of foreign communists, treasonous Americans of socialist and radical bents, and internationalist organizations from the Bank of International Settlements to the United Nations to the World Economic Forum to Apple to Amazon to BlackRock, is determined to erode, collapse, and conquer the United States. This clique of Luciferian, Kabbalistic gangsters will use any and all means to accomplish their goal, just as they have done in Russia, China, Venezuela, and beyond.
This criminal cult has already unleashed a virus on humanity and used it as a pretext to inject billions of human beings with a dangerous bioweapon. Vaccines are unscientific, based on a false premise, inherently dangerous in principle, and have a suppressed history of carnage rivaled in scope and sadism only by the butchery of communism in Soviet Russia and Red China and the global genocide of the unborn we call abortion. However, the COVID-19 bioweapon is beyond the pale and has already resulted in millions of deaths worldwide – 12 million according to vaccine researcher Steve Kirsch. To think that the same jackals who did this to us won’t take it a step farther and deliberately implode the economy, create a civil conflagration, and start a world war, is utterly insane.
It doesn’t matter if you call me a “conspiracy theorist” or think I’m deranged or alarmist. Such labels are used by the puerile and unthinking and mean nothing. How will you feel when you have to kill and eat your neighbor just to survive? Will you remember me as a “conspiracy theorist” when that dreadful day comes? When you lose everything and have to flee your home in terror, what will all your dismissals and contempt mean then?
Don’t be foolish. Don’t be prideful. Don’t be stubborn. Prepare now. You still have a little time if you begin today. The first thing you need to do is take stock of your current situation. Be realistic. Look in your pantry and see how much food you have. How long would it keep your family alive? One week? Two? A month? Is it enough? Likely it is not sufficient to keep you alive for any significant time or through any extended global crisis. The question, then, is what are you going to do about it?
Food storage is an imperative. You must get a food storage. You need more than the two-week supply most people recommend. That’s peanuts. I recommend at least a one-year supply of food, water, and other essentials.
Some people think this is extreme or not even possible. I assure you it is absolutely possible. I did it as a broke college student working part time and barely scraping by. Don’t tell me you can’t do it. That is an excuse. That is defeatism. You might as well curl up in a ball on the floor and cry if you are not willing to go the extra mile, shift around your priorities, and sacrifice in order to save your family.
As to the types of foods you should store, I leave it to your judgment. However, start with the staples. Begin not with the luxury items, goodies, or extras, but with rice and beans – those foods that sustain life. You may not routinely eat rice and beans, but you will be grateful for them in a crisis. Ideally, you would store the food you normally eat, but when you are first beginning, it’s more important to have something – anything – to fill your bellies.
Perhaps more importantly, you need water. It is not feasible for many people to have a one-year supply of water on hand. However, you can acquire water filtration devices, drops, and tablets fairly inexpensively. Get a Sawyer Mini or a LifeStraw. They are portable, lightweight, and can filter hundreds of gallons of water. If you say you can’t afford one, I reply that you can’t afford not to have one. If you have private property, dig a well, set up a system to catch rain, or simply buy rain barrels. You can’t live without water, so if you don’t like my suggestions, figure it out for yourself as soon as possible. Water and food should jointly be your top priority.
You also need warm clothing. Depending on where you live, this is an absolute necessity. A warm coat, boots, gloves, hat, scarf, and so forth. You need to have them. You also must have a source of warmth, whether fire, portable heaters, a power generator, extra layers, etc. You likely won’t survive a hard winter in a grid-down situation without having prepared in advance to keep yourself warm. You should likewise have a go-bag – or multiple – stashed at home and in your car that contain basic survival elements, including a way to keep warm.
You also need fuel to heat food, your shelter, and yourself. As with water, it might not be practicable for most to have a massive supply of kerosene, propane, or gasoline. However, you can have a solar power generator, wood, hydro-electric energy, and other means. It might seem expensive to get a nice generator, but what is the alternative? Sort out a source of fuel for your family.
Another extremely crucial aspect of preparedness is relocation. If you live in a huge city, good luck getting out in a crisis. If you manage to escape via the unpassable highways and the gangs and mobs, you will still have the challenge of getting to a safe location. It would be infinitely better for you to already be in your chosen safe haven when the crap hits the fan. Make the sacrifice to relocate now when we still have relative stability. Buy some property. Put in an infrastructure if possible. Start planting trees, berry bushes, and crops that can sustain you one day. It takes a lot of work to set up a viable retreat location, so start ASAP. Most importantly, get out of the major metro areas, away from high populations, and away from military bases and strategic military targets. The Intermountain West – Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Montana, and parts of surrounding states – is the prime location. Heartland America generally, from the Black Hills to the Ozarks, will be far safer than anywhere on the coasts or border areas. Stay rural. Live near and network with traditional, upright, patriotic folks with a survival mindset.
Next, begin to acquire survival skills. This includes things such as gardening, harvesting, sewing, hunting, butchering meat, canning food, preserving seeds, sprouting and making bread, starting fires, felling trees, small engine/machine repair, carpentry, first aid, shooting practice, HAM radio prowess, community networking, leadership, etc. There is a reason why Samuel Adams emphasized the need for experienced patriots who could step forward in a crisis and save our country. You can’t learn all of this overnight. Start today.
Having a means of self-defense is also crucial. As with the specific types of food you should store, I leave it to you to decide. However, the AR platform is the standard. Have a small, concealable firearm, but also have something with more utility in a war. Whatever weapons you choose to place in your arsenal, you must train with them. It does no good to have a fancy new semi-automatic rifle if you have never fired rounds through it, practiced with it, and hefted it around in a training scenario. Firearms are Liberty’s teeth – let’s bear them proudly.
Finally, and most importantly, you need God in your life. Just as guns are useless without training, all of the above is futile without a relationship with your Savior Jesus Christ. Atheists and irreligionists won’t save America. Yet, even non-Christians can still be a benefit to their fellow man by adhering to natural law principles, the precepts of universal morality, and the Golden Rule of conduct. However, the only true course of safety – particularly in this special land of covenant – is in following the Lord Jesus Christ. Develop discernment. Learn spiritual communication. And begin to heed the whisperings of the Spirit and conscience.
In closing, let me bluntly say that an unprepared patriot is no patriot at all. How can you lecture anyone on the problems we face if you aren’t prepared to face them or, as a minimum, you aren’t actively working towards self-sufficiency and a state of preparedness? What kind of leader can you be if your family will starve within days of any major crisis or if you are stuck in a city with no escape plan? You must put your own house in order first before trying to cousel others.
Today is the day to prepare. You still have time. The nuclear bombs have not fallen yet. The dollar has not totally collapsed. Russian tanks have not yet rolled over the Polish border. The U.S. Constitution has not been formally thrown out. Americans have not yet been disarmed. But all of this is coming and we must prepare to thwart it, save our families, and put ourselves in a position to be leaders who can help reorganize, rebuild, and restore society after its engineered collapse. You may disregard these heartfelt warnings, but when it all comes true and your world crumbles around you, don’t pretend no one warned you.
America is different from every other nation under the sun for a multitude of reasons. We are exceptional, special, and unique. This is not pride speaking; it is fact. One of the ways we are different is that in America the People are sovereign. In other words, regnat populus – the People rule.
Many nations have paid lip service to the idea of the People ruling. In ancient Greece, democracy was a cherished value. Unfortunately, democracy is also one of the most corrupt, unstable, and volatile systems ever devised. In this system, the People rule, but with no regard for law, morality, or fundamental rights.
In America, however, even the democratic notion of the People ruling is unique. Though the People in fact rule, the law is king. The People merely recognized the superseding rule of natural law. This is what the Declaration of Independence stated in clear terms when it mentioned “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” It further specified some of the rights included in natural law in these words:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
The truest sovereignty of the People, then, is to recognize the natural law, to erect a government that secures and defends these natural law rights, and to ensure that the government perfectly and perpetually defends our unalienable. We again quote from the Declaration about the People’s sovereign relationship to government and the purpose of government:
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
This paragraph explains that the sole purpose of government is to secure rights (i.e. natural law). When government fails to defend, protect, and guarantee Liberty, the People, who are sovereign according to natural law, have not only a right, but a duty, to alter, abolish, or overthrow said government and establish new systems for safeguarding their rights. In other words, the People rule.
The People, who rule within the confines of natural law and human rights, are the masters. They elect representatives. They rescind representatives. By this representative method, the People control – they approve or reject – everything that happens.
Samuel Adams explained the preeminence of natural law in the affairs of men:
“Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First, a right to life; secondly to liberty; thirdly to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.
“All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they please. And in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and enter into another.
“When men enter into society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions, and previous limitations as form an equitable original compact.
“Every natural right not expressly given up or from the nature of a social compact necessarily ceded remains.
“All positive and civil laws, should conform as far as possible, to the law of natural reason and equity. . . .
““Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty” in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all men are clearly entitled to, by the eternal and immutable laws of God and nature, as well as by the law of nations, and all well-grounded municipal laws, which must have their foundation in the former. . . .
“The natural liberty of men by entering into society is abridged or restrained so far only as is necessary for the great end of society, the best good of the whole.
“In the state of nature, every man is, under God, judge and sole judge of his own rights and the injuries done him. By entering into society, he agrees to an arbiter or indifferent judge between him and his neighbors; but he no more renounces his original right, than by taking a cause out of the ordinary course of law, and leaving the decision to referees or indifferent arbitrations. . . .
“In short it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights, when the great end of civil government from the very nature of its institution is for the support, protection, and defense of those very rights: the principal of which… are life, liberty, and property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave” (Samuel Adams, “The Rights of the Colonists,” November, 20, 1772).
This explanation makes it clear that, at birth, humans have “certain unalienable Rights,” and that these cannot be renounced or justifiably taken away. Only violating another person’s equal rights allows a government to strip you of your own. Otherwise, the law of nature leaves you sovereign. People generally group together in groups, societies, and governments, however. In this arrangement, the sovereign individual agrees to go along with the group in return for the collective protection of his rights, including his right to life, Liberty, property, and self-defense.
While in a state of society that protects their God-given rights, people agree to go along with the will of the majority. Please carefully note what I said and did not say. I did not say that people are bound in all cases to do what the majority says. And I did say that People are bound by majority rule only while protected in their rights. After all, this is the stated purpose of government. If the pact is violated, it dissolves and the individual is again sovereign and the voice of the majority means exactly squat.
If a society is just and defends the rights of its citizens, then truly the People rule and the majority’s voice prevails. Thomas Jefferson explained this point endlessly, stating such things as:
“Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of self-government. They receive it with their being from the hand of nature. Individuals exercise it by their single will; collections of men by that of their majority; for the law of the majority is the natural law of every society of men” (Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on Residence Bill, 1790).
“I subscribe to the principle, that the will of the majority honestly expressed should give law” (Thomas Jefferson, The Anas, 1793).
“The will of the people… is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object” (Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waring, 1801).
“[T]hat peace, safety, & concord may be the portion of our native land, & be long enjoyed by our fellow citizens, is the most ardent wish of my heart; & if I can be instrumental in procuring or preserving them, I shall think I have not lived in vain. in every country where man is free to think & to speak, differences of opinion will arise from difference of perception, & the imperfection of reason. but these differences, when permitted, as in this happy country, to purify themselves by free discussion, are but as passing clouds overshadowing our land transiently, & leaving our horizon more bright & serene. that love of order & obedience to the laws, which so considerably characterizes the citizens of the United States, are sure pledges of internal tranquility, and the elective franchise, if guarded as the ark of our safety, will peaceably dissipate all combinations to subvert1 a constitution dictated by the wisdom, & resting on the will of the people. that will is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect it’s free expression should be our first object. I offer my sincere prayers to the supreme ruler of the universe, that he may long preserve our country in freedom & prosperity, and to yourselves, gentlemen, & the citizens of Columbia & it’s vicinity the assurances of my profound consideration & respect” (Thomas Jefferson to the citizens of Columbia, South Carolina, March 23, 1801).
“It is my principle that the will of the majority should prevail. If they approve the proposed constitution in all its parts, I shall concur in it cheerfully, in hopes that they will amend it whenever they shall find it works wrong. This reliance cannot deceive us, as long as we remain virtuous” (Thomas Jefferson to Uriah Forrest, December 31, 1787).
The fact that majority rule only works when the People are virtuous will be touched upon later. The point, however, is that government must operate by common consent and the will of the majority must prevail. That is the only basis of a sane and fair government.
Jefferson also explained that though the voice of the majority is to be respected when just, the minority must also be protected or else tyranny exists.
“[T]his being now decided by the voice of the nation, announced according to the rules of the Constitution, all will, of course, arrange themselves under the will of the law, and unite in common efforts for the common good. All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression” (Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801).
“I believe with you that morality, compassion generosity are innate elements of the human construction; that there exists a right independant of force; that a right to property is founded1 in our natural wants, in the means with which we are endowed to satisfy these wants, and the right to what we acquire by those means without violating the similar rights of other sensible beings; that no one has a right to obstruct another, exercising his faculties innocently for the relief of sensibilities made a part of his nature; that justice is the fundamental law of society; that the majority, oppressing an individual is guilty of a crime, abuses it’s strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society; that action by the citizens in person, in affairs within their reach and competence, and in all others by representatives, chosen immediately, & removable, by themselves, constitutes the essence of a republic; that all governments are more or less republican in proportion as this principle enters more or less into their composition; and that a government by representation is capable of extension over a greater surface of country than one of any other form” (Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816).
I couldn’t resist sharing the larger context that these quotes came from because of the wisdom demonstrated in them. The key, however, is that the will of the majority must be rightful; that is, in accordance with natural law and God-given rights. If the will and voice of the majority does not uphold the rights of all members of the society, it is inherently unjust, inherently contradicts the natural law, and breaks the pact that society is based upon. In this sense, and this sense alone, do the People rule.
The mere fact that the People have a right, and a duty, to overthrow government when it becomes corrupt and when it begins trampling our natural rights, establishes their preeminent position. The majority, then, should take both credit and blame for the good and bad that happens in the society they rule. And if they claim they don’t rule it, that is a preposterous fiction and demonstrates either their lack of will or understanding.
What happens in a regnat populus society when the majority acquiesces to the abuses of a despotic minority? What happens when the majority turns to wickedness and immorality? What happens when the majority become ignorant or otherwise incompetent? Turn on the news and you will see exactly what happens – despite wise checks and balances in the most brilliant constitutional system ever created – when the People becomes ignorant, incompetent, immoral, wicked, and acquiescent with evil.
The People rule, so their default state must be competent, wise, manly, reasonable, just, disciplined, informed, and virtuous. How can a group composed of individuals who can’t govern themselves be expected to govern a vast society? It is impossible. An influential Founding Father who has largely been forgotten, Caleb Strong of Massachusetts, gave us this thought:
“[W]e are generally apt to ascribe too much to the efficacy of laws and government, as if they alone could secure the happiness of the people; but no laws will be sufficient to counteract the influence of manners which are corrupted by vice and voluptuousness; and it is beyond the power of any government to render the circumstances of the citizens easy and prosperous, if they want the habits of industry and frugality. – Government is necessary, to preserve the public peace, the persons and property of individuals; but our social happiness must chiefly depend upon other causes; upon simplicity and purity of manners; upon the education that we give our children; upon a steady adherence to the customs and institutions of our ancestors; upon the general diffusion of knowledge, and the prevalence of piety and benevolent affections among the people.
“Our forms of government, are, doubtless, like all other institutions, imperfect; but they will secure the blessings of freedom to the citizens, and preserve their tranquility, as long as they are virtuous; and no constitution, that has been, or can be formed, will secure those blessings to a depraved and vicious people.”
We see this playing out in America today. The U.S. Constitution is beautifully written and is still the nearest to perfect political document that exists anywhere. It has secured more rights to more people than any system ever has and it has produced the strongest and most prosperous society that has ever existed. Yet, it is still just a piece of paper. The key of it all is the fact that the People rule. But what do they rule? First and foremost, they rule themselves.
The American People are still generally good-hearted folks. However, in the past, our ancestors were exponentially more virtuous, pious, godly, religious, selfless, disciplined, upright, honest, honorable, knowledgeable, self-governing, self-sufficient, independent, loyal, competent, courageous, and Christian than we are today. Because they ruled themselves more proficiently and mastered their passions and vices better than we do, there was no necessity for a bloated bureaucracy and sprawling government to interfere in every aspect of our lives.
Principled, upright, respectable regnat populus is only possible when the People are principled, upright, and respectable. Benjamin Franklin wisely observed: “[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters” (Benjamin Franklin to Abbes Chalut and Arnoux, April 17, 1787).
Do we need masters today? Do we need someone to saddle us, put a bit in our mouth, and command us? Do we need to be dominated, kicked around, and made to comply with this or that because we’re too weak, ignorant, or inept to do it for ourselves? Unless we are virtuous and moral as individuals and as a society, we are precisely those “corrupt and vicious” serfs who “have more need of masters.”
Thomas Jefferson once offered this word of hope regarding the great American experiment that we are betraying in 21st-Century America:
“The kind invitation I receive from you on the part of the citizens of the city of Washington, to be present with them at their celebration of the 50th. anniversary of American independance; as one of the surviving signers of an instrument pregnant with our own, and the fate of the world, is most flattering to myself, and heightened by the honorable accompaniment proposed for the comfort of such a journey. it adds sensibly to the sufferings of sickness, to be deprived by it of a personal participation in the rejoicings of that day. but acquiescence is a duty, under circumstances not placed among those we are permitted to controul. I should, indeed, with peculiar delight, have met and exchanged there congratulations personally with the small band, the remnant of that host of worthies, who joined with us on that day, in the bold and doubtful election we were to make for our country, between submission or the sword; and to have enjoyed with them the consolatory fact, that our fellow citizens, after half a century of experience and prosperity, continue to approve the choice we made. may it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the Signal of arousing men to burst the chains, under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings & security of self-government. that form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. all eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. the general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view. the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of god. these are grounds of hope for others. for ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them” (Thomas Jefferson to Roger Weightman, June 24, 1826).
This was one of the last things Thomas Jefferson ever wrote in this world. He passed on into immortal exaltation only ten days later. He graduated from this life with the hope and satisfaction that America presented the world with a shining example; that everyone could now see the contrast between a people ruled by kings and tyrants and a society where the People rule.
The Sage knew that no race or group was born to be enslaved or lorded over just as no group was born to rule. The only legitimate right of rule rests with the People in their sovereign capacity acting in accordance with natural law and the rights inherent in all human beings. The choice in 1776 was the same choice before us today – the choice “between submission or the sword.”
We must either timidly submit before the throne of tyranny or we must fight for our rights as freemen. Being true freemen, however, requires us to exercise self-rule. Regnat populus is utterly impossible unless we humble ourselves before God, rid ourselves of vice, and become an honest, honorable, and moral People again. The place where the battle is the fiercest and the most decisive is in our own hearts and minds.
I urge you to draw the sword of the Spirit and fight in the chamber of your soul against corrupt ideas, intellectual dishonesty, immorality in all its horrid hues, seedy infidelity, disloyalty to spouse or heritage or country, lack of conviction disguised as “tolerance,” laziness of body and mind, identity-eroding scientific bastardizations like Darwinian evolution, soul-destroying vices like drugs, porn, and 24/7 social media use, false intellectualism instead of indomitable faith, and enslaving philosophies like communism-socialism.
Regnat populus is right and just, but it is only wishful thinking unless each of us steps up and becomes more than we currently are. We must be better, do better, and live better. We must repent, change our bad habits, and replace vices with virtues. We must forsake decadence and dirtiness for holiness and purity. We must exercise self-rule, self-discipline, and self-control if we ever hope to take control of a society built upon the novel notion that the People rule.
Regnat populus is only the motto of one state in the Union, Arkansas, but it is unofficially the slogan of America. Our exceptional nation was founded on the idea that the People rule, that the law is king, and that the rule of kings and tyrants was an obsolete aberration of the natural law.
At the present, we are diving headlong backward into the abyss of vice with its corresponding rule of tyrants. But this fall is not set in stone. Yes, we have an uphill battle and blood that will be shed, but we can still restore the Republic, recreate America, and establish a constitutional system that will secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity. It is our right to do so and it our privilege to be a part of the fight.
Win the fight in your mind and in your heart and you will be an effective asset in the battle for America. Live a life a virtue and you can buck the would-be masters who are attempting to ride you like dumb cattle. Rise up against tyrants and in the holy cause of Freedom per your heritage as an America. If you do this, if enough of us become principled patriots, we may once again institute regnat populus as the rule of the day and bear off our country triumphant.
The terminology we use is important. Words possess real power. Language can destroy or build, tear down or uplift, divide or unite, disenfranchise or empower, and demoralize or inspire.
The enemies of humanity have devoted an extreme amount of time and financial resources to hijacking, manipulating, misusing, canceling, and altering language. By this means, they have denounced patriots as traitors and trumpeted traitors as patriots, blamed the guiltless for their own crimes while making themselves appear innocent, and made good seem evil and evil seem good.
In 2018, Benjamin R. Dierker, writing for The Federalist, put out a piece discussing the effort to mold language to push the anti-Freedom agenda and fundamentally transform society:
“Word games take many forms, and honest people must call it out . . . Underlying each tactic is misuse of words.
“This isn’t innocent linguistic drift or slang; it is a conscious effort to reshape society. The schemes include redefining words for personal gain, using modifiers to alter the meaning of a word, replacing technical words with colloquial ones, and creating new words. Each of these is a bullying tactic, which distort effective discourse.
“It starts with misusing words or defining them based on circumstance rather than objective meaning. The entire purpose of defined language is to hold constant meaning so others can understand. Situational use starts to condition how people feel about words, building up a new connotation.
“The classic example is the word “liberal,” which the far-left co-opted. It was adopted because of its positive connotation, and used as a cover for imposing greater leftist control under the guise of liberty. In reality, there is nothing liberal about failing to protect life, burdening individuals with regulations and taxes, or forcing individuals to provide services to others. This is no accidental misnomer, but strategic messaging to influence people. Who doesn’t want to support a policy that is “progressive,” “pro-choice,” or “affordable”?
“When the word cannot be flipped, other words are sometimes added to suggest a new meaning. In the case of firearms, the new popular phrase is “assault rifle.” Webster’s Dictionary was happy to update its definition to help nudge society in the right direction. The effect is a stronger connotation, which plays on people’s emotion and visceral reactions to the phrase. . . .
“Wholly disassociating words from their accepted meaning opened an entirely new realm of possibility for leftists. By separating gender from sex, linguistic activists tore the very fabric of mutual understanding, and created a new class of victims, and by definition, a new class of offenders. Pronouns, the simplest way to identify another party, are now subject to feelings.
“Defining words on subjective views defeats the purpose of language, because it creates an endless guessing game, and empowers the other party to choose when to reward and when to punish the speaker. By sabotaging the accepted unity of sex and gender, dozens of new pronouns sprang into existence.
“New words do not harm discourse, unless they are thrust upon people and enforced through speech codes. Controlling how people speak is the implicit goal of this movement, which combined with anti-hate-speech activism seeks to empower the Left as the arbiters of morality and to punish those who wrongfully use language—ironically, achieved by abusing language themselves.”
We can all inherently see how dangerous it is to subject words to feelings and substitute the rule of law with the rule of men – madmen. The inmates are running the asylum, but they got into that position by first getting into your mind and changing your thoughts, vocabulary, and forms of expression. To break their spell, you must take back the English language, learn how to effectively communicate, discard the ludicrous definitions and linguistic straitjacket they have imposed on public discourse, and speak truth regardless of whether it is politically incorrect, socially accepted, or considered “offensive” by the social engineers and their brainwashed followers.
We now analyze other examples of the intentional linguistic distortions that have been used so regularly by the controlled press, Hollywood, academia, activists, and politicians that they have warped popular culture and indoctrinated millions.
The anti-gun radicals are busy in Congress, the courts, and media denouncing our natural, God-given, constitutionally-explicit right to keep and bear arms as at attack on the right of life. Yet, these same anti-gun activists are generally pro-abortion, which is a blatant and brutal attack on the right of life. The hypocrisy is stunning!
To establish the hypocrisy, I quote from Democrat Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal. During debate on an assault weapons ban currently in Congress, Jayapal whined:
“Mr. Chairman, my colleague across the aisle said we have the right to defend ourselves. What about our right to live? . . . [An assault weapons ban] is a ban that the majority of Americans support . . . Today, I dare my Republican colleagues to stop looking away. Stop ignoring the tragedy that is faced by people across this country . . . It is our duty to stop these killings . . . So, for every person who says I have a right to defend, I say to you, we have a right to life. And your right to defend with a weapon of war does not obliterate our right to live.”
This is the same demonic traitor who previously Tweeted:
“Today, a right-wing Supreme Court overturned the right to abortion established in Roe v. Wade.
“As one of the one in four women in this country who has had an abortion — I am outraged. . . .
“Pregnant people no longer have the personal freedom to make decisions about our own bodies with a doctor or loved one. Instead, those decisions will be made for us by politicians.”
Do you see the vicious hypocrisy that a politician who wants to dictate how we defend ourselves complains that politicians are meddling with her “right” to kill kids? “I am outraged” that this wicked traitor hasn’t been, along with her Marxist comrades infesting our government, taken and strung up by the People for being oath-breakers and fighting so hard to trample the rights declared sacrosanct in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. Despicable.
These types of depraved baby killers have repeated ad nauseum the scientifically-disproven notion that babies are “clumps of cells” in the womb to ease their consciences about murdering them. They institutionally slaughter babies by the tens of millions, but come out in rage and indignation against guns; that is, against inanimate objects that are neither good nor evil, but are mere tools that can be used by good or evil people for good or evil purposes.
There is no mention by the rights-devouring jackals of the inconvenient fact that guns are used by innocent Americans between 2 and 3 million times a year in self-defense against criminals. A great example just happened in Indiana on July 17 when the 22-year-old Elisjsha Dicken, who was constitutionally carrying a firearm in a pathetic gun-free mall defended himself, his girlfriend, and a room full of people, against a would-be mass murderer.
Which of the would-be victims in the mall that day will dare come out and denounce this young man or wish the government had stripped him of his firearm? Was the gun the bad guy in this scenario? Was is the good guy? Neither. Elisjsha, using a gun, saved countless lives. He was the good guy. The perpetrator, also using a gun, wanted to murder dozens. He was the bad guy. The gun, therefore, is neutral and has no inherent moral standing. It depends how it is used.
Abortion, however, is nearly always elective (i.e. medically unnecessary) and, thus, is predominantly evil. Not only can we justly attach a moral stigma to baby-murder, but the practice is a clear violation of the right of life we all are meant, by our Creator, to enjoy. The Declaration of Independence confirms that the right of life is one of the things our forefathers fought the War for Independence about.
Since 1776, it has been one of the express purposes of the U.S. government to defend the right of life of the People. Yet, the abortion activists screech that their “rights” are being violated when we attempt to prevent them from killing kids. In truth, they are the ones violating the right of life. It is not a violation of one’s free will to prevent them from taking the life of an innocent human being.
To further ease their screaming consciences about snuffing out the lives of defenseless babies, however, these radicals label their atrocities “pro-choice” and pretend that they are the real victims of oppression. They claim this disgusting act is a “right.” Yet, we can’t have both the right to life and the “right” to abortion because the two are contradictions. Only one is a right; the other is an abomination.
These baby killers have also said the despicable act is “liberating.” It takes serious mental gymnastics to believe that killing an innocent, precious child is “liberating.” The Satanic Temple has taken it a step further, however, elevating baby-murder to a “sacrament” and arguing it is a religious rite protected by the First Amendment. Not only is this the epitome of blasphemy, but it is a perversion of rule of law, the law of nature, and American-style republicanism.
Another term that should make you bristle is “government money.” The government has no money. In the first place, government is an agent of the People. They are elected and are accountable to us, not the other way around. That they may tax fairly and equally is constitutionally-established. But they have perverted this delegated power to tax and oversee money by establishing a privately-owned, foreign-controlled “national” bank deceptively called the Federal Reserve that prints and manipulates currency at will and by instituting graduated taxation straight out of The Communist Manifesto. The name “Federal Reserve” is another of those word manipulations since the Federal Reserve is not part of the federal government and since it has zero reserves.
The U.S. government, which the Federal Reserve has openly said it is not accountable to, is, with the central bank, the most fiscally irresponsible entity in existence and the United States now sits at nearly $31 trillion in the hole. Andrew Jackson fought and defeated this banker cabal in his day because he saw how dangerous it was to American sovereignty, prosperity, and Freedom. Jackson was a Jeffersonian in principle. The great Thomas Jefferson had previously opposed Hamilton’s Anglophile national bank scheme and warned that banks and reckless spending would plunge the nation into bondage:
“And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale” (Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, May 28, 1816).
We also err when we talk of the U.S. dollar as “money.” It is not money. It is fiat paper currency backed by nothing but false hope and empty promises. It is not backed by gold or silver as the U.S. Constitution requires. Our economy is a house of cards that is beginning to implode because it is based on paper instead of something of substance. Thomas Jefferson said of paper money:
“The bankruptcies in London have recommenced with new force. There is no saying where this fire will end. Perhaps in the general conflagration of all their paper. If not now, it must ere long. With only 20 millions of coin, and three or four hundred million of circulating paper, public and private, nothing is necessary but a general panic, produced either by failures, invasion or any other cause, and the whole visionary fabric vanishes into air and shews that paper is poverty, that it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself” (Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, May 27, 1788).
The Father of our Country, George Washington, was also opposed to fictitious paper money, telling Thomas Jefferson in a letter:
“Some other States are, in my opinion, falling into very foolish & wicked plans of emitting paper money. I cannot however give up my hopes & expectations that we shall ere long adopt a more liberal system of policy. What circumstances will lead, or what misfortunes will compel us to it, is more than can be told without the spirit of prophecy” (George Washington to Thomas Jefferson, August 1, 1786).
A short six months later, General Washington wrote even more bluntly to Jabez Bowen:
Despite the death spiral our ghost of an economy is in, the current regime continues to say all is well and that we have the strongest economy on record. What a lie! Everyone knows this is false. Everyone sees the massive price increases at the grocery store. Everyone feels the stab of inflation at the pumps. Everyone knows it is a lie, yet the lies persist and the People accept it; grudgingly, to be sure, but they accept it nonetheless and refuse to rise up against the tyrants who have hijacked our nation.
Among the many lies told by our government and media is the whopper that vaccines are “safe and effective.” Everyone who has taken the time to study the matter knows that no vaccine is safe, that vaccines have never eradicated any disease, and that the damage done by vaccines to humanity in the form of cancer, brain damage, autism, allergies, miscarriages, Sudden Instant Death Syndrome (SIDS), kidney failure, autoimmune disorders, heart attacks, and so forth, is nothing short of deliberate genocide. Vaccine science is Satanic science. This vaccination voodoo is complete and utter hokum.
To cite only six excellent researchers who have exposed the corruption of the vaccine industry and the grave danger of vaccines, see Dr. Suzanne Humphries and her excellent book Dissolving Illusions, Dr. Judy Mikovits and her book Ending Plague, Dr. Sheri Tenpenny, Dr. Joseph Mercola, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, and Dr. Thomas Cowan and his book Vaccines, Autoimmunity, and the Changing Nature of Childhood Illness as well as the research of the Weston A. Price Foundation to which he belongs.
The Coronahoax was the ultimate in gaslighting and deception. First, the Trump government said “two weeks to stop the spread.” Never forget it was a Republican regime that locked down America and started the mass vaccine genocide program. Then the regime and state governments used the momentum to shut down the country, destroy travel, derail the economy, smash the middle class, curtail religious Liberty, suspend the Constitution, unconstitutionally expand the size of government, convince people to inhibit their oxygen by strapping ineffective masks over their faces, and terrify millions into getting an experimental vaccine that has since terminated the lives of tens of thousands of people and crippled countless more. If you take nothing else out of this article, take away a healthy skepticism of Big Pharma, the medical-industrial complex, and doctors generally.
Two other common refrains are, first, that “you can be whatever you want to be” and, second, that “you are perfect just the way you are.” Both of these cheerful slogans are false and dangerous. Society has pushed the first one into the realm of mental illness. Transgenderism is a mental illness and it is symptomatic of the idea that we can be whatever we want to be. If we are a woman, we can be a man. If we are a man, we can be a woman. If we are a human, we can be a cat. Facts are fluid in minds that have accepted “you can be whatever you want to be” as doctrine instead of accepting the truth that men are men and women are women and that can never change regardless of all the cosmetic surgeries and hormone pills a person takes.
The second is wishful thinking. Is a morbidly obese person “perfect just the way they are”? Is “every body beautiful”? No! While beauty is subjective, doctors, nutritionists, and scientists can indeed objectively state that obesity is dangerous and unhealthy and that being fit and eating right is better for longevity, productiveness, health, and happiness. What is beautiful about blubber? What is attractive about laziness and uncleanness? A few extra pounds – who really cares? But living a slovenly, sedentary, comatose life is unhealthy, unproductive, unattractive, soul-sapping, and damaging to everyone.
Eating white refined sugar, regularly drinking soda, drinking alcohol, smoking, drinking psychoactive coffee, doing drugs, consuming GMO food, staring at a screen all day long, exposing yourself to harmful radiation, watching porn, sleeping around, cohabitating – these are all objectively damaging. If you are lazy, fat, unhealthy, sedentary, uneducated, uninvolved in society, undeveloped in your communication skills, immodest in your dress and language, and so forth, you are not “perfect just the way you are” and you need to shape up.
Another big lie is to call the horde of illegal invaders rushing across our southern border “undocumented aliens.” To be here without documents is, by definition. to be here illegally. To commit an illegal act means you have violated some law (whether that law is just is another matter). It means, legally speaking, you are a criminal. Why, then, do people allow the enemy to restrict their language – which is an essential part of their power as a free individual – and induce them to use insufficient words that downplay the seriousness of this crime?
Religious leader Elder Neal A. Maxwell once made a statement that applies to everything covered so far in this article and everything below. He observed truthfully:
“The more what is politically correct seeks to replace what God has declared correct, the more ineffective approaches to human problems there will be, all reminding us of C. S. Lewis’s metaphor about those who run around with fire extinguishers in times of flood. For instance, there are increasing numbers of victims of violence and crime, yet special attention is paid to the rights of criminals. Accompanying an ever increasing addiction to pornography are loud alarms against censorship. Rising illegitimacy destroys families and threatens the funding capacities of governments; nevertheless, chastity and fidelity are mocked. These and other consequences produce a harsh cacophony. When Nero fiddled as Rome burned, at least he made a little music! I have no hesitancy, brothers and sisters, in stating that unless checked, permissiveness, by the end of its journey, will cause humanity to stare in mute disbelief at its awful consequences.
Yes, the act of mutilating language beyond recognition and sense will aid us on our journey to hell and destruction. This is by design by the enemy of mankind and his willing minions which are strategically embedded in society.
The enemy loves to use buzz words to smear patriotic opposition to their Satanic schemes. Favorite smears include: Anti-Semite; Nazi; Fascist; racist; imperialist; jingoist; isolationist; nationalist; white supremacist; Christo-Fascist; KKK; homophobic; transphobic; bigot; intolerant; religious extremist; right-wing extremist; and domestic terrorist.
If you criticize communism, you are immediately labeled an “anti-Semite” and a “Nazi” (perhaps Shakespeare’s paraphrase “methinks thou dost protest too much” is applicable here; also, read what Winston Churchill said about who runs communism here). If you oppose the scourge of black crime in America, they call you a “racist” instead of a realist. If you oppose illegal immigration and drugs and sex slavers flooding across our southern border, they call you “racist” and claim you’re not compassionate – as if keeping the border wide open and encouraging people to make the long trek up to the States along which they will be raped, abused, kidnapped, extorted, or killed by drug cartels is “compassionate.” If you oppose foreign wars, they call you an “isolationist.” If you support intervention to stop criminal regimes abroad, they call you an “imperialist.” If you love America, they call you a “nationalist” – as if putting your country first a bad thing! If you oppose men or women betraying their biology, going against nature, and copulating with the same gender on either scientific or religious grounds, they call you “homophobic” and “hateful.” If you dare suggest that universal morality or, worse, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, have a place at the table in public discourse, schools, media, entertainment, or the halls of government, they call you a “religious extremist,” a “bigot,” or a “Christo-Fascist.” If you refuse to accept, embrace, and bow before the throne of evil, perversion, and collectivist tyranny, you are called “intolerant,” a “right-wing extremist,” or a “domestic terrorist.” So be it!
Wear the labels proudly, fellow freeman. Wear them as a badge of honor and as proof that your resistance to tyranny is having an effect. Don’t cower before the mindless mob. Don’t be afraid of outlandish and idiotic slurs like “racist” and “Nazi.” If opposing statism makes you a “Nazi,” so be it! Either rebuff the word-manipulators and their overused, tired, absurd smears or embrace them with the knowledge they have no meaning to intelligent people.
Heretofore, all of my criticisms have been leveled specifically at the Western language manglers. However, the East mastered the art of deception long before we did. KGB-trained dictator Vladimir Putin could teach a master class on manipulation. Russians have a history of always lying and deceiving. It’s part of their culture – political and otherwise. From Potemkin villages to Soviet forgery factories to Putin’s famous doublespeak, Russia is the ultimate master of manipulation and many of the destructive word and thought trends in America were imported from Russia by Soviet moles and agents of subversion.
And that’s what this all boils down to – communism. People often prefer the more ambiguous term “globalism,” but the agenda of the “globalists” is a savage form of socialism and corporatism patterned off of Bolshevistic communism in the Soviet Union. Lenin called the Western counterpart “state capitalism.” Whatever you call it, the Eastern and Western proponents are disciples of Karl Marx and the greater conspiracy that Marx was only one part of, which was once known as the Order of Illuminati.
J. Edgar Hoover once said that communists are the “masters of deceit” and wrote a book of the same title. In it, he said that recognizing communist trickery is one of the keys to thwarting communism. He explained:
“Communism is at war with America. The United States is a vast battlefield. A school, a labor union, a civic group, a government official, a private citizen — all are important in the never-ending struggle for power.
“The whole nation, to the communists, is a gigantic checker- board. The communist high command is constantly moving, jumping, switching, and retreating to get communist members in positions of influence. They are outnumbered; they know that. That is why they must depend on skill, maneuvering, and deception. . . .
“The strength of this inner circle, the real backbone of communist striking power, lies not in numbers but in organized deception. Following Lenin’s teachings, the Party is a small, compact, and highly mobile group that can strike quickly with great fury, often achieving objectives unwarranted by its numbers. Today’s membership is hard, well trained, and disciplined. The weak, fainthearted, and skeptical have been purged. Those who remain faithful to the Party are dedicated to the communist revolution” (Hoover, Masters of Deceit, 95, 97).
Organized deception, organized crime, organized evil – that’s what faces us. We have no united front against communism. We are disorganized and the communists take advantage of our lethargy, divisions, and ignorance to push us around and prompt us to destroy each other. Hijacking our language, and, thus, our minds, was crucial in this process. The communists could have never gained such stunning success without first having tapped into and manipulated our minds and psyches. They did it by gradually changing our language, by using media to make certain terms and ideas taboo, and by smearing all opposition with the absurd labels noted earlier.
The brainwashing (a Chinese term for communist indoctrination) of our population has been wildly successful, though millions of us are still grounded in truth and have the gift of discernment. A large section of our country, however, has been so propagandized that they now believe sex and gender are social constructs!
Earlier this month, Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary changed part of their definition of “female” to read: “having a gender identity that is the opposite of male.” Now, gender isn’t grounded in reality, biology, or science, it’s whatever you want it to be. Remember, “you can be whatever you want to be” – just as long as whatever fantasy you’ve concocted for yourself doesn’t lead you to oppose the relentless assault on Faith, Family, and Freedom by the communist conspiracy.
Choose to dissent from the crowd. Rise above the smears by ignoring them or embracing them. Let them call you a “Nazi” or a “racist” or an “extremist”; what does it matter what a communist calls you? These criminals have wrecked our nation and world, destroyed the global economy, set loose plagues and pushed vaccine genocide, have broken up our families, have snapped the American mind with lies and deceit, and are now trying to disarm us so they can unleash an orgy of death, destruction, and misery that will surpass the darkest days of the Soviet Union or Maoist China. Now is the time to heed John Adams’ plea:
“Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write. Let every order and degree among the people rouse their attention and animate their resolution. Let them all become attentive to the grounds and principles of government, ecclesiastical and civil. Let us study the law of nature; search into the spirit of the British constitution; read the histories of ancient ages; contemplate the great examples of Greece and Rome; set before us the conduct of our own British ancestors, who have defended for us the inherent rights of mankind against foreign and domestic tyrants and usurpers, against arbitrary kings and cruel priests, in short, against the gates of earth and hell. . . .
When we open the spigots of knowledge, learning, refinement, and education, we place ourselves in a position to effectively and articulately resist tyranny, to see through the fog of war, to discern between fact and fiction, and to persuade others to reject error and stand for truth boldly in the face of criticism. Let us be men of deep learning, sound principles, and moral rectitude. Let us pierce the web of lies and seize the truth. Let us win this war of words that we may win the battle for the American mind and, thus, effect another American Revolution that will open a golden age for humanity.
Akron, Ohio is on fire and under a state of emergency. People are up in arms about the shooting of Jayland Walker. Jayland Walker was just a poor, innocent, unarmed black boy driving from worship service to the hospital to donate a kidney for a local homeless man when racist cops in Klansman garb ran him down and shot him to death sixty times for no reason while cackling maniacally. That’s essentially what you would think if you were ignorant enough to still believe the mainstream media. The truth is that this narrative is pure garbage and Jayland Walker was no innocent choir boy.
The only part of the tale above that it is accurate is that Walker had about sixty bullet holes in his body. The examination has not concluded yet and it’s still unclear how many of these were entry wounds, exit wounds, and so forth. The question that is far more relevant, however, is why were police shooting at him at all? To this question, there is a clear and easy answer: Jayland Walker was a threat.
Walker was not driving home from church when he was shot. It hasn’t been established yet what he was doing, but we can assume it was nefarious because he was wearing a ski mask and he fired a shot at police. Let’s back up a second and put that into context.
The night before the fatal shooting, police had attempted to pull over Walker for a broken tail light, but he lost them in a chase. One news source reported:
“That same sedan caught the attention of a New Franklin police officer, who tried to stop the vehicle for having a broken taillight and license plate bulb as it left a Subway sandwich shop at about 2:30 a.m. Sunday. . . .
“The driver did not stop, but instead drove away on Manchester Road at speeds approaching 50 mph. The officer ended the chase in less than three minutes as the driver passed the Akron suburb’s border. The license plate came back to Walker, who worked as a food delivery driver for DoorDash.”
The report attempts to spin the story, yet the fact remains and has been reported numerous times that Walker’s car was involved in a police chase the night previous to the shooting. Was Wallker the driver? If not, who was? Considering what happened just one night later, however, it is safe to assume that Walker was the driver and that he was involved with something equally as illegal as the night he was shot.
Now, on to the fateful night. Just one night after the same vehicle evaded police, other officers spotted the broken tail light and attempted to pull the car over. Just as the night before, the car took officers on a chase. This time, however, as video footage shows, a shot was fired at the pursuing police car from the car attempting to flee. Police later discovered a bullet casing in the car, confirming the shot.
This shot changed everything. What could have been a routine traffic stop turned into a high-speech chase with shots fired. It was not police who escalated the situation. It was not police who fired first. Jayland Walker was the one who took police on a car chase. Jayland Walker was the one who fired his gun out the window at a police vehicle. He bears sole blame for this situation.
At one point in the chase, police get near the car which slowed to a roll. As they approach, Jayland Walker jumps out of the passenger side of the moving car. As Walker jumped out of the window of a moving car, he was wearing a ski mask. Who wears a ski mask in July? And who does it while on a high-speed chase with the police? And who wears one while firing at the cops? A criminal does.
As Walker, ski mask and all, began running, police yelled at him to stop. He didn’t. Two police fired tasers at him, but missed. Still more orders to stop followed. Finally, after a ten-second foot chase, Walker suddenly wheeled around toward officers – the same officers he had fired at several minutes previous. All officers acted in unison, detecting the same immediate threat, and opened fire. They fired some 90 times in a few seconds.
Some may argue that that is too many times and completely unnecessary. The doctrine police and military are taught, however, is that you only use a firearm as a last resort and, when you have to use one, you fire until the threat is neutralized. Only when the immediate threat is terminated and everyone is safe do you stop to consider how many bullets were fired and other trivial details.
To me, Jayland Walker was no innocent man. In actual fact, he committed several crimes, from evading police to shooting at them (i.e. attempted murder). He acted guilty, too, running from cops two nights in a row, wearing a ski mask, and – need I emphasize it more? – firing a gun at police.
Despite the mountain of evidence proving that Jayland Walker evaded police, fired a gun at them, was wearing a ski mask as he leapt from a moving vehicle, disobeyed lawful orders to surrender, and attempted to flee before suddenly rounding on the same cops he had just shot at, a former Georgia police officer, Dr. Kalfani Ture, made this obscenely stupid comment:
“Watching this footage was so dramatic, I was almost paralyzed. I am more than certain that if there ever was an example of excessive use of force, inappropriate use of force, particularly lethal force, this is a textbook example of that.”
Ture, surprise, surprise, is black. Yet, not all blacks and not all former black police officers look at this situation, ignore the facts, and make emotionally-charged and idiotic statements that every normal human knows are preposterous. Retired black police officer Brandon Tatum put out a video analyzing the event and giving his take. He made this statement:
“As a former police officer, this does not appear to be excessive given the totality of circumstances. Also, this is 100% avoidable, just like every other police-involved situation involving black men who were shot unarmed. Completely avoidable. When they pull you over, give them your ID. And if you’ve done something, just go to jail. It ain’t that hard, just go to jail. And . . . nine times out of ten you’ll get out the next morning unless you’ve committed murder. You’ll get out of jail. Don’t go on a high-speed chase. Don’t shoot at the police. Don’t run from them. And don’t not give up after they’ve been chasing you. I don’t understand how they feel like that somehow you should be able to do all of this stuff and cops are supposed to be 100% perfect in diagnosing in who you are and what you’ve done. This is very dynamic. They don’t know this guy from Adam. They don’t know why this guy is running from them and now he’s shooting at them. And then he gets out of a car while it’s moving and jump out and run from them. They don’t know what this guy done did and what his intentions are. And it’s dark! And it’s dark. They don’t know what’s happening. Very difficult position to put police officers in. And if you want to live, you don’t want to be in that position. 100% avoidable.”
Officer Tatum then listed multiple black men who had been shot or killed while in the commission of crimes – George Floyd, Michael Brown, and so on. Here’s a truth that no one wants to say for fear of being called a “racist,” but which I will say because I don’t care what you call me for saying the truth: Violent crime has a color and that color is black.
Do whites, Latinos, Indians, and Asians commit violent crime? Yes, of course. Yet, blacks perpetrate, proportionally, far more crime than other races. This is an unimpeachable fact. It is also a fact, deliberately misportrayed by the media and Hollywood and shows like Criminal Minds, that blacks are proportionally more likely to be serial killers or mass murderers than whites or other races. To call facts like these “racist” is the height of stupidity and pandering.
After convicted felon George Floyd overdosed on drugs while in police custody after resisting arrest while trying to pass around forged money with a known drug dealer, I wrote an article titled: “George Floyd and the Scourge of Black Criminality.” In it, I cited the statistics proving that blacks have a corner on violent crime in America. Among other things, I also explained:
“Another taboo subject is black-on-white crime. If you watch CNN, you might believe that blacks are more likely to be attacked by racist whites. In truth, it’s just the opposite. Blacks are 30 times more likely to attack a white person than the other way around!
“Quoting from an Infowars news piece, we learn:
“Despite being outnumbered by whites five to one, blacks commit eight times more crimes against whites than vice-versa, according to FBI statistics from 2007. A black male is 40 times as likely to assault a white person as the reverse. These figures also show that interracial rape is almost exclusively black on white.”
“Now what about the other taboo – black-on-black crime? A whopping 93% of black homicide victims are killed by other blacks! Doug Traubel, a retired police officer and author of the excellent book Red Badge, has observed:
“The “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” and “Black Lives Matter” dolts ignore this black-on-black holocaust and black-on-police officer violence.
“Instead, these demonstrators portray all blacks as mere innocents terrorized by a bigoted legal system and its sadistic enforcers. They are part of the Black Liberation Movement. It is a farce; another Marxist revolutionary group calling for social justice.
““Police killings of blacks are an extremely rare feature of black life and are a minute fraction of black homicide deaths,” argues Manhattan Institute fellow Heather MacDonald.
““The police could end all killings of civilians tomorrow and it would have no effect on the black homicide risk, which comes overwhelmingly from other blacks”” (Doug Traubel, Red Badge: A Veteran Peace Officer’s Commentary on the Marxist Subversion of American Law Enforcement and Culture, 204-205).”
I turn to a thorough article from VDARE, which is perhaps the foremost organization in America reporting on the true color of crime and the ravages of illegal immigration:
“If stopping “gun crime” or “gun violence” is the Gordian Knot of contemporary criminal justice matters, then Arizona Senate candidate Blake Masters might be Alexander the Great. With three words, he sliced through the problem by equating gun crime in America with “black people, frankly” [Blake Masters Blames Gun Violence on ‘Black People, Frankly’, By Roger Sollenberger, Daily Beast, June 6, 2022]. You read that correctly. Masters had the courage to say what needs to be said: Blacks with guns, not guns themselves, cause almost all the mayhem and murder in “urban” America. This VDARE.com survey of every major city proves Masters right. . . .
“St. Louis: In this once-great American metropolis, “black people, frankly,” are indeed the problem. In 2017, “nearly all homicide suspects were Black and 98% were male,” the Giffords Law Center (an anti-gun outfit founded by former congresswoman Gabby Giffords) reported, citing data from the federal Justice Department. . . .
“Indianapolis: An analysis of nearly 300 homicides between March 2018 and February 2020 showed the following,“[A]round 77% of victims and suspects in homicides and shootings were Black, despite Black residents accounting for only 29% of the city’s population. . . .
“New York City: In 2020, the Big Apple’s homicide suspects were 92.4 percent black and Hispanic. . . .
“Chicago: . . . “A WND review of the Chicago Police Department Murder Analysis reports from 2003 to 2011 provides a statistical breakdown of the demographics of both the victims and offenders in the 4,265 murders in Chicago over that time period.
““Of the victims of murder in Chicago from 2003 to 2011, an average of 77 percent had a prior arrest history, with a high of 79 percent of the 436 murdered in Chicago in 2010 having arrest histories.
““For the same 2003-2011 period, blacks were the victims of 75 percent of 4,265 murders. Blacks also were the offenders in 75 percent of the murders.
““According to 2010 U.S. Census information, Chicago has a population of 2,695,598 people. The city is 33 percent black, 32 percent white (not Hispanic), and 30 percent Hispanic or Latino in origin.
““For the 2003-2011 period, whites were nearly 6 percent of the victims and accused of carrying out 4 percent of the murders.
““For the 2003-2011 period, Hispanics or Latinos were 19 percent of the victims and 20 percent of the offenders.” . . . .
“Washington, D.C.: . . . And aside from showing that just 500 criminals committed 60-70 percent of the gun crimes between January 2019 and December 2020, the report offered these data:
““Nearly 92 percent of victims and suspects in homicides and 88 percent of victims and suspects in nonfatal shootings were male. About 96 percent of victims and suspects in both homicides and nonfatal shootings were Black.” . . . .
“New Orleans: . . . In 2015 and 2016, blacks committed 95 percent of cleared homicides and 98 percent of cleared nonfatal shootings. . . .
“The upshot of all this: Masters has nothing for which to apologize. He told the truth.
“Democrats won’t do that. They want us to believe black crime and dysfunction is whitey’s fault. And even otherwise sensible conservative Republicans fear addressing the issue because they will certainly be accused of “racism.” As Masters was.
“That he had the courage to say it out loud, in an interview he surely knew would go viral, might just be a sign that self-censorship among Republicans—particularly younger ones fed up with the leftist reign of cyber terror—is ending.”
Self-censorship is cowardly and shameful. Every honest and informed individual knows that blacks commit the lion’s share of violent crime. Why not just say it like it is? Why should we fear the terrorists in Black Lives Matter, Antifa, and the controlled press? Did Donald Trump’s political incorrectness hurt him? Not at all. In fact, his lack of political correctness and pandering was what the average person liked about him. It was refreshing to hear someone speak unashamedly about America and to unapologetically call out our enemies. This is part of what made him the best president in the past several generations. And I say this as someone who didn’t vote for Trump in either election and won’t vote for him if he runs again in 2024.
The truth hated by the Establishment press and politically-correct stooges in every part of society is that blacks, speaking in generalizations and not individually about every black person, are a violent group in America. They have been deliberately radicalized in the communists’ war on humanity. Ironically, though, the people hurt most by these savage black criminals are other blacks. I quote from an article by Andrew Bernstein:
“The dominant narrative regarding U.S. race relations today is that the primary danger to black lives stems from white racism, particularly that of violent, racist cops. This view holds that America is a hopelessly racist nation. An organization, Black Lives Matter (BLM), has arisen to lead protests and even riots in response to instances where a white man, especially a police officer, kills a black person.
“Taleeb Starkes’s 2016 book, Black Lies Matter: Why Lies Matter to the Race Grievance Industry, is a courageous, prescient, and truthful account of burgeoning racial conflicts, and its vital message is of life-or-death importance.
“One of the book’s most arresting points—backed by a plethora of evidence—regards what is by far the gravest danger to black American lives: black thugs.
““For every Trayvon Martin killed by someone not black [whether white, Asian, or Latino], nine other blacks were murdered by someone black,” wrote John W. Fountain, an award-winning journalist, and professor at Roosevelt University. . . . [Fountain continues,] Imagine Soldier Field . . . filled beyond capacity, brimming with 63,879 young African-American men, ages 18-24—more than U.S. losses in the entire Vietnam conflict. Imagine the University of Michigan’s football stadium—the largest in the U.S.—filled to the limit of 109,901 with black men. Now add 28,233 more—together totaling more than U.S. deaths in World War I. . . . The national tally of black males 14 and older murdered in America over a 30-year period from 1976-2005, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics: 214,661 [roughly 192,000 of which were killed by blacks].”
“The hard data is both astonishing and appalling: Blacks, constituting 13 percent of the U.S. population, kill 90 percent of black murder victims. Whites, Asians, and Latinos, composing 87 percent of the population, kill 10 percent of black murder victims. This point alone is sufficient to refute the claim that racist whites are the dominant threat to black American lives.
“It gets worse. Starkes writes, “The numbers tell only part of the story of this largely urban war, where the victims [bear] an uncanny resemblance to their killers”. As Starkes details, some of the black-on-black murders are unspeakably ghastly. For example, in 2014 in the Detroit suburb of Inkster, a gangbanger walked onto the porch of a rival gang member and shot his two-year-old daughter, Kamiya French, in the head, killing her in front of her father to make him suffer. In 2015 in Chicago—which is often referred to by law enforcement as “Chiraq,” because its high-crime areas are akin to combat zones—a gang member shot nine-year-old Tyshawn Lee in the head, murdering him to punish his father, a member of a rival gang. The murderer even composed a rap to commemorate the killing.
““According to BLM’s official website,” Starkes points out, “its members ‘affirm that all Black Lives Matter’”. And yet, every year thousands of black lives are snuffed out by black thugs—“urban terrorists,” as Starkes aptly describes them—and we do not hear a peep out of BLM. The numbers that Starkes cites regarding black-on-black murders are evidence of a Holocaust. Yet, judging by BLM’s closed-eyes, closed-mouth silence, the group regards this as a nonissue.”
Do black protestors and commentators care one iota about the black-on-black genocide happening in the inner-city black ghettos? Of course not. Why? Because it destroys their false narrative about “racism,” “white supremacism,” and a “rigged system.” The next time you see Black Lives Matter burning cities down to protest the shooting of a black criminal like George Floyd or Jayland Walker, ask yourself where they were when the last black-on-black murder happened. They’re hypocrites who are fanning the flames of chaos to serve their Marxist political agenda. Period.
Let’s return to our present topic. Just as a doctor can’t cure a disease unless he properly diagnoses it, society can’t fix a problem unless we properly identify it. The problem of black criminality is off the charts and it will only get worse until we recognize it for what it is. We can’t stop black savagery by penalizing and shaming whites for something that happened, and ended, generations before they were alive. Black crime doesn’t happen as some vestige of slavery or as a result of racism or a system rigged against them.
The primary causes of rampant black criminality can be boiled down to two: 1) Dysfunctional families; and 2) Marxist indoctrination in public schools.
Firstly, black families are a mess. The family is under attack among all races and represents and existential crisis for society at large, but the assault has been particularly devastating among blacks. According to many sources, some 78% of blacks are born out of wedlock while other sources put the number at over 90% for younger age groups. This is a staggering statistic! Of blacks who do tie the knot, there is a 1 in 3 chance they will get divorced. Blacks have a higher divorce rate than other races.
Fatherlessness is a key indicator in the health of the family and, thus, society. In a 2012 report, we learn that: “57.6% of black children, 31.2% of Hispanic children, and 20.7% of white children are living absent their biological fathers.” According to a 2019 source, the rate was 64% of black children in a single-parent home, making it the highest of any race.
In 2016, Zenitha Prince, reporting for AFRO news, wrote:
“In its annual “America’s Families and Living Arrangements” data collection, the Bureau examined marriage and family, the living arrangements of older adults and other household characteristics.
“It found that a majority of the 73.7 million American children under age 18 live in families with two parents (69 percent)—a decrease from 88 percent in 1960. Of those 50.7 million children living in families with two parents, 47.7 million live with two married parents and 3 million live with two unmarried parents.
“Broken down by race, however, the statistics show stark differences. The percentage of White children under 18 who live with both parents almost doubles that of Black children, according to the data. While 74.3 percent of all White children below the age of 18 live with both parents, only 38.7 percent of African-American minors can say the same.
“Instead, more than one-third of all Black children in the United States under the age of 18 live with unmarried mothers—compared to 6.5 percent of White children. The figures reflect a general trend: During the 1960-2016 period, the percentage of children living with only their mother nearly tripled from 8 to 23 percent and the percentage of children living with only their father increased from 1 to 4 percent.”
Clearly, the fatherless epidemic is horrendous for all races, but black fathers are particularly absent. Debunkers have called these statistics “racist.” Add it to the list of “racist” things that includes whiteboards, Dr. Seuss books, the U.S. Constitution, snow, Aunt Jemima syrup, “it’s okay to be white” stickers, the slogan “white lives matter,” the numbers 13/52 and 13/90, and so on and so forth. For an interesting dive into reality, look up 13/52 and 13/90.
Growing up without a father often leads people – young men in particular – into the arms of gangs. They want to find someone, anyone, who will provide that essential male bonding experience. Because they were raised by women, they often lack discipline, are emotional, and lash out. Many who don’t have fathers suffer from arrested development. Fatherlessness, and the dysfunctional homes it breeds, is a massive plague that is leading generations of black men, and people in general, into lives of crime.
On to the second point – public school indoctrination. The majority of children of every race, background, and creed who attend public school come out of it with their faith, morals, and standards mangled and bent. Public schools are where creativity is crushed, religion dies, and Marxists are made. This is nowhere truer than in the inner cities of Democrat-occupied states where increasing numbers of students are illiterate and have no clue how to think critically or articulate their thoughts.
Last year, Armstrong Williams of The Hillreported:
“In my first question, I asked [Winsome Sears] what is wrong in Virginia and how it can be fixed. Her response startled me: She told me that 84 percent of Black students in eighth grade lack the ability to do math, and 85 percent are functionally illiterate. I could not believe this. In fact, I thought she had misspoken. My researchers quickly fact-checked her words and confirmed this sad reality. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a sector of the U.S. Department of Education, 84 percent of Black students lack proficiency in mathematics and 85 percent of Black students lack proficiency in reading skills. This astonished me, and the hour-long show became dedicated to examining what’s behind these numbers. . . .
“My team and I scoured the NAEP data sets and found a trend that should concern every politician — indeed, every American. In California, 90 percent of students cannot do math or read well. In New York, the numbers are 85 percent and 82 percent. In Illinois it is 86 percent and 85 percent. In Texas the numbers are 84 percent and 89 percent. Maryland sits at 86 percent for math and 80 percent for reading. My home state of South Carolina is 90 percent and 87 percent. In Georgia, the numbers are 86 percent and 82 percent. In Missouri, it is 89 percent and 88 percent. And in Washington, D.C., the numbers are 85 percent and 87 percent.
“That’s just a sampling, but the problem isn’t confined to these states. Nationwide, Black children overwhelmingly lack proficiency in math and reading. To use Mrs. Sears’s words, they are “functionally illiterate,” meaning that they are “unable to manage daily living and employment tasks.” How can our society progress if a major segment of our country cannot read?”
Not being able to read or crunch numbers is the least of the rising generation’s problems. Public schools are godless institutions of humanism and Marxism at best and outright Satanic training camps at worst. If you have followed me for any period of time, you know that After School Satan programs put on by The Satanic Temple are in schools on two continents. Most other types of brainwashing are only slightly less conspicuously evil.
Public schools are designed to exterminate faith, warp morals, and induce children to adopt, embrace, and love evil. From drag queen story time to X-rated “sex ed” to drug culture to bullying to peer pressure to political correctness to LGBT madness to venerating degenerate traitors like MLK, public schools are unhinged cesspools of Judeo-Marxist filth. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy than a predominately black inner-city schools in Democrat-controlled states.
I want to be clear that this has little to do with race and everything to do with culture, ideology, and location. Yes, I previously said that that violent crime has a color and that color is black. I stand by this statement. However, it should not be interpreted to mean that I think blacks are inherently criminal, evil, or inferior in some way. Rather, I refer to black culture, habituation, and upbringing.
We can argue to what extent one’s race makes them more susceptible to this or that philosophy or lifestyle, and I have definite opinions on the matter, but the fact is that all humans can be good, wise, and just if educated correctly and they can be evil, wretched, and degenerate if they are raised in the wrong conditions or if they refuse to heed the voice of conscience prompting them to go a different direction. Many dictators, despots, and psychopaths have been white and many have been black, Asian, Latino, African, Indian, Arab, Jewish, and so on.
In the 1920s, the communist specifically singled out the black community as the tool they could use to divide America. They focused at first on breaking the so-called “Black Belt” away from the rest of the country and establishing as Soviet America. Numerous books document the fact of communist involvement in the black community dating back to that time.
When the strategy was not as immediately successful as they had hoped, they worked on getting blacks to rise up in protests, gang warfare, drug use, homosexuality, ghetto culture, and so on. In the 1950s, blacks had a lower divorce rate and stronger families than whites. However, as they embraced the siren song of the communists – the song teaching them that they are victims, that whites are evil racists, and that the system is rigged against them and must be burned to the ground – they fell from grace and debauched themselves. The black community is solely to blame for their demise. When you pet a rattlesnake, don’t be surprised when it bites you.
Some may reject the idea that blacks have embraced communism, yet it’s a statistical fact. The Democratic Party is communist in every way but name. Democratic Party candidates including Clinton and Biden have been endorsed by the CPUSA in the past several national elections. 9/10 blacks vote Democrat, proving their true allegiance. And it all stems from broken homes and Marxist public-school indoctrination.
In the aftermath of this justified shooting of a criminal madman firing guns at police during a high-speed chase, Marxist Black Lives Matter took to Twitter, stating:
“They shot him 60 times. They shot him 60 times. They shot him 60 times. They shot him 60 times. They shot him 60 times. He was murdered by Akron police. Say his name. #JaylandWalker”
I’ll say his name in the way it should be said by every news reporter and commentator in the country: Jayland Walker was a criminal who brought his death upon himself. Jayland Walker fled from police on high-speed car chases two nights in a row. Jayland Walker fired a gun at police during a high-speed chase through a residential area. Jayland Walker jumped out of a moving car while wearing a black ski mask at night. Jayland Walker disobeyed orders to surrender, dodged police tasers, and fled from police. Jayland Walker, shortly after firing his gun at police during a high-speed chase, suddenly stopped and swiveled, causing police to fear for their lives and shoot him in self-defense. That is the real story of Jayland Walker.
All those Democrat voters, Black Lives Matter Marxists, and Black Panther Party radicals holding signs saying “Justice for Jayland” can rest easy – justice was served. He was a thug who ran from police two nights in a row, fired at them with his own gun, jumped from a moving vehicle while wearing a ski mask, disobeyed orders to stop, and made a gesture interpreted by all those whom had been previously shot at by him as threatening. Now, the only justice we need is for the eight officers involved to avoid a lynching by the irate, mindless, Marxist mob.
In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we are taught to “liken the scriptures to ourselves.” We often insert our name into the text or change a pronoun to make a passage refer more personally to us. Today, I perform the same exercise and apply an ancient sacred text to America. In it, a holy Israelite prophet recounted how the Lord had delivered his faithful father and his people from physical and spiritual captivity. As you read his words, keep in mind America’s founding generation as well as our present one and ponder what principles may be applied to us:
“[T]hey were delivered out of the hands of the people of king [George III], by the mercy and power of God.
“. . . they were in captivity, and again the Lord delivered them out of bondage by the power of his word. . . .
“. . . have you sufficiently retained in remembrance the captivity of your fathers? Yea, and have you sufficiently retained in remembrace his mercy and longsuffering towards them? And moreover, have ye sufficiently retained in remembrance that he has delvered their souls from hell?
“Behold, he changed their hearts; yea, he awakened them out of a deep sleep, and they awoke unto God. . . .
“. . . a mighty change was also wrought in their hearts, and they humbled themselves and put their trust in the true and living God. And behold, they were faithful until the end; therefore, they were saved.
“And now behold, I ask of you, my brethren of [America], have ye spiritually been born of God? Have ye received his image in your countenances? Have ye experienced this mighty change in your hearts?
“Do ye exercise faith in the redemption of him who created you? Do you look forward with an eye of faith, and view this mortal body raised in immortality, and this corruption raised in incorruption, to stand before God to be judged according to the deeds which have been done in the mortal body? . . . .
“And now behold, I say unto you, my [countrymen], if ye have experienced a change of heart, and if ye have felt to sing the song of redeeming love, I would ask, can ye feel so now?” (Alma 5:4-7, 13-15, 26).
This history resembles remarkably the way that the American People were blessed to become the first free people in modern times. Our forefathers fled the religious and political persecutions and oppressions of Europe to plant the standard of Liberty and faith here in the New World.
The men of the Mayflower wrote and signed a mission statement for all subsequent peoples who came to this land. They said they came here “for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian Faith.” In consequence, they “solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God and one another, Covenant[ed] and Combine[ed] [themselves] together into a Civil Body Politick, for [their] better ordering and preservation, and furtherance of the ends aforesaid.”
In 1630, the Puritan governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, John Winthrop, famously referred to America as a “city on a hill” with a prophetic destiny. He explained:
“Now the only way to avoid this shipwreck, and to provide for our posterity, is to follow the counsel of Micah, to do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our God. For this end, we must be knit together, in this work, as one man. We must entertain each other in brotherly affection. We must be willing to abridge ourselves of our superfluities, for the supply of others’ necessities. We must uphold a familiar commerce together in all meekness, gentleness, patience and liberality. We must delight in each other; make others’ conditions our own; rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together, always having before our eyes our commission and community in the work, as members of the same body. So shall we keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. The Lord will be our God, and delight to dwell among us, as His own people, and will command a blessing upon us in all our ways, so that we shall see much more of His wisdom, power, goodness and truth, than formerly we have been acquainted with. We shall find that the God of Israel is among us, when ten of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies; when He shall make us a praise and glory that men shall say of succeeding plantations, “may the Lord make it like that of New England.” For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world. We shall open the mouths of enemies to speak evil of the ways of God, and all professors for God’s sake. We shall shame the faces of many of God’s worthy servants, and cause their prayers to be turned into curses upon us till we be consumed out of the good land whither we are going.
“And to shut this discourse with that exhortation of Moses, that faithful servant of the Lord, in his last farewell to Israel, Deut. 30. “Beloved, there is now set before us life and death, good and evil,” in that we are commanded this day to love the Lord our God, and to love one another, to walk in his ways and to keep his Commandments and his ordinance and his laws, and the articles of our Covenant with Him, that we may live and be multiplied, and that the Lord our God may bless us in the land whither we go to possess it. But if our hearts shall turn away, so that we will not obey, but shall be seduced, and worship other Gods, our pleasure and profits, and serve them; it is propounded unto us this day, we shall surely perish out of the good land whither we pass over this vast sea to possess it.
“Therefore let us choose life, that we and our seed may live, by obeying His voice and cleaving to Him, for He is our life and our prosperity.”
Later groups of settlers chose the godly life and entered into similar covenants to serve God and make America a haven of virtue, goodness, and Christianity. Their pious lives, faithful devotions, and reverent educational pursuits evidence their sincerity.
The first book published in the New World was The Bay Psalm Book. Another of the early texts was the Bible in the hieroglyphic Mi’kmaq Indian language. These early American Christians took their charge to take the Gospel to all the world and preach it to every creature seriously (Mark 16:15-16).
Americans not only evangelized the Indians, but also taught their children from the Bible. Children both at home and at school learned to read from the Bible. The New-England Primer of 1690 was used in schools for over a century. It taught children the ABCs in a Gospel context.
In the Primer, A stood for: “In Adam’s Fall We sinned all.” Adam and Eve were displayed next to a tree with the Luciferian serpent coiled around it. B was rendered: “Thy Life to mend This Book attend.” The book pictured was the Bible. J was given as: “Sweet Jesus He Dy’d on a Tree.” Christ was shown crucified on the cross. And so forth.
The book also contains an exhortation written by the first Protestant martyr under bloody Queen Mary, the Reverend John Rogers, who had been burned at the stake in England in 1555. His crime? Compiling William Tyndale’s and Myles Coverdale’s translations of the Bible. Dubbed the “Matthew Bible,” this version was sanctioned by King Henry VII, making it the first authorized English Bible. Part of Roger’s heartfelt exhortation read:
“Give ear my Children to my words, whom God has dearly bought, Lay up His laws within your heart, and print them in your thought. . . . Keep always GOD before your eyes, with all your whole intent; Commit no sin in any wise, keep his Commandment. Abhor that arrant Whore of Rome, and all her Blasphemies; And drink not of her cursed Cup, obey not her decrees. . . . Give of your Portion to the Poor, as Riches do arise; And from the needy naked Soul turn not away your eyes. For he that doth not hear the cry of those that stand in need, Shall cry himself and not be heard, when he does hope to speed. If GOD hath given you increase and blessed well your store, Remember you are put in trust, and should relieve the poor. . . . Be always thankful to the Lord, with Prayer and with Praise, Begging of him to bless your work, and to direct your ways. Seek first I say the living GOD, and always Him adore; And then be sure that he will bless, your basket and your store.”
To the Gospel ABCs and Reverend Roger’s exhortation was added a catechism of faith that defined such matters as the Fall of man, Christ’s redemption, adoption and satisfaction, and the Ten Commandments. Thus, The New-England Primer, which served as a foundational text in American schools, helped establish the religion of the Savior Jesus Christ in the Americas.
Subsequent generations of Americans followed the Puritan tradition, though perhaps not as fervently. They became somewhat lax. This laxity of piety coincided with an increase of British intervention and despotism. A remarkable thing called the First Great Awakening then occurred. From the 1730s into the 1770s, America was ablaze with religious revival. Steeples defined the skyline, church bells rang out, and people became more stridently religious and patriotic.
It is no coincidence that the men who would later declare Independence and forge a new nation were born or raised during this defining period. For instance, George Washington was born in 1732, John Adams in 1735, James Wilson in 1742, Thomas Jefferson in 1743, James Madison in 1751, and so on. These men grew up in the milieu of revival, reformation, and restoration. Theirs was a Christian education and one that broke with the monarchical, top-down, aristocratic traditions of Europe.
This great spiritual and political awakening was led by the pastors and preachers of America’s Christian churches. Men like Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, and John Wesley lit up the colonies with their preaching. In History of the American Revolution, Reverence William Gordon wrote of the importance of these preachers in shaping attitudes toward not only God, but government:
“The ministers of New England being mostly congregationalists, are from that circumstance, in a professional way more attached and habituated to the principles of liberty than if they had spiritual superiors to lord it over them, and were in hopes of possessing in their turn, through the gift of government, the seat of power. They oppose arbitrary rule in civil concerns from the love of freedom, as well as from a desire of guarding against its introduction into religious matters. . . . The clergy of this colony [Massachusetts] are virtuous, sensible and learned a set of men, as will probably be found in any part of the globe of equal size and equally populous. . . . [I]t is certainly a duty of the clergy to accommodate their discourses to the times; to preach against such sins as are most prevalent, and to recommend such virtues as are most wanted. . . . You have frequently remarked that though the partizans of arbitrary power will freely censure that preacher, who speaks boldly for the liberties of the people, they will admire as an excellent divine, the parson whose discourse is wholly the opposite, and teaches, that magistrates have a divine right for doing wrong, and are to be implicitly obeyed; men professing Christianity, as if the religion of the blessed Jesus bound them tamely to part with their natural and social rights, and slavishly to bow their neck to any tyrant” (Ellis Sandoz, ed., Political Sermons of the American Founding Era, 1730-1805, Vol. 1, xiii).
The Baptist minister John Allen gave a red-hot oration on Thanksgiving, December 3, 1772. It gives a flavor of some of the overtly political sermons that American Christians feasted upon during the period immediately before the War for Independence. The specific political controversy that occasioned the fiery thoughts was the Gaspee Affair which just had its 250th anniversary on June 9th.
The HMS Gaspee was a British ship sent to enforce tyrannical maritime laws on the colonists. The latter resented the unjust impositions and, as the Gaspee sat grounded in a sand bar, fifty-five men snuck aboard, arrested the crew, and burned the vessel. One online source said: “The Gaspee Affair was one of the earliest acts of rebellion in the colonies, and acted as a catalyst in the revolution.” Indeed, it was sometimes called America’s “first blow for Freedom.” To learn a little more, watch this lecture by author Steven Park.
I now quote from John Allen’s oration addressed to the Earl of Dartmouth:
“When I view the original right, power and charter, confirm’d, sealed, and ratified to the province, or inhabitants of Rhode-Island, and its standing in full force, and unrepealed for more than an hundred years, which is as follows: “Be it enacted, that no freeman, shall be taken, or imprisoned, or deprived of his freehold, or liberty, or free custom, or be out-law’d, or exil’d, or othewrise destroy’d, nor shall be oppressed, judged or condemned, but by the law of this colony. And that no man of what state or condition soever, shall be put out of his lands of tenements, nor taken, nor imprisoned, nor disinherited, nor banished (observe this my Lord), nor any ways destroy’d, or molested, without being, for it, brought to answer, by a due course of law in this colony”: Methinks, that even your Lordship, will not blame them if they stand fast in the liberty wherein they were made free.
“As a fly, or as a worm, by the law of nature has as great a right to liberty, and freedom (according to their little sphere in life), as the most potent monarch upon the earth: And as there can be no other difference between your Lordship, and myself, but what is political, I therefore without any further apology, take leave to ask your Lordship, whether any one that fears GOD, loves his neighbour as himself (which is the true scripture-mark of a christian), will oppress his fellow-creatures? If they will, where are the beauties of Christianity? . . . .
“Are not the liberties of the Americans as dear to them as those of Britons? Suppose your Lordship had broke the laws of his king, and country, would not your Lordship be willing to be try’d by a jury of your peers, according to the laws of the land? How would your Lordship like to be fetter’d with irons, and drag’d three thousand miles, in a hell upon earth? No! but in a hell upon water, to take your trial? is not this contrary to the spirit of the law, and the rights of an Englishman? Yet thus you have given direction, as the king’s agent or the agent of the ministry to destroy the rights and laws of the Americans. How your Lordship can answer for this agency of injustice before GOD, and man, will be very difficult: . . . I think, my Lord, that such men, who will take away the rights of the people, are neither fit for heaven; nor earth, neither fit for the land or the dunghil. . . .
“. . . [the King’s] attempt to destroy the rights of the people – destroys his right as king to reign over them, for according to his coronation oath, he has no longer a right to the British crown or throne, than he maintains inviolable firm the laws and rights of the people. For violating the people’s rights, Charles Stewart, king of England, lost his head, and if another king, who is more solemnly bound than ever Charles Stewart, was, should tread in the same steps, what can he expect? I reverence and love my king, but I revere the rights of an Englishman before the authority of any king upon the earth. . . .
“. . . Then, surely, that man must be a tyrant in his soul, that shall deem it rebellion in the Rhode-Islanders, supposing they should kill every man, that shall attempt to destroy their laws, rights and liberties. . . .
“. . . my Lord, there is no other idea arises in my mind . . . which is, if there is any law broke, it is the king and the ministry who have broke it; for I would be glad to know my Lord, what right the king and ministry has to send an armed schooner to Rhode-Island, to take away the property of the people, any more than they have to send an armed schooner into Brest, and demand the property of France? Know this, that the king of England has no more right, according to the laws of God and nature, to claim the lands of America, than he has the lands of France – America, my Lord, in the native rights of the Americans, it is the blood-bought treasure of their forefathers; and they have the same essential right to their native laws, as they have to the air they breathe in, or to the light of the morning, when the sun rises; and therefore they who oppress the Americans must be as great enemies to the rights of the laws of nature, as they who would (if it were in their power) vail the light of the sun from the universe. Remember my Lord, the Americans have a priviledge to boast of above all the world. They never were in bondage to any man, and therefore it is more for them to give up their rights into the hands of the Turks; consider what English tyranny their forefathers fled from, what seas of distress they met with, what savages they fought with, what blood-bought treasures, as the dear inheritance of their lives, they have left to their children, and without any aid from the king of England; and yet after this, these free-born people must be counted rebels, if they will not loose every right of liberty, which their forefathers bought, with their blood, and submit again to English ministerial tyranny – O America! O America!
“. . . Therefore, my Lord, must it certainly be, that the Gaspee schooner has committed the transgression, & broke the laws of the freedom of this country. No doubt, my Lord, but they have a right to tax the strangers, that come to dwell in their country; but to tax the children, which are free in their own native country, this will not do! Nature forbids it; the law of GOD condemns it. And no law, but that of tyranny, can desire it.
“And therefore it was, my Lord, that the children (who are by the law of GOD, and the law of nature free), looked upon the Gaspee schooner as a stranger, as such they treated her; but when the stranger attempted to gather tax of the children who are free then they looked upon her, as a pirate, who took away their property without their consent, by violence, by arms, by guns, by oaths and damnations. . . .
“If there is any law broke, it is this, that the Gaspee schooner, by the power of the English ministry and admiralty, have broke the laws, and taken away the rights of the Americans. And yet the Americans must be punish’d for it, contrary to their own laws. O! Amazing! I would be glad to know my Lord, what right the king of England has to America? it cannot be an hereditary right, that lies in Hanover, it cannot be a parliamentary right that lies in Britain, not a victorious right, for the king of England never conquered America. Then he can have no more right to America, than what the people have, by compact, invested him with, which is only a power to protect them, and defend their rights civil and religious; and to sign, seal, and confirm, as their steward, such laws as the people of America shall consent to . . . consider then, my Lord, how cruel, how unjust, how unanswerable before God and man it must be, by any violence and power to destroy the rights of the Americans. . . .
“. . . Supposing my Lord, that the Rhode-Islanders, for the sake of blood bought liberties of their forefathers, for the sake of the birthrights of their children, should shew a spirit of resentment against a tyrannical arbitrary power that attempts to destroy their lives, liberties and property, would it not be unsufferable, cruel, for this (which the law of nature and nations teachers them to do) to be butchered, assassinated and slaughtered in their own streets by their king? Consider, my Lord, that we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, and that it would be a cold cordial for your Lordship, at the bar of God, to have thousands of Americans rise up in judgment against you. Yet I would rather this was the case, tho’ I suffer’d death with them, than they should lose their essential rights as Americans.
“But it may be meet to let your Lordship know, that if the Americans unite (as there seems a good prospect of it) to stand as a band of brethren for their liberties, they have a right, by the law of GOD, of nature, and of nations, to reluct at, and even to resist any military and marine force, surely they must be intended in readiness for the French, and not for Americans, for can it ever enter into the heart of a mother to murder her children? of a king to kill his subjects? of an agent to destroy the rights of the colonies he represents? But suppose my Lord, that this should be the bloody intent of the ministry, to make the Americans subject to their slavery, then let blood for blood, life for life, and death for death decide the contention. This bloody scene can never be executed but at the expence of the destruction of England, and you will find, my Lord, that the Americans will not submit to be slaves, they know the use of the gun, and the military art, as well as any of his majesty’s troops at St. James’s, and where his majesty has one soldier, who art in general the refuse of the earth, America can produce fifty, free men, and all volunteers, and raise a more potent army of men in three weeks, than England can in three years . . . they will not give up their rights; they will not be slaves to any power on earth” (John Allen, “An Oration, Upon the Beauties of Liberty, Or the Essential Rights of the Americans,” December 3, 1772, in Ellis Sandoz, ed., Political Sermons of the American Founding Era, 1730-1805, Vol. 1, 305-314).
Revolutionary preaching of this sort filled America’s pulpits in the years leading up to 1776. Americans were instructed clearly and copiously in natural law. They knew their God-given rights. As Thomas Jefferson later expressed, these rights were self-evident and publicly acknowledged. Every true American then, and now, understood that the purpose of all government was to protect natural rights and defend Freedom. They recognized when their rights were being violated. This was due in part to the fact that pastors like John Allen raised their passionate voices against British abuses and roused Americans to take up arms in defense of their divine birthright of Liberty.
It was the Christian pastors and preachers, and their congregants, who stood up against King George III and championed religious and political Liberty. It was the Reverend Jonas Clark who, with his parishioners, grabbed their weapons and stood toe to toe with the oppressive British Redcoat troops at Lexington in 1775. Pulpit patriots inspired red-white-and-blue-blooded Americans in armed rebellion against tyrants attempting to deprive them of their God-given rights.
For all their flaws, these early Americans went forward to battle in the strength of the Lord. They had faith in Jesus Christ. They carried and read the Bible. They attended church services. They demanded and achieved a high level of public morality. Not only public, however, but private morality was common. All the sages of the day acknowledged and taught that virtue and religion were essential to free republics.
Here are a few of their statements. Record them. Remember them. Heed them:
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens” (George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796).
“The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our people in a greater measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty. They will only exchange tyrants and tyrannies” (John Adams to Zabdiel Adams, June 21, 1776).
“We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other” (John Adams to the Massachusetts Militia, October, 11, 1798).
“Nothing is more certain than that a general profligacy and corruption of manners make a people ripe for destruction. A good form of government may hold the rotten materials together for some time, but beyond a certain pitch, even the best constitution will be ineffectual, and slavery must ensue. On the other hand, when the manners of a nation are pure, when true religion and internal principles maintain their vigor, the attempts of the most powerful enemies to oppress them are commonly baffled and disappointed” (John Witherspoon, “The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Man,” May 17, 1776).
“I love the People of Boston. I once thought, that City would be the Christian Sparta. But Alas! Will men never be free! They will be free no longer than while they remain virtuous. Sidney tells us, there are times when People are not worth saving. Meaning, when they have lost their Virtue. I pray God, this may never be truly said of my beloved Town” (Samuel Adams to John Scollay, December 30, 1780).
“[W]e are generally apt to ascribe too much to the efficacy of laws and government, as if they alone could secure the happiness of the people; but no laws will be sufficient to counteract the influence of manners which are corrupted by vice and voluptuousness; and it is beyond the power of any government to render the circumstances of the citizens easy and prosperous, if they want the habits of industry and frugality. – Government is necessary, to preserve the public peace, the persons and property of individuals; but our social happiness must chiefly depend upon other causes; upon simplicity and purity of manners; upon the education that we give our children; upon a steady adherence to the customs and institutions of our ancestors; upon the general diffusion of knowledge, and the prevalence of piety and benevolent affections among the people.
“Our forms of government, are, doubtless, like all other institutions, imperfect; but they will ensure the blessings of freedom to the citizens, and preserve their tranquillity, so long as they are virtuous; and no constitution, that has been, or can be formed, will secure those blessings to a depraved and vicious people” (Caleb Strong, January 17, 1806, in Patriotism and Piety, 138).
“[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters” (Benjamin Franklin to Abbes Chalut and Arnoux, April 17, 1787).
“If ye be with God, become a praying and religious people, acting up to your covenant relation and engagements to him, walking in all holy obedience to his laws, and attendance upon his worship and ordinances; God will be with you, and give you the tokens of his gracious presence, in providential mercies. The name of your land will be Jehovah Shammah, the Lord is there. God’s presence with you, will be your surest defence, your highest glory, your truest felicity. This will derive a blessing upon all your labours, husbandry, merchandize, fishery, & whatever you set your hands unto – and upon all your enjoyments. This will make your governour a Nehemiah, seeking your prosperity; this will give you wise & faithful rulers, skilful and upright judges, zealous and godly magistrates; and will make your officers peace, and your exactors righteousness: this will give you holy & orthodox ministers, pure and peaceable churches, learned & flourishing academies; and, in time of war, valiant soldiers and victorious armies. Yea, if you are indeed religiously with God, he will afford his gracious spiritual presence with his word and ordinances; this will make you a holy, as his providential presence will make you, a happy people” (Samuel Dunbar, “The Presence of God With His People,” 1760, in Ellis Sandoz, ed., Political Sermons of the American Founding Era, 1730-1805, 229-230).
These were the types of refrains echoing in our forefathers’ ears as they contemplated Independence, as they made war to defend their Liberty, and as they erected a new nation. They humbled themselves before God Almighty and He blessed their land according to His word:
“If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land” (2 Chronicles 7:14).
Even the most unperceptive recognized magnificent interventions from Heaven on their behalf. During the heavy fighting of 1778, as the Continental Army was being miraculously preserved time and time again, General George Washington declared:
“The hand of Providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations” (George Washington to Thomas Nelson, August 20, 1778).
“No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.”
On July 4, 1796, John Lathrop, commemorating the Declaration of Independence, proclaimed:
“Liberty descended from Heaven on the 4th of July, 1776. . . .
“The first promulgation of the Gospel of Liberty was the declaration of American independence . . . the Americans were elected by God to redeem from bondage the miserable victims of arbitrary power” (See Celebrate Liberty! Famous Patriotic Speeches and Sermons, compiled by David Barton).
America is a special land. It is a promise land of covenant. It was prophesied about by ancient seers like Isaiah whose foretellings were recorded in the Bible and other holy scriptures. It is a safe haven reserved by God for a righteous people – a people that will serve Him and make Him their King. Christ is the only rightful King of America and to no other individual or authority will any real American bend the knee.
The Puritan preacher Increase Mather was right when he said:
“This is Immanuel’s land. Christ by a wonderful Providence hath dispossessed Satan, who reigned securely in these Ends of the Earth, for Ages the Lord Knoweth how many, and here the Lord hath caused as it were New Jerusalem to come down from Heaven; He dwels in this place” (Increase Mather, in Michael G. Hall, The Last American Puritan: The Life of Increase Mather, 1639-1723, 99).
Christ dwells with the righteous. “[H]e loveth those who will have him to be their God” (1 Nephi 17:40). As He said: “I, the Lord, am merciful and gracious unto those who fear me, and delight to honor those who serve me in righteousness and in truth unto the end” (Doctrine and Covenants 76:5). He will be with the American People if they will be with Him. He will defend them if they defend His name, love Him, keep His commandments, and stand for His truth.
Again, I repeat, that America is a special land of covenant. An ancient prophet of Jehovah who lived here 1,600 years ago wrote to modern inhabitants of the land with this promise and warning:
“And now, we can behold the decrees of God concerning this land, that it is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off when the fulness of his wrath shall come upon them. And the fulness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity.
“For behold, this is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off; for it is the everlasting decree of God. And it is not until the fulness of iniquity among the children of the land, that they are swept off.
“And this cometh unto you, O ye Gentiles, that ye may know the decrees of God—that ye may repent, and not continue in your iniquities until the fulness come, that ye may not bring down the fulness of the wrath of God upon you as the inhabitants of the land have hitherto done.
“Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which we have written” (Ether 2:9-12).
I testify with all my strength and sincerity that this is true. Jesus is the God of this land. He is the God of the world. He honors, blesses, and protects those who serve Him faithfully. He has prospered and blessed America beyond any nation because we have traditionally been a righteous people. Our forefathers turned their hearts to Christ and were saved from British tyranny twice, from the destruction of civil war once, and from other national ailments. He has given us so many chances to be good, to deal justly, and to be a shining city on a hill for others nations.
Today, our nation is crumbling. Our light is not as bright as it once was. We have lost the full exercise of many of our rights. Our wealth has been eaten up. Our people are not as virtuous as they were in the past. Yet, it is by looking to the past that we can gather strength, motivation, and dedication for the present struggle for our Faith, Families, and Freedom.
Remember the captivity of our forefathers. They were on the brink of enslavement to the British. Their rights of jury trial and due process were being chipped away. Their wealth was being robbed through taxes. Their voice was being extinguished by top-down governance. Their weapons were targeted and the desire existed to disarm them and make them kow-tow to London.
In these desperate circumstances, they humbled themselves, called upon the Lord, and He changed their hearts. With hearts full of faith in Jesus Christ, they marched into battle. Knowing that obedience was the price of discipleship, they bettered themselves and practiced virtue. Their judges, leaders, and generals became men of God who exercised their stewardships with honor. Freedom flourished because the American People were worthy of the blessing of self-rule.
John Adams posited the idea that the War of Independence was not the main act of the American Revolution, but only a result of the true American Revolution that happened prior through the First Great Awakening and the religious revival that swept the nation:
“But what do We mean by the American Revolution? Do We mean the American War? The Revolution was effected before the War commenced. The Revolution was in the Minds and Hearts of the People. A Change in their Religious Sentiments of their Duties and Obligations. . . .
“This radical Change in the Principles, Opinions Sentiments and Affection of the People, was the real American Revolution” (John Adams to Hezekiah Niles, February 13, 1818).
Dr. Benjamin Rush concurred and stated:
“There is nothing more common, than to confound the terms of American Revolution with those of the late American war. The American war is over: but this is far from being the case with the American revolution. On the contrary, nothing but the first act of the great drama is closed. It remains yet to establish and perfect our new forms of government; and to prepare the principles, morals, and manners of our citizens, for these forms of government, after they are established and brought to perfection” (Benjamin Rush, Address to the People of the United States, 1787, in Hezekiah Niles, ed., Principles and Acts of the Revolution, 234).
Dear reader and fellow American, the American Revolution is ongoing! You are a part of it! The war is waged anew every day. The battlefield is your mind and your heart, your child’s school and your TV, the ballot box and in the courts, on the street and in your home. You have a say in all of this. Your part is not insignificant. Could George Washington have won the War for Independence without the thousands of nameless soldiers by his side? Of course not.
The real fight is yours to decide. You can begin the fight by remembering your noble ancestors, by acknowledging what they suffered and sacrificed to make our nation free, and by studying the same ideas and principles they cherished and which made America great. You can start this journey today by sitting down and reading the Declaration of Independence. If you have children, sit them down and read it together. Teach them that their rights – such as Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness – are given by God the Creator. Teach the that government is designed with the sole purpose of securing those rights. And teach them that any government – including ours today – which fails to secure Liberty may be justly, rightly, and dutifully change, abolished, or overthrown.
Yes, remember the captivity of your fathers. Remember that they were saved from bondage by the Lord, who is Jesus Christ. Remember that He saved them because they humbled themselves, became a moral and upright people, and fought in faith for what they believed was right. Never forget that America today must become as equally righteous, humble, and devoted to Christ as our forefathers if we hope to salvage our waning Republic and restore our birthright blessings of rule of law, self-government, and Freedom.
I want to close on a personal note. This is the fifth Independence Day I have spent outside of my beloved country. I miss her and I love her! It pains my heart to think that my lovely wife and amazing daughter have not yet laid eyes on America or stepped food on our blessed soil. I wish I was there, with them, on this singular day – a day of gratitude, devotion, and celebration for the blessings of Liberty that have been secured to our People by God, our inspired Constitution, and our own goodness; a day when we sing the song of redeeming love for ourselves and our nation.
America is a special place. It is a land of promise and covenant. It truly is Immanuel’s land. There are millions of good-hearted, faithful, sincere, Liberty-loving, patriotic Americans left. Rise up, patriots! Stand on your feet, Sons of Liberty! Take back your country in the name of your Faith, Family, and Freedom! Begin today by remembering your forefathers, cherishing their sacrifices, and humbling yourself before the God of this land who has freed, blessed, and prospered our nation and who will do so again if we turn to Him.
On June 22, 1941, the greatest military undertaking in world history began. On that awesome day, the liberating forces of the Third Reich fired the first salvo against the communist world conspiracy and its base of operations in occupied Soviet Russia. The strike was a preemptive attack against Joseph Stalin’s gargantuan Red Army which was amassed on the border and preparing to invade and subjugate all of mainland Europe.
Though ultimately unsuccessful, this epic military strike, known as Operation Barbarossa, was, to date, the world’s worthiest attempt at ridding mankind of the communist cancer. Today, I pay tribute to the Third Reich’s armed forces – the most multicultural and international fighting force ever assembled – that invaded the Satanic Soviet Union and attempted to liberate Europe.
Before I get started, and before you jump to too many wrong conclusions about how I’m a “conspiracy theorist” or a “Nazi sympathizer,” I want to share some of the relevant sources I’ve gleaned information from over the years and which I recommend to you:
Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War? by Viktor Suvorov
Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II by Viktor Suvorov
Stalin’s War of Extermination by Joachim Hoffmann
1939 – The War that Had Man Fathers by Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof
The Myth of German Villainy by Benton L. Bradberry
The Artist Within the Warlord: An Adolf Hitler You’ve Never Known edited by Carolyn Yeager and Wilhelm Kriessman
Hitler’s Revolution: Ideology, Social Programs, Foreign Affairs by Richard Tedor
Mein Side of the Story: Key World War II Addresses of Adolf Hitler edited by M.S. King
The Bad War: The Truth Never Taught about World War 2 by M.S. King
The Eastern Front: Memoirs of a Waffen SS Volunteer, 1941-1945 by Leon Degrelle
The Ruling Elite: Death, Destruction, and Domination by Deanna Spingola
Witness to History series by Mike Walsh
The Origins of The Second World War by A.J.P. Taylor
Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944-1947 by Thomas Goodrich
Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World by Pat Buchanan
The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945 by Richard Steigmann-Gall
The Nameless War by Captain Ramsay
Hitler: Democrat by Leon Degrelle
Who started World War II? Truth for a War-Torn World by Udo Walendy
How Britain Initiated Both World Wars by Nick Kollerstrom
Stalin’s War: A New History of World War II by Sean McMeekin
Communism in Germany: The Truth About the Communist Conspiracy on the Eve of the National Revolution by Adolf Ehrt
What the World Rejected: Hitler’s Peace Offers 1933-1940 by Friedrich Stieve
Many other sources could be listed, but you get the point: I haven’t just pulled my ideas out of thin air. They are grounded in fact, are backed up by tangible evidence, or are logical deductions from my perspective as one who has done deep study on world conspiracy, who has lived in Russia, and who has intensely examined both sides of World War II for some twenty-five years. If you are concerned with something I have written, send me a message and I’ll show you where to find the pertinent information.
Now, on to the main event. On June 22nd, eighty-one years ago, Europe was imperiled by the Soviet Union. On September 3, 1939, because of Germany’s attack on Poland incited by Poland’s slaughter and abuse of thousands of ethnic Germans on “Polish” territory stolen in the Versailles Treaty, Britain and France had declared war on Germany and French forces had marched into and occupied a small section of German territory. In 1940, Hitler retaliated. As all of this was happening, Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin was licking his chops in the Kremlin and building up his army for a surprise attack on Europe’s backside.
Stalin invaded Poland in mid-September, 1939. He next invaded Finland in late 1939. He took over the Baltics in 1940 and marched into Bessarabia and Bukovina the same year. Communist agents fomented revolutions and coups throughout the Balkans, used moles (Harry Hopkins, Harry Dexter White, Alger Hiss, et al.) to manipulate FDR and maneuver the United States into war with Japan and, thus, Germany, and generally added fuel to the fires raging in Europe and Asia. Between September 1939 and June 1941, while actually invading nations and moving the Soviet border closer to Western Europe, Red Army troops and supplies were being massed and staged near the German-Soviet border in Poland.
The scale of the Soviet buildup was staggering. Never has a nation amassed so much armor, so many soldiers, so many paratroopers, and so many weapons. This unprecedented buildup along the border wasn’t for defense; that’s preposterous! Soviet intelligence Viktor Suvorov has thoroughly debunked the myth that the Soviet Union was staged in defensive positions. He proves conclusively in his books Icebreaker and Chief Culprit that Stalin was preparing to attack, that the Red Army was lined up in attack formation, and that the invasion was perhaps as little as two weeks from commencing when Hitler thankfully preempted it.
In chapter nine of Icebreaker, titled “Why the Security Zone was Dismantled on the Eve of War,” Suvorov explained how the Soviets had torn down their defenses and erected means for a rapid offensive in the West when they were preempted on June 22, 1941:
“A country which is preparing its defence deploys its army deep inside its own territory, and not on its very frontier. The object is to prevent the enemy from destroying the main defending forces with one surprise attack. A defending side will normally build a security zone in the frontier areas in plenty of time; a zone where the terrain has been saturated with traps, engineered defences, obstacles and minefields. The defending side will deliberately avoid constructing anything related to industry or transport in this zone; nor will it keep any heavy military formations or large quantities of supplies there. On the contrary, timely preparations will have been made to blow up all bridges, tunnels and roads in this zone.
“Once inside the security zone, the aggressor loses speed of movement, and his troops sustain losses before they even encounter the main forces of the defender. . . .
“In the autumn of 1939, the Soviet Union had a great stroke of luck. Under the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, it annexed new territories between 200 and 300 kilometres deep. The security zone that had already been set up thus grew considerably in depth. Nature herself could have created these new territories for the express purpose of equipping it as a security zone. They had forests, hills, bogs, deep rivers with marshy banks and, in the western Ukraine, fast-flowing mountain rivers between steep banks. In short ‘the terrain favoured defence and the creation of defence obstacles.’ (Marshal of the Soviet Union A. Eremenko, V Nachale Voiny, Moscow Nauka 1964, p. 71) As if that were not enough, the network of roads was still at a primitive stage of development. Of 6,696 miles of railway lines, only 2,008 had double tracks, but the capacity of even these was limited. It would have been quite easy, were the need to arise, to make these railway lines quite unusable. . . .
“The element of surprise – so advantageous to the Germans in June 1941 – could have been reduced had the main Soviet forces been kept away from the actual frontiers. Empty territory, even without any technical defence installations, would have served as a security zone after its own fashion, by allowing the main forces time to get ready for action. But, according to the official Soviet account,
““The armies . . . were to deploy directly along the state frontier . . . in spite of the fact that its geographical outline was entirely disadvantageous to defence. Even those security zones stipulated in our pre-war directives had not been technically prepared,” (htoriya Velikoi Otechestvennoi Voiny, Voenizdat 1961, Vol. 2, p. 49). . . .
“The construction of railways was accompanied by the building of motor highways running directly to the frontier towns of Peremyshl’, Brest-Litovsk and Yavarov. When preparations are being made for a defensive war, ‘belt’ roads are built running parallel with the front, so that troops may be moved from passive sectors to those under threat. These ‘belt’ roads are built deep in the rear; the frontier regions themselves are left as far as possible without roads or bridges. But the Red Army built both railways and motor highways running from east to west, directly to the front. This is done when preparations are being made to advance, so that reserves can be transferred rapidly from within the country to the state frontier, and so that the troops can subsequently be supplied when they have crossed the frontier.
“‘The network of motor highways in western Byelorussia and the western Ukraine,’ recalls Marshal Zhukov, ‘was in a very bad condition. Many bridges were unable to bear the weight of medium tanks or artillery.’ (Vospominaniya i Razmyshleniya, p. 207) The situation should have delighted Zhukov: the supports of these rickety bridges could have been knocked down; anti-tank mines could have been laid on the banks, snipers posted in the undergrowth, and anti-tank guns put in place. Instead, Zhukov was furiously building roads, and replacing old bridges with new ones, so that tanks and artillery could use them.
“The NKVD and Lavrenty Pavlovich Beria in person gave the Red Army enormous help in this mighty work. The term ‘the construction organizations of the NKVD’ is often encountered in Soviet sources. (Air Chief Marshal A. A. Novikov, V Nebe Leningrada, Nauka 1970, p. 65) But we now know whom the NKVD used as manpower. Why else were so many labour-camp prisoners held in the frontier zone, particularly on the eve of the war? . . . .
“On the eve of the war, the Soviet railway troops did not prepare the rails for removal or demolition. They did not transport their supplies away from the frontier zones. On the contrary, they stockpiled rails, collapsible bridges, building material and coal in considerable quantities directly on the frontier. It was right there that the German Army captured all these stocks. German documents give evidence of this, as indeed do Soviet sources. Starinov, who was head of the Department for Defence Obstacles and Mining in the Engineering Directorate of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Red Army, described the Brest-Litovsk frontier railway station on 21 June 1941. ‘Near the railway tracks,’ he wrote, ‘the sun shone down upon mountains of coal and heaps of brand-new rails beside the tracks. The rails sparkled in the sunshine. Everything breathed tranquillity.’ (Miny Zhdut Svoego Chasa, p. 190). . . .
“Practically all the Soviet engineering and railway troops were gathered on the western frontiers. Sapper units and units belonging to those divisions, corps and armies which were concentrated on the frontier itself, as well as other units from other formations which had begun to move up to the border, were all operating in the frontier zone before the war began. The Soviet sappers were busy
““preparing the departure positions from which the offensive would begin; laying down roads for columns to move along; surmounting and erecting engineered defences, creating tactical and strategic camouflage, ensuring that the infantry and tanks which formed part of the assault groups interacted properly; protecting forced river crossings . . .” (Sovietskie Vooruzhennye Sily, Voenizdat 1978, p. 255)
“Let not the words ‘erecting engineered defences’ mislead the reader. By the time that the decisive attack on the Finnish Mannerheim Line began, Soviet sappers had also built several sectors consisting of engineered defence obstacles similar to the Finnish ones. Before going into battle, the newly arrived Soviet troops were put through these defences, which had been put there for training purposes. After that, they went over to the real attack.
“With all due respect to the German Army, it must be admitted that it was catastrophically unprepared for a serious war. The impression is given that the German General Staff simply did not know that winter occurs on occasions in Russia, or that the roads were somewhat different from German ones. The oil used to lubricate German weapons congealed in the intense cold, and consequently they did not work. The German Blitzkrieg was unable to move with the same rapidity over Russian roads as it had over French ones. Hitler knew that he had to make war in Russia; if German industry was producing arms which were only suitable for use in Western Europe and Africa, who can say that Germany was ready for war with the USSR?
“Hitler was lucky, however: Zhukov, Meretskov and Beria had obligingly compensated for the defects in German military planning by building roads and laying down great stockpiles of rails, collapsible bridges and building materials just where the enemy could capture them. What would have happened to Hitler’s army had a powerful programme of self-defence been put into effect, with bridges blown up, rolling stock and rails evacuated, all stores destroyed and the roads wrecked, flooded, turned into marshes and mined? The German Blitzkrieg would have skidded to a halt long before it reached Moscow.
“It was not, of course, for Hitler’s benefit that Meretskov, Zhukov and Beria had built roads and railways and stockpiled supplies. It was to let the Soviet ‘liberation’ army loose on Europe, with speed and with nothing in its path, and to keep it supplied in the course of its surprise offensive. On the eve of the war, no one in the Red Army was thinking about defensive obstacles. Everyone had his mind on overcoming such obstacles on enemy territory. That is why, under cover of a TASS announcement of 13 June 1939, some Soviet marshals and leading experts on obstacle clearing made their secret appearance on the western frontier.
“Marshal of the Soviet Union G. Kulik, who had secretly arrived in Byelorussia, discussed the situation with Colonel Starinov. ‘Let’s have mine-detectors, sappers and trawl equipment!’ he demanded (Miny Zhdut Svoego Chasa, p. 179) The Marshal was thinking about German territory. All the mines on Soviet territory had already been rendered harmless, and all the obstacles dismantled. ‘You have not named your branch correctly,’ the Marshal went on to tell him. ‘To be in accordance with our doctrine you should call it the branch for the clearance of obstacles and mines. Once we would have thought otherwise, and harped on defence, defence . . . but enough of that!’ (Ibid, quoted by Starinov) The same problem worried General of the Army Dimitri Grigoryevich Pavlov, the commander of the Special Western Military District. He noted angrily that insufficient attention was being paid to obstacle removal. The Red Army had learnt from its experience in the Finnish security zone, and was carefully preparing itself to surmount the German defences. If only the Soviet marshals had known that the war would begin for them on 21 June, and not as planned in July, then no resources for dismantling mines would have been needed at all.
“The German Army broke its own rules and did exactly the same thing. It removed the mines, razed the defences to the ground and concentrated its troops directly on a frontier which had no defensive zone whatever. At the beginning of June, German troops began to remove the barbed wire from the frontier. Marshal of the Soviet Union Kirill Sirnionovich Moskalenko considered this incontrovertible evidence that they would soon begin an aggression. (Ha Yugo-Zapadnom Napravleny, Nauka 1960, p. 24)
“But of course the Red Army did the same thing very shortly afterwards. The full flower of military engineering thought, including Professor Dimitri Mikhailovich Karbyshev – then a lieutenant-general of engineering troops — came from Moscow to meet on the western frontier. As he left Moscow at the beginning of June, he told his friends that the war had already begun and arranged to meet them in the ‘place of victory.’ Once he had arrived on the western frontier, he became feverishly busy. He attended exercises in fording water-defence obstacles, and in surmounting anti-tank obstacles with the latest T-34 tanks, neither of which are needed in defensive warfare. On 21 June, he went over to the 10th Army. But ‘before this,’ his biographer tells us, ‘Karbyshev, accompanied by V. I. Kuznetsov, officer commanding the 3rd Army and Colonel N. A. Ivanov, commandant of the Grodnensk UR [Ukreplyonnyi Raion – fortified region] visited the frontier detachment. On the Augustow-Seino road along the frontier, our barbed-wire entanglements were still in place in the morning, but by the time they passed them again on their return journey, the barriers appeared to have been removed.’ (E. Reshin, General Karbyshev, Izd. DOSAAF 1971, p. 204)
“Interestingly, neither the officer commanding the 3rd Army, who had to wage war there, nor the commandant of the fortified zone which in theory was intended for defence, nor the most senior expert from Moscow, who knew that the war had already begun, reacted in the slightest to these measures. On the contrary, the removal of the obstacles coincided with their visit.
“Can we imagine the commander of a Soviet frontier sub-unit, an NKVD lieutenant, removing the barbed wire on his own volition? If he were to give such an order, would not his subordinates regard the order as ‘clearly criminal’? The lieutenant did give such an order, though, and his subordinates carried it out at the gallop; evidently an order had been received from Lieutenant-General I. A. Bogdanov, the head of the NKVD frontier troops in Byelorussia. Bogdanov clearly realized that war was approaching; on 18 June he took the decision to evacuate the families of servicemen. (Dozornye Zapadnykh Rubezhei, Izd. Polit Literatury Ukrainy, Kiev 1972, p. 101)
“It is hardly possible that Bogdanov could have decided to evacuate frontier troops’ families and, at the same time, to cut the wire, without the knowledge of Lavrenty Pavlovich Beria, the People’s Commissar of Internal Affairs and General Commissar for State Security. It is hardly possible that Beria could have made this decision by himself either. Nor did he do so. Beria worked in full co-operation with Zhukov. Above them, Stalin must have co-ordinated the actions of the army and the NKVD. The military and the Chekists were acting in coordination. What is more, they were all in full agreement on essentials, on places and on times.
“We are assured that the Red Army suffered its first defeats because it was unprepared for war. This is nonsense. If it had not prepared itself for war, then the barbed wire would have been left intact, if only on the frontier. This would at least have gained a little time for the army sub-units to bring their weaponry to readiness, and may have averted the fearful catastrophes that followed.
“The Chekists certainly did not remove the barbed wire on the frontier in order to allow the German Army to take advantage of the gaps they had opened up. The barbed wire was taken away for other purposes. Try to imagine a situation where, for whatever reason, the German assault had been delayed. What would the Chekists on the frontier have done? Would they have eliminated the frontier barriers, kept the frontier open, and begun again to erect defensive obstacles? Certainly not. There can be only one alternative to this thesis. The Chekists cut the wire in order to allow the ‘liberation army’ to pass over the enemy’s territory, without hindrance, in exactly the same way as they had done before the ‘liberation’ of Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Bessarabia and Bukovina. Now Germany’s turn had come.”
This is a lengthy and somewhat technical rundown of what to some may appear less obvious details pointing to a Soviet invasion. However, these crucial facts, added to all the other corroborating evidence, make an airtight case. I urge you to investigate Suvorov’s writings and those of other authors like Joachim Hoffmann and Sean McMeekin. I now provide more evidence as I explained it in the pages of my book A Century of Red:
“Days after the non-aggression pact was announced, the Comintern was issued instructions from the highest communist authority. A portion of the Kremlin’s instructions stated that the agenda of the Comintern had not changed, and clarified that “the purpose of the Comintern is to bring about a world revolution.” The instructions explained that world revolution must be brought about through a “prolonged war, as expounded in the writings of Marx, Engels, and Lenin.” More to the point, it stated that a pact between the Soviet Union and England and France was fruitless because it would not lead to the outbreak of war. However, the Comintern was told that a pact with Germany in which the USSR feigned neutrality would allow Germany to “carry through with her plans.” Thus, the instructions concluded, the goal of the communist conspiracy was to “assist Germany in a sufficient degree so that she will begin a war and to take measures to insure that this war will drag on.”
“Throughout 1939, the Soviet regime had been in covert communication with Britain and France. Britain and France had proposed to Stalin mutual assistance pacts aimed at destroying Germany. Stalin knew that Britain and France secretly planned on attacking Germany if Hitler invaded Poland (the wording of the proposed pacts was so vague that almost any action Hitler took anywhere in Europe could have been defined as an act of aggression, thus calling on the allied nations to strike). Whereas Hitler wagered that a pact with Stalin would prevent such a war, Stalin knew better. As always, he used his inside information to create the conditions that would best benefit the communist world revolution.
“Though Hitler was becoming desperate enough to attempt an invasion without an agreement of Soviet neutrality, he fretted over pulling his nation into a major war. He repeatedly stated that, as a decorated veteran himself, he wanted nothing to do with another European war, and that he wanted to preserve his people from the ravages such a conflict would inflict. Hitler was smart enough to know that war would not benefit Germany.
“Out of all the nations of Europe in 1939, the quickly rising German Reich had the most to lose. England and France likewise had little to gain, and, as history would prove, lost a great deal of their power because of the war. Stalin’s Soviet empire, on the other hand, had the most to gain by facilitating a European war. Thus, encouraging Germany to attack Poland, and facilitating with oil and supplies a continuance of the war against Britain and France that would result, became a major priority for the communists.
“In a speech whose authenticity is often debated, but which fits the known details of the communist strategy precisely, and which is further supported by documents found in the Soviet archives in the 1990s, Stalin stood before the Politburo in Moscow on August 19th and revealed his plan for setting off war in Europe. Note the date. This speech took place four days before the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed, and on the same day that Molotov invited Ribbentrop to Moscow for talks.
“In this momentous speech, Stalin stated that if the USSR concluded a pact with Britain and France, Germany would stand down and seek a solution to the Polish problem through other means rather than war. He bluntly observed that a lack of war would be “dangerous” for the communist state. On the other hand, he said that if the Soviets signed a pact with Germany, Hitler would invade Poland and the intervention of Britain and France would be “unavoidable.” Stalin then said that if such a European war was initiated, the non-aggression pact would give the Soviet Union the opportunity to remain neutral and wait for the “opportune time . . . to enter the war.”
“The dictator went on to say that peacetime is never good for communism. Specifically, he stated that in peace communism “is never strong enough . . . to seize power.” Only a major war, he argued, could bring about the avowed Bolshevik goal of world domination.
“Additionally, Stalin said that in the event Germany was defeated in the upcoming war he intended to facilitate between her, Britain, and France, the Sovietization of Germany would be inevitable. He observed that if this communist takeover of Germany resulted from Germany’s quick defeat at the hands of Britain and France, these nations would intervene and prevent it. Thus, Stalin concluded, the Soviet Union’s goal was that “Germany should carry out the war as long as possible.” He repeated that it was “essential” that the war last as long as possible with neither side achieving victory. A third time he said that it was “in the interest of the USSR . . . that a war breaks out between the Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc.”
“Stalin observed that a war of this sort would weaken Britain and France, to say nothing of Germany. Why did Stalin want a weakened Europe? Why was it in his interest to have another continental war? The answer is so simple, and so ominous, that most historians refuse to acknowledge it. The reason Stalin wanted a war between the European powers was because he plotted to invade and communize Europe when he felt that they were too weak to put up effective resistance.
“Thus, as Viktor Suvorov theorized, Stalin used Hitler as his “icebreaker” to smash Britain and France into pieces, and pave a path for the Soviet tanks to roll down, subjugating the whole of Europe. To quote Suvorov, Stalin’s cunning was “in knowing how to divide his adversaries and then knock their heads together.””
All of this is crucial because if you admit the idea that the mass-murdering, sadistic, Bolshevik warlord Joseph Stalin was on the verge of invading and occupying the whole of Europe, you can appreciate Hitler’s decision to strike first. Hitler is reported to have said in 1941:
“If I see an opponent bringing a rifle to his shoulder, then I am not going to wait for him to pull the trigger. Instead, I am determined to pull it before he does.”
I couldn’t agree with the principle more. If a thug on the street runs at you with a machete, you have every legitimate right to pull out your Glock and drop him before he gets within striking distance. That is defensive, not offensive. And so it was in June of ‘41.
Whatever you may think of Hitler and the Third Reich, Stalin and the Soviet Union were unfathomably, unquestionably, irrefutably worse. It would have been an unmitigated, unparalleled disaster if Western Europe had fallen under Soviet domination. The only reason it did not is because Germany stood in the gap and spilled her blood to prevent it. I praise the international force, led by Germany, that combined to participate in the heroic assault against communism.
When Hitler’s forces finally struck the Soviet leviathan, he issued a proclamation stating the reasons for the attack and recounting the history of the First World War and the intervening period up to that time. Among other points, he explained:
“The German people have never had hostile feelings toward the peoples of Russia. During the last two decades, however, the Jewish-Bolshevist rulers in Moscow have attempted to set not only Germany, but all of Europe, aflame. Germany has never attempted to spread its National Socialist worldview to Russia. Rather, the Jewish-Bolshevist rulers in Moscow have constantly attempted to subject us and the other European peoples to their rule. They have attempted this not only intellectually, but above all through military means.
“The results of their efforts, in every nation, were only chaos, misery, and starvation.”
This is historically unimpeachable. The Bolsheviks were, on the whole, foreign-born Jews who followed in the footsteps of their prophet Karl Marx, a fellow Jew from a long line of rabbis. They were funded largely by Jewish bankers in the West. These ravenous Judeo-Bolsheviks used the Soviet apparatus to slaughter tens of millions of people throughout Asia and Eastern Europe and, in truth, the larger world. They promised paradise, but delivered hell on earth – rampant immorality, homosexuality, transgenderism, no-fault divorce, abortion-on-demand, destroyed families, eviscerated faith, drug use, plunder, famine, forced labor in the GULAG, slavery, fear, misery, rapine, and genocide.
These horrors were spread from Russia to Ukraine, the Baltics, Spain, and beyond. Stalin’s agents had also attempted to overthrow the Weimar Republic of Germany, which was itself Marxist and one of the most horrendous examples of a failed and debauched state in recorded history. Luckily, Hitler came to power in 1933 and moved swiftly to stamp out these revolutionaries with their fire bombings, assassinations, lying newspapers, anti-German propaganda, and cultural degradation. The well-known book burnings were conducted to burn transgenderism, homosexuality, and Marxism generally, out of German culture. I would to God that we would have such a cultural awakening in America and move to shut down the smut theaters, libelous media outlets, and treasonous political parties like Hitler did!
The communists are relentless, however. They never surrender – they either conquer or are crushed. Cockroaches don’t retreat because you become annoyed that they infest your house. They only disappear when you eradicate them. Hitler knew this and stepped forward to lead an international coalition to thwart the communist world revolution.
In July 1936, for instance, when the Soviets and their agents started the Spanish Civil War and went on a rampage that left half a million Spaniards dead, Hitler came to the rescue and, with General Francisco Franco, preserved Spain from becoming a Bolshevik colony. In November of that year, Germany joined together with Japan in the Anti-Comintern Pact (Italy joined the Pact in 1937).
The Comintern is short for Communist International and was the wing of the communist conspiracy directing all revolutionary activities throughout the globe. They were tasked with creating revolutions in every non-communist nation and bringing them into the Soviet fold. Germany and Japan knew this was a grave threat to humanity and moved to stop the advance of communism. Part of the Anti-Comintern Pact read:
“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.”
Thereafter followed three articles in which Germany and Japan agreed to cooperate together and coordinate efforts of defense against international communist subversion and to work with other nations, like Spain, “whose internal peace is menaced by the disintegrating work of the Communistic International.”
In 1941, it was not a smaller state like Spain that was threatened by Soviet expansion, but all of Europe. In the spirit of the Anti-Comintern Pact, Hitler moved against Bolshevik Russia. I continue quoting from Hitler’s war proclamation:
“It was, therefore, difficult for me in August 1939 to send my minister to Moscow to attempt to work against Britain’s plans to encircle Germany. I did it only because of my sense of responsibility to the German people, above all in the hope of reaching a lasting understanding and perhaps avoiding the sacrifice that would otherwise be demanded of us. . . .
“. . . even during our march into Poland, in violation of the treaty, the Soviet rulers suddenly claimed Lithuania. . . .
“The victory on Poland, gained exclusively by German troops, gave me the occasion to extend a new offer of peace to the Western powers. It was rejected by the international and Jewish warmongers. . . .
“. . . Russia justified its attempts to subject not only Finland, but also the Baltic states, by the sudden false and absurd claim that it was protecting them from a foreign threat, or that it was acting to prevent that threat. Only Germany could have been meant. No other power could enter the Baltic Sea, or wage war there. . . .
“Consistent with the so-called friendship treaty, Germany removed its troops far from its eastern border in spring 1940. Russian forces were already moving in, and in numbers that could only be seen as a clear threat to Germany.
“According to a statement by Molotov, there were already 22 Russian divisions in the Baltic states in spring 1940.
“Although the Russian government always claimed that the troops were there at the request of the people who lived there, their purpose could only be seen as a demonstration aimed at Germany.
“As our soldiers attacked French-British forces in the west, the extent of the Russian advance on our eastern front grew ever more threatening.
“In August 1940, I concluded that, given the increasing number of powerful Bolshevist divisions, it was no longer in the interests of the Reich to leave the eastern provinces, so often devastated by war, unprotected.
“. . . Both England and Soviet Russia wanted to prolong this war as long as possible in order to weaken all of Europe and plunge it into ever greater impotence.
“Russia’s threatened attack on Rumania was intended not only to take over an important element in the economic life not only of Germany, but of Europe as whole, or at least to destroy it. . . .
“The result was an increase in Soviet Russian activity against the Reich, above all the immediate beginning of efforts to subvert the new Rumanian state and an attempt to use propaganda to eliminate the Bulgarian government.
“With the help of confused and immature people, the Rumanian Legion succeeded in organizing a coup that removed General Antonescu and plunged the nation into chaos. . . .
“Immediately after this enterprise collapsed, there was a new increase in Russian troops along the German eastern border. Increasing numbers of tank and parachute divisions threatened the German border. The German army, and the German homeland, know that until a few weeks ago, there was not a single German tank or motorized division on our eastern border.
“If anyone needed final proof of the carefully hidden coalition between England and Soviet Russia, the conflict in Yugoslavia provided it. While I was making a last attempt to keep peace in the Balkans, and in agreement with the Duce invited Yugoslavia to join the Three Power Pact, England and Soviet Russia organized a coup that toppled the government that was ready for such an agreement.
“The German people can now be told that the Serbian coup against Germany was under both the English and Soviet Russian flags. Since we were silent, the Soviet Russian government went a step further. Not only did they organize a Putsch, but signed a treaty of friendship with their new lackeys a few days later that was intended to strengthen Serbia’s resistance to peace in the Balkans, and turn it against Germany. It was no platonic effort, either.
“Moscow demanded that the Serbian army mobilize.
“Since I still believed that it was better not to speak, the rulers of the Kremlin took a further step.
“The German government now possesses documents that prove that, to bring Serbia into the battle, Russia promised to provide it with weapons, airplanes, ammunition, and other war material through Salonika.
“That happened at almost the same moment that I was giving the Japanese Foreign Minister Dr. Matsuoka the advice to maintain good relations with Russia, in the hope of maintaining peace.
“Only the rapid breakthrough of our incomparable divisions into Skopje and the capture of Salonika prevented the realization of this Soviet Russian-Anglo-Saxon plot. Serbian air force officers, however, fled to Russia and were immediately welcomed as allies.
“Only the victory of the Axis powers in the Balkans frustrated the plan of involving Germany in battle in the southeast for months, allowing the Soviet Russian armies to complete their march and increase their readiness for action. Together with England, and with the hoped for American supplies, they would have been ready to strangle and defeat the German Reich and Italy.
“Thus Moscow not only broke our treaty of friendship, but betrayed it!
“They did all this while the powers in the Kremlin, to the very last minute, hypocritically attempted to favor peace and friendship, just as they had with Finland or Rumania.
“I was forced by circumstances to keep silent in the past. Now the moment has come when further silence would be not only a sin, but a crime against the German people, against all Europe.
“Today, about 160 Russian divisions stand at our border. There have been steady border violations for weeks, and not only on our border, but in the far north, and also in Rumania. Russian pilots make a habit of ignoring the border, perhaps to show us that they already feel as if they are in control.
“During the night of 17-18 June, Russian patrols again crossed the German border and could only be repelled after a long battle.
“Now the hour has come when it is necessary to respond to his plot by Jewish-Anglo-Saxon warmongers and the Jewish rulers of Moscow’s Bolshevist headquarters.
“At this moment, an attack unprecedented in the history of the world in its extent and size has begun. With Finnish comrades, the victors of Narvik stand by the Arctic Sea. German divisions, under the command of the conqueror of Norway, together with the heroes of Finland’s freedom and their marshal, defend Finnish soil. On the Eastern Front, German formations extend from East Prussia to the Carpathians. From the banks of the Pruth River, from the lower Danube to the Black Sea, German and Romanian soldiers are united under state leader Antonescu.
“The purpose of this front is no longer the protection of the individual nations, but rather the safety of Europe, and therefore the salvation of everyone.
“I have therefore decided today once again to put the fate of Germany and the future of the German Reich and our people in the hands of our soldiers.
“May God help us in this battle.”
Dear reader, this is not the lying ranting of a madman, but historical truth verifiable by anyone with the intellectual honesty to do the leg work. This is the real history. This is why Hitler preemptively invaded the Soviet Union; not for “living space” or imperialist ambition, but to save Europe from communist conquest.
In October 1941, Hitler made another address concerning the war in Soviet Russia. It was one of the most memorable speeches he ever gave. He spelled out the struggle thus:
“This was the most difficult decision of my whole life for every such step opened up the gate behind which secrets are hidden so that posterity will know how it came about and how it happened. Thus one can only rely on one’s conscience, the confidence of one’s people, one’s own weapons and what one asks of the Almighty. Not that He supports inaction but He blesses him who is himself ready and willing to fight and make sacrifices for his existence.
“On June 22, in the morning, the greatest battle in the history of the world started. Since then something like three and a half months have elapsed and here I say this:
“Everything since then has proceeded according to plan. During the whole period the initiative has not been taken even for a second out of the hand of our leadership. Up to the present day every action has developed just as much according to plan as formerly in the east against Poland and then against the west and finally against the Balkans.
“But I must say one thing at this point: We have not been wrong in our plans. We have also not been mistaken about the efficiency and bravery of the German soldier. Nor have we been mistaken about the quality of our weapons.
“We have not been mistaken about the smooth working of the whole organization at the front and extending over a gigantic area in the rear. Neither have we been mistaken about the German homeland.
“We have, however, been mistaken about one thing. We had no idea how gigantic the preparations of this enemy were against Germany and Europe and how immeasurably great was the danger, how by the skin of our teeth we have escaped the destruction not only of Germany but also of Europe. . . .
“Her power had been assembled against Europe, of which unfortunately most had no idea and many even today have no idea. This would have been a second storm of Ghengis Khan. That this danger was averted we owe in the first place to the bravery, endurance and sacrifice of the German soldiers and also the sacrifice of those who marched with us.
“For the first time something like a European awakening passed through this continent. In the north, Finland is fighting, a true nation of heroes, for in her wide spaces she relies on her own strength, her bravery and tenacity.
“In the south, Rumania is fighting. It has recuperated with astonishing speed from one of the most difficult crises that may befall a country and the people are led by a man at once brave and quick at making decisions.
“This embraces the whole width of this battlefield from the Arctic Ocean to the Black Sea. Our German soldiers are now fighting in these areas and with them in their ranks Finns, Italians, Hungarians, Rumanians, Slovaks, Croats and Spaniards are now going into battle. Belgians, Netherlanders, Danes, Norwegians and even Frenchmen have joined. . . .
“They are fighting on a front of gigantic length, and against an enemy who, I must say, does not consist of human beings but of animals or beasts. We have seen now what Bolshevism can make of human beings.
“We cannot bring to the people at home the pictures we have at our disposal. They are the most sinister that human brains can imagine The enemy is fighting with a bestial lust of blood on the one hand and out of cowardice and fear of his commissars on the other hand.
“Our soldiers have come to know the land after twenty-five years of Bolshevist rule. Those who went there and, in their hearts or bodies, have something of a communistic outlook in the narrowest sense of the term, have returned cured of this idea.
“The pictures of this paradise of workers and peasants as I have always described it will be confirmed by five or six million soldiers after the end of this war. They will be witnesses upon whom I can call. They have marched through the streets of this paradise.
“It is a single armaments factory against Europe at the expense of the standard of living of the people. Our soldiers have won victories against this cruel, bestial opponent, against this opponent with the mighty armaments.”
Hitler saw himself as Europe’s defender. He compared the Soviets to Genghis Khan, the Mongolian warlord who slaughtered his way to an expansive empire. This is a worthy comparison when you consider the brutal way that Khan and his Asiatic hordes hacked to pieces tens of millions of people, raped European women, and plundered the continent. This is precisely what the Soviet Union did in 1944-1945, which you can read about in gory, graphic, stomach-turning detail in Thomas Goodrich’s books Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944-1947 and Summer, 1945: Germany, Japan and the Harvest of Hate.
It is also no exaggeration to call Soviet Russia “a single armaments factory against Europe.” The Bolshevik gangsters didn’t care about the Russian peasants. They used the people as expendable slave labor to build arms factories to produce weapons, tanks, and bombers. Behind closed doors, away from the prying eyes of the West, inside the barbed wire borders of the Soviet Empire, the Bolsheviks built up the most staggeringly large military in world history. They produced tens of thousands of tanks – no one knows the precise number – including what were then the best tanks in existence. They churned out rifles that still flood the world today. They produced revolutionary new weapons for waging wars of conquest in the name of the Marxist world revolution.
In a private conversation that was secretly recorded between Hitler and the Finnish General Mannerheim in 1942, Hitler revealed that his armed forces had already destroyed 34,000 Soviet tanks. Can you even fathom that number? Today, the United States has 6,600 tanks, Russia has at least 12,000, China has around 6,000, and NATO, excluding the United States, has about 6,000. To put this into context, the combined number of tanks of NATO, the United States, Russia, and China in 2022, is still thousands less than the number produced by the Soviet Union before 1941.
This huge arsenal of weapons was controlled by the world’s greatest mass-murderers up to that time – a cult of criminals who had literally sworn to overthrow and conquer every nation on earth by violent revolution. It was against this deadly war machine that the Germans waged mortal combat on behalf of Europe and the world.
The Germans threw three million men, three thousand tanks, and nearly as many aircraft, into Operation Barbarossa. Because they caught the Red Army in their preparations for offensive warfare, the Red Army was ill-prepared to defend itself and was pushed back in epic defeat. Millions were captured or killed and the Germans raced across Poland, Belarus, and Soviet Russia. Many predicted a swift victory. However, at least two things went wrong: 1) The weather – especially the mud – bogged down German forces; and 2) American Lend-Lease aid started flooding in.
Of the first point, famed Belgian politician and Waffen SS volunteer Leon Degrelle wrote:
“Whoever does not understand the importance of mud in the Russian problem can not understand what took place for four years on the Eastern Front in Europe. The Russian mud is not only the wealth through which the steppe returns to life: it constitutes also a territorial defense more effective than even snow and ice.
“It is still possible to triumph over the cold, to move ahead in 40 degree-below-zero weather. The Russian mud is sure of its sway. Nothing prevails over it, neither man nor matter. It dominates the steppes for several months out of the year. The autumn and the spring belong to it. And even in the summer months, when the fiery sun flattens out and cracks open the fields, cloudbursts flood them every three weeks. The mud is extraordinarily sticky because the soil is permeated with oily residues. The entire region is swimming in oil. The water does not flow, it stagnates; the dirt clings to the feet of man and beast. . . .
“Our legion had arrived in the Ukraine just in time to fight-or more exactly to struggle-against that enemy.
“A struggle without glory; an exhausting struggle; a struggle bewildering and disgusting, but one which gave courage to thousands of Soviet soldiers, thrown in all directions by the waves of German tanks which had roared through two or three weeks earlier.
“At first they, like the French in June 1940, had believed that all was lost. Everything indicated it. They were afraid, so they went into hiding. Then the rains came. From the poplar groves and the thatched roofs of the isbas in which they’d hidden, the partisans could observe that those marvelous troops of the Reich, who had so much impressed them, were no longer invincible: their trucks were beaten, their tanks were beaten. They heard the drivers, powerless, swear at their engines. Motorcycle drivers unable to free their trapped machines wept with rage. Little by little, the fugitive Soviets regained their confidence.
“Thus it was that the resistance sprang from the respite given by the mud, reinforced by the spectacle of the German Army’s vulnerability, unthinkable only weeks before, when its long armored columns gleamed in the sun. The mud was a weapon. The snow would be another. Stalin could count on these unexpected allies. Nothing else decisive would take place for six months. Six months of reprieve, after his shoulders had almost been pinned to the mat . . . . It would be enough, until May of 1942, to contain the forces of the Reich which, overwhelmed by the elements, wanted no more than to hibernate in peace. The partisans were already organizing behind the German divisions, harassing them like mosquitos in a swamp, striking quickly, leaving quickly, immediately after the sting.
More than the Soviet forces stopped the Germans, mother nature did. The wastes of Russia did what Stalin’s army could not. It gave Stalin a chance to regroup and launch counterattacks.
Concerning Lend-Lease, a program overseen by Soviet mole and FDR confidant Harry Hopkins, let me relay the opinion of a Red Army tanker I talked with in Ramenskoye, Russia in 2007. He gave it as his opinion that Russia would have lost the war without American aid, including U.S. tanks. This old man operated an American tank against the Germans and explained to me that American supplies saved Soviet Russia.
This is difficult to dispute when you consider the massive quantity of supplies we gave to Russia and which Russia has never repaid. This deal with the Devil costing us billions of dollars, gave Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union, and assured a future global holocaust of communist destruction. One source explained how extensive Lend-Lease help to the Soviets was:
“By the end of June 1944 the United States had sent to the Soviets under lend-lease more than 11,000 planes; over 6,000 tanks and tank destroyers; and 300,000 trucks and other military vehicles.
“Many of the planes have been flown directly from the United States to the Soviet Union over the northern route via Alaska and Siberia, others were crated and shipped to the Persian Gulf, where they were assembled and flown into Russia.
“We have also sent to the Soviets about 350 locomotives, 1,640 flat cars, and close to half a million tons of rails and accessories, axles, and wheels, all for the improvement of the railways feeding the Red armies on the Eastern Front. For the armies themselves we have sent miles of field telephone wire, thousands of telephones, and many thousands of tons of explosives. And we have also provided machine tools and other equipment to help the Russians manufacture their own planes, guns, shells, and bombs.
“We have supplied our allies with large quantities of food. The Soviet Union alone has received some 3,000,000 tons.”
It should cause shame and sadness to well up inside every American heart to know that our forefathers saved Stalin and the Soviet Union! This is a monstrous black mark on our legacy. It was a dastardly act. We sentenced millions to slavery and death because we involved ourselves in a fight that was not ours. We ensured the victory of communism and the Sovietizing of European culture and politics. We guaranteed that China would later turn Red, that terrorism would spread, that militant Islam would rise, that Russia would stand opposed to us with the most fearsome arsenal of nuclear weapons on the planet, and so on. All of these horrors came because we got involved and because we supported the wrong side.
Had we either stayed out of the fight or leapt into the fray on Germany’s side and fought against the communists and helped save Europe, history would have been vastly different. German troops marched into battle with the slogan “God With Us” on their belt buckles. Their first act in liberated territory was to open Christian churches after years of brutal anti-Christian Soviet oppression. Hitler promised to restore autonomy to the nations when the war ended. They also promised to modernize the East and expand German-style Liberty with its emphasis on merit, its respect of families and God, its protection of private property, its hostility toward Masonry, corporatism, and Marxism, into those God-forsaken territories. They could have annihilated communism in Europe had we not interfered. The blame for the Cold War and all its horrors rests with us, our traitorous president FDR, and the complicit communist cronies in the Kremlin.
I wish to quote from Leon Degrelle again. He sat in Belgium on June 22, 1941, going about his business as usual when he heard an announcement on the radio that changed his life forever. He recounted the story this way:
“22 June 1941 began like all the beautiful Sundays of summer. I was absent-mindedly turning the dial of my radio, when suddenly some words brought me up short: the troops of the Third Reich had crossed the Euro- pean border of the USSR.
“The campaign in Poland in 1939, the campaign in Norway, the campaign in the Netherlands, in Belgium and France in 1940, the campaign in Yugoslavia and in Greece in the spring of 1941 had only been preliminary operations or blunders. The real war, in which the future of Europe and of the world would be decided, had just begun. This was no longer a war over frontiers or interests. This was a war of religions. And, like all religious wars, it would be unrelenting.
“Before engaging its tanks in the steppes, the Reich had resorted to evasion, like a watchful cat.
“In 1939 National Socialist Germany was carrying out a program without precedent. It had rebuilt itself in the midst of such lightning bolts, in the thundering and blinding flashes of such cataclysms, that all Europe and all the world felt the tremors. If all his enemies to the West swooped down on the Rhineland and the Ruhr, and if, at the same time, the Soviets expanded toward East Prussia and Berlin, Hitler seriously risked strangulation. He liked to say, over and over, that Kaiser Wilhelm II had lost the First World War by not having succeeded in avoiding a war on two fronts. He was going to do better. But we were to see, one day, side by side, gawking at the ruins of the Reich Chancellery in Berlin, not only Scots and muzhiks, but Blacks from Harlem and Kirghiz tribesmen from the deserts of Asia. . . .
“Stalin had, like Hitler, played very skillfully. He had every interest in let- ting the plutocratic democracies and National Socialism exhaust each other, for he was the enemy of both. The more virulently they sapped each other’s strength, the better Communism could in the final account facilitate its task. Stalin carried out his game with Asiatic cunning, the leader of an international gang, sure of his men. He could even ostensibly ally himself with the Third Reich: over the entire world, Communist discipline was absolute.
“The effects of that extraordinary solidarity promptly made themselves felt. Britain and France had made it a world war after Hitler invaded Poland. When Stalin did the same thing 15 days later, no one in the Allied chancelleries took the risk of reacting.
“Thus the Soviet leader was able to stab a vacillating Poland in the back with complete impunity, and annex over a third of that unhappy country. Britain and France, so solicitous of Poland’s territorial integrity before, neglected to declare war on the USSR.
“That moral and military abdication gave an unshakeable confidence to the Communist bands spread throughout Europe. The democracies were afraid of Stalin! They had recoiled before him! What had been intolerable from Hitler had been tolerated coming from the Soviets!
“The “democracies” dispensed with morality, principle, and their own self-respect for fear of consolidating Stalin’s alliance with Germany. They feared also the sabotage which the Communist parties throughout Europe were preparing or had already carried out. As always a short-sighted self- interest had prevailed over all other considerations.
“In reality, the alleged “just war” had lasted only fifteen days. From September of 1939, the Allies had only one idea: not to offend the USSR, to begin a reconciliation with Stalin, in spite of his aggression against their Polish allies.
“Stalin was able to multiply his demands, to put an end to the independence of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, to snatch Bessarabia from the Rumanians. One single thing was important to the Allies: to enable the Russians to change sides. In less than two years, that would be achieved. . . .
“The Nazi lemon had been squeezed dry. The hour had come to squeeze a second lemon: the democratic lemon. We know what kind of juice that lemon finally gave to the Soviets in 1945: the occupation of territories in- habited by two hundred million Europeans and Asians, the Red Army established in Thuringia, on the Elbe, at the gates of Luebeck, at Petsamo, in Manchuria, in Korea, in the Kurile Islands!
“The Yugoslav turn-about, the stated claims of Molotov on the Balkans, the military preparations of the Soviets during the spring of 1941; all these left Hitler no doubt about the ambitions of the USSR. The longer he waited, the more likely he would be attacked. In order to concentrate his forces in the East, he temporarily abandoned his plan to invade England. He tried, by various means, to find a peaceful settlement to the conflict be- tween Germany and the United Kingdom. It was too late for that. The British were no longer disposed to cancel the match; once begun, it could no longer be stopped. . . .
“England, isolated from Europe by the sea and with its principal riches scattered over distant lands, could not sense exactly the importance of the duel. It reacted by thinking more about its immediate interest— the relief of its island— than about what the fate of Europe would be were the Soviets one day victorious.
“By contrast, for us— the peoples of the European continent— that struggle was a decisive struggle.
“If National Socialist Germany triumphed, it would be the master, in the East, of a tremendous area for expansion, right on its border, tied to it directly by means of railroads, rivers and canals, open to its genius for organization and production. The Greater German Reich, in complete rebirth, endowed with a remarkable social structure, enriched by those fabulous lands, extending in one block from the North Sea to the Volga, would have such power, would have such force of attraction, would offer to the twenty peoples crowded onto the old continent such possibilities for progress that those territories would constitute the point of departure for the indispensable European federation, wished for by Napoleon, contemplated by Renan, sung of by Victor Hugo.
“If, on the contrary, the Soviets prevailed, who in Europe would resist them once the enormous German bastion was dismantled? Poland, drained of its blood? The chaotic Balkans, submerged, decayed, occupied, tamed? A depopulated France, having only speeches to oppose two hundred million muzhiks and the Bolshevik ideology, swollen with its victory? Greece, Italy, talkative and charming, with their poor peoples, squatting in the sun like lizards? The jigsaw puzzle of the small European nations, the residues of a thousand years of civil war, each incapable of paying for more than a hundred tanks? The Soviets defeating the Reich— that would be Stalin mounting the body of a Europe which, its powers of resistance exhausted, was ready to be raped” (Degrelle, Campaign in Russia, 7-10).
Europe was raped so brutally by the Soviets and their American and British allies that she has never recovered. Please fix this in your mind – it was not Hitler who raped Europe, it was Stalin, FDR, and the Allies. The Allies bombed millions to death, destroyed Europe’s cities from the air, plunged Europe into chaos and suffering, unleashed the horrors of death camps on the Rhine and gangrapes by the millions in the East, and obliterated the one Christian nation on the continent that was truly anti-Marxist, anti-Mason, anti-Satanism, and which had the capacity, character, and spirit the resist the Soviets.
Operation Barbarossa, though it failed, preserved Europe for several additional years and ultimately prevented the total Soviet conquest of Europe all the way to the English Channel. Thank God for the Germans! Thank God for the numerous other European, Arab, African, and Asian volunteers – including over a million liberated Russians and 150,000 Jews – who joined the Third Reich’s armed attempt to rid Europe of Bolshevism. Thank God for Hitler’s strength to do the hard thing and fight the Dragon.
If none of this sounds politically correct, good. Political correctness is a disease imported to America by the Soviets. The “history” you were taught by your history teacher in school is as fraudulent as “Oswald killed Kennedy,” “FDR didn’t know about Pearl Harbor in advance,” “the Twin Towers were brought down by jet fuel,” “Nixon was not a crook,” “Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman,” “Epstein killed himself,” “abortion is healthcare,” “two weeks to stop the spread,” “vaccines are safe and effective,” and “Joe Biden won the 2020 election.”
Dear reader, the wrong side won World War II. I will stand by that statement until they put me in the ground. America’s involvement – brought about by FDR and his Soviet advisors – was unconstitutional, immoral, and evil. Germany was not the villain Jew-controlled Hollywood and Establishment-controlled media make her out to be. Hitler was not guilty of a fraction of the heinous lies heaped upon his name.
You read those books I listed above. You do the leg work. You look up the sources. If you do, you will find that I have not lied and I am not deceived. Those who believe and parrot the Allied myths about World War II are grossly deceived and have, through their deception, been persuaded to demonize the only good guys in the fight and support the side that plunged the world in war and which still, at this very moment in world, has its bloody hands on the levers of financial, political, military, social, and religious power.
The Illuminati-communist conspiracy birthed on May 1, 1776, spawned Bolshevism, Fabian Socialism, and the various isms that have raped, plundered, abused, enslaved, degraded, and savaged our world. They are the ones responsible for hoodwinking the peoples of the world through their control over media, Hollywood, academia, and schooling. They have robbed the wealth of nations and are the ones behind the inflationary crisis that will continue to spiral out of control. This “they” has a name – it is Satanic communism.
Satanic communism is the ideology promulgated by the myriad organs of this conspiracy, including, but not limited to: The Council on Foreign Relations; the Trilateral Commission; the World Economic Forum; the United Nations; NATO; Club Bilderberg; the Club of Rome; the Committee of 300; the Black Nobility; the Order of Skull and Bones; Freemasonry; the Society of Jesus (Jesuits); the World Federalist Movement; the Theosophical Society; Share International; B’nai B’rith; the Anti-Defamation League; the Southern Poverty Law Center; Black Lives Matter; Alphabet Inc.; Open Society Foundations; the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; the Rockefeller Foundation; the Ford Foundation; Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation; the Commonwealth of Independent States; Aspen Institute; the World Trade Organization; the International Monetary Fund; the Federal Reserve; the Bank of International Settlements; the New Development Bank; BlackRock; Kabbalism; and so on.
Many of these damnable organizations would not exist today had Operation Barbarossa succeeded in 1941 and the others would be far less powerful. China would have been an American ally because the Soviet Union would not have been there to turn China Red. That one blessing alone would have markedly changed the world. As it was, millions of German bodies littered the Russian steppes, millions more rotted in bombed out cities at home, and the progress of a great nation was crushed simply because a cult of communist criminals seeks world control.
Europeans, never forget the brave Germans who died to liberate you or to keep you free from Bolshevik bondage. Never forget their sacrifices on the hellish Eastern front fighting Stalin’s hordes. Never forget.
“The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.” – U.S. Supreme Court, Dobbs v. Jackson, June 24, 2022
The Judeo-Marxist Senator from New York, Chuck Schumer, blew a gasket today in his reaction to the Supreme Court’s momentous overruling of Roe v. Wade. He shrieked:
“Today is one of the darkest days our country has ever seen.
“American women are having their rights taken by 5 unelected Justices on the extremist MAGA court.
“These justices—appointed by Republicans and presiding without accountability—have stolen the fundamental right to abortion.”
Imagine being so demon-possessed and enamored with murdering babies that you call today’s Court opinion a “dark” act that steals away human rights! Schumer is an enemy to the American People, the Constitution, and human Freedom. He is a mob-inciting revolutionary jackal that doesn’t care about your human rights or the future of America. He is an anti-Christ in word and deed.
Schumer is not alone. His fellow vipers in the hijacked and rotting Bolshevik corpse we call a government echoed his Devilish view. Deranged Nancy Pelosi slurred this response to the press:
“Today, the Republican-controlled Supreme Court has achieved the GOP’s dark and extreme goal of ripping away women’s right to make their own reproductive health decisions. Because of Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, the Republican Party and their supermajority on the Supreme Court, American women today have less freedom than their mothers. . . .
“This cruel ruling is outrageous and heart-wrenching. But make no mistake: the rights of women and all Americans are on the ballot this November.”
There is the word “dark” again. Pelosi, Schumer, and the other heartless imps who maniacally lord over us are so backwards that they literally advocate child murder and call pro-life supporters “dark” and “cruel.”
In solidarity with their government coconspirators, thousands of brainwashed people who, sadly, can vote, rallied in the streets and had a collective coronary. Women wept and wailed. Leftist politicians from Beijing Biden to Comrade Cortez to Gavin Newsom melted down and vowed open defiance to rule of law and our constitutional system. Democrat-occupied states like Illinois vowed to not follow the Court’s opinion. Radicals threatened to destroy the government, overthrow the Supreme Court, and burn cities. Revolutionaries promised a “night of rage” and rioting. Libsoftiktok perhaps summed up the feelings of the pro-infanticide crowd when they said they should “burn it all down.”
Among the many emotion-driven, logic-defying slogans I have seen plastered on the signs and shirts of pro-infanticide advocates in Washington today are the following:
“Why is a uterus more regulated than a gun?”
“Bans off our bodies.”
“Freedom is for every body.”
“Abortion is a human right.”
“This is a war on women.”
“Protecting abortion access is a Catholic value.”
“Abort the Supreme Court.”
“Abortion is freedom.”
These slogans demonstrate deep delusion and spiritual blindness. For instance, how is it a war on women to stop mothers and fathers from murdering their own children? How is it a war on women to guarantee the fundamental right to life that each person intrinsically possesses and that is proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence? How is it a war on women to say that states – in other words, the voters in the states – can now decide for themselves which abortion regulations they want?
Furthermore, is anyone truly so ignorant that they believe a woman’s uterus is more regulated than guns? When was the last time you had to undergo a background check or take a safety class before accessing, using, or operating a uterus? Do you have to go to a specifically licensed dealer to find a uterus? Is there a mandatory waiting period for uteruses? Are you prohibited from transporting a uterus across state lines? Of course not. In fact, these days, feminist “women” walk around in costumes of uteruses and wear vagina hats! How is their Freedom being restricted?
No one is restricting anything related to reproduction. Frankly, that’s the root problem. If women and men stopped copulating like dogs in heat with no self-control, reason, or free will, there would be no need to murder children. If they obeyed eternal law mandating that sex is reserved for men and women lawfully married, there would be no need for baby slaughter. If these hedonists were responsible individuals, they would not violate their chastity in the first place, but, in the second place, they would man up or woman up and become parents to the sweet little soul they chose to bring into their lives.
See, no one is forcing these baby-haters to have sex, nor is having sex a right. No one is putting them at “risk” of receiving the unsurpassed blessings of parenthood except themselves. If they don’t want to have children, no one is forcing them to procreate. Didn’t all those pornographic sex ed classes that government-controlled public schools force kids to endure teach them that babies are the result of sex?
Feminists, I don’t want to sound crass, but close your legs if you don’t want to “risk” pregnancy. If you voluntarily choose to engage in the one activity in existence that will potentially get you pregnant, you have no right to then destroy the life that results from your choice – the life of an independent boy or girl with their own body, their own rights, their own potential, and their own hopes and dreams. You have the right to choose, but you don’t have the right to determine the consequence of your choice.
Leftist writer Kara Voght went with this lying headline today: “Anti-Abortion Teens Dance as Women Lose Their Right to Choose.” Again, we come to this issue of choice and agency – the fundamental issue in all eternity. Who is forcing all these women to get pregnant? Who is forcing them to procreate? No one is forcing them! They are making conscious choices that have certain, specific, well-known results. It is a blatant lie to say that any woman had her right to choose taken away today. In fact, the American People were just gifted the ability to determine their state’s abortion laws. Is not this a “pro-choice” action?
Regardless of the science confirming the living personhood of children beginning at conception, the Declaration of Independence proclaiming a universal right to life, the Preamble to the Constitution declaring the purpose of government to be the protection of rights, the Supreme Court handing the ability to decide abortion to the People in their respective states, and the holy scriptures confirming the sanctity of life, the surly crowd in Washington is so enraged with reality, truth, and rule of law, that they are even now chanting: “We want abortion on demand.”
Instead of simply exercising self-control and discipline, these people choose to embrace hedonism, champion consequence-free lust, and demand the legally-protected sanction to kill their innocent offspring. Evil is the only word for it.
That brings us to the crux of this article. The ancient prophet Isaiah chastised those who call good evil and evil good. He warned against this practice and foretold the consequences:
“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! . . . .
“Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the Lord of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel” (Isaiah 5:20, 24).
When our elected “leaders” publicly say that preserving innocent life is “dark” and “cruel” and that it strips us of our rights to defend the rights of another, we know we are living in the midst of prophecy. Isaiah was a prophet. He pronounced woe upon people like Schumer, Pelosi, and their coconspirators. He promised that the Lord Jesus Christ would not tolerate evil and violations of His law. History bears this out and America will reap the whirlwind unless she repents, changes, and embraces the eternal laws of truth and justice.
Fortunately, when the Supreme Court’s opinion was handed down today, it immediately “triggered” abortion bans or restrictions in thirteen states. Those states are: Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Missouri, Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Tennessee. We will see if they stand their ground and enforce what they previously pledged. At least Missouri, Utah, Oklahoma, and likely others, have already formally put their laws into effect. Besides these states, thirteen others have laws restricting abortion, making the total twenty-six. Wisconsin, for instance, has now halted all abortions. I pray the number of baby-protecting will increase.
Unfortunately, I foresee the increase of chaos, hatred, and mobocracy, as I predicted in my article “What I See Coming.” Not long after Antifa thugs and Black Lives Matters Marxists burned down half the country, defaced historical monuments, and committed some three dozen murders, the same ideologically-compatible radicals have firebombed numerous pro-life centers, churches, and government offices. School shootings get the headlines, but are they honestly worse than Marxist radicals firebombing pro-life centers, churches, and government offices?
Jane’s Revenge is the name of one such Marxist group that has taken credit for the vandalizing and destruction of pro-life centers. They are calling for a “night of rage.” In a statement issued prior to the formal opinion being released, they said:
“This is an event that should inspire rage in millions of people who can get pregnant . . . and yet, the response thus far has been tepid.
“We have agonized over this apparent absence of indignation. Why is it that we are so afraid to unleash hell upon those who are destroying us? Fear of state repression is valid, but this goes deeper than that.
“. . . We need to get angry.
“We need the state to feel our full wrath.
“We need to express this madness fully and with ferocity. We need to quit containing ourselves.
“We need them to be afraid of us. . . .
“The time to act was decades ago. The next best time is now.
“Whatever form your fury takes, the first step is feeling it.
“The next step is carrying that anger out into the world and expressing it physically.
“Consider this your call to action.
“On the night the final ruling is issued——a specific date we cannot yet predict, but we know is arriving imminently——we are asking for courageous hearts to come out after dark.
“Whoever you are and wherever you are, we are asking for you to do what you can to make your anger known. . . .
“To those who work to oppress us: If abortion isn’t safe, you aren’t either. We are everywhere.”
Classic Marxist drivel. Sadly, it isn’t talk. These people are serious, conniving, and capable of evil. If you can murder an innocent child and call it “freedom,” you are capable of anything.
Jane’s Revenge joins the company of radical organizations like the terroristic Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Communist Party USA.
A few days ago, the Jewish-Masonic ADL called the pending opinion racist, said it would be a violation of religious Liberty because some religions (like their own Zionist Judaism) don’t believe in life at conception, claimed it would have negative “ripple effects on the economy,” alleged it would make people “vulnerable to bias and discrimination,” and said that people would be “prevented from making their own reproductive choices and exercising decision-making autonomy.” Total fear-mongering, anti-American claptrap as usual.
The Southern Poverty Law Center likewise today said:
“[T]he U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey is no less disgraceful – one that should deeply alarm Americans who care about our most fundamental rights. . . .
“As we know, this decision to overturn the rights acknowledged in Roe v. Wade, a precedent that has been in place for almost 60 years, is the culmination of a powerful, concerted movement to ensure that politicians control women’s bodies. It should be noted that some senators who voted to confirm the three justices nominated by former President Trump – Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – now say they were misled during the confirmation process. . . .
“Today, we are outraged about this decision from the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority.
“We mourn – and gear up for action.”
A group called Scotus 6 has now released the private details and addresses of the six so-called “conservatives” and called for protests at their homes. Have we forgotten that a leftist would-be assassin was arrested outside of Justice Kavanaugh’s home? This is the kind of “action” that these radical groups are demanding. They want blood.
The Communist Party USA released a statement decrying the overthrow of Roe, saying:
“The Supreme Court decision surely ranks high among the worst, anti-human decisions in its history such as the Dred Scott decision of 1857 or Plessy v. Ferguson of 1896. . . .
“Like the 19th-century justices, today’s right-wing Supreme Court has determined that certain people, in this case women and trans men, are even less equal than they were before the court ruled on June 24. . . .
“Today we mourn this horrific setback. Tomorrow and beyond, we organize. Everywhere — in our communities, unions, schools, places of worship, and workplaces. We must help build a backlash against the Right, one in the same spirit as the women who rebelled after Trump’s election and helped take the House of Representatives away from the GOP in 2018; the millions who marched for Black Lives after the murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and others; and the teachers, auto workers, and nurses who went on strike these past four years.
“As big as these movements were, the current situation demands a much larger movement, one that’s more inclusive, broader, more militant. Civil disobedience is in order. . . .
“We also mean inclusiveness in terms of tactics. Some may only be willing to make phone calls to their elected officials. Some may want to work in the electoral arena to vote out anti-abortion politicians. Others may demonstrate and engage in civil disobedience and risk arrest. All tactics are on the table.”
One of those tactics is violent revolution. This is what the Revolutionary Communist Party called for today in a statement titled: “The Supreme Court Ruling Overturning Roe v. Wade Is ILLEGITIMATE! We Need Resistance and Revolution!” It said in part:
“The highest court in the most powerful – and vicious – country in the world has ruled that the states can force women to bear children against their will. . . .
“The highest court in the land has essentially stripped women of legal status of full human beings. These religious dictators have made a leap in their enforcement of a lunatic vision of a Christian-fascist America. Forced motherhood is female enslavement!
“Can we tolerate the fact that ALL women and girls now face being treated and legally classified as nothing more than breeders for men and a male supremacist society? . . . .
“Right now everyone with any decency or heart needs to pour into the streets. Right now anyone who cares about the future needs to say: NO! THIS DECISION MUST NOT STAND! WE WILL TAKE TO THE STREETS AND PUT OUR BODIES ON THE LINE TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.
“Do not swallow your anger. Do not let your righteous fury be doused, or your fighting spirit corralled. There are millions and millions who feel that way—now they must go into the streets. And you must play a role in that—coming into the streets and being part of rousing others.
“. . . The truth is, something is wrong WITH America. The oppression of women—which has just gone to a whole other level—along with the history of slavery, genocide and war that still manifests today in a million ways—is built into this system of capitalism-imperialism.
“We could get beyond that system with its horrific and destructive ways of doing things. Today the basis exists to wipe out exploitation and poverty, to lead and unleash people to go to work on uprooting all forms of oppression and their terrible legacy, to begin to tend to and, yes, heal the environment and prevent the catastrophic future that now looms in on us. But not without uprooting the exploitative and oppressive system that has given rise to this madness and cannot do without it.
“Right now, America is coming apart, with the rulers themselves fighting over how to run their system. One side of these rulers is fighting for something terrible: an outright Christian-fascist form of rule. And they are on the offensive.
“But we don’t have to—and for humanity’s sake, we cannot—accept any of this! The fact that this crisis is so huge and that society is split from bottom to top means that things that have basically remained the same, for decades, can radically change in a very short period of time. And we don’t mean decades from now, either; things are heading toward either a radically reactionary, murderously oppressive and destructive resolution of this crisis, or radically emancipating revolutionary one, quite possibly in the next few years.”
Marxists don’t believe in letting history happen – they want to give it a push. They will be the ones who carry on this “split” in society. They will be the ones who conduct the violence, chaos, and rioting. They are the ones already calling for revolution in the streets.
The Communist Party USA, to say nothing of its more rhetorically violent counterpart, is an illegal party that was banned during the Cold War, but which no one has ever had the manly courage to expunge from existence. Accept this truth: Communism must die before America can rise. The longer treasonous groups like the Communist Party, the Revolutionary Communist Party, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Anti-Defamation League, and Jane’s Revenge are allowed to exist and spread their hate, division, and threats against our constitutional system of Freedom, the longer our nation will remain in grave peril.
Less overtly revolutionary bureaucratic types have also threatened revolutionary action. Doddering Marxist Congresswoman Maxine Waters, for instance, breathlessly threatened mass protests while raging: “To hell with the Supreme Court. We will defy them.” Think of the hypocrisy! Isn’t the Biden regime currently persecuting innocent Americans for protesting the brazen election theft and ratification of the political puppet president on January 6th 2021? Perhaps we should haul Maxine Waters before a tribunal.
New York Governor Kathy Hochul chimed in and said that today’s opinion is an example of “extremism” and called it “repulsive at every level.” She also pledged: “Access to abortion is a fundamental human right, and it remains safe, accessible, and legal in New York.” Traitors like Hochul don’t care what the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, or natural law say – they have sworn themselves to the destruction of human life and our God-given rights.
On the West Coast, California, Oregon, and Washington have launched a committee to act in a coordinated way to protect so-called “reproductive rights.” The respective governors of these three deteriorating states made outlandish comments such as the following by Governor Gavin Newsom:
“The Supreme Court has made it clear – they want to strip women of their liberty and let Republican states replace it with mandated birth because the right to choose an abortion is not ‘deeply rooted in history.’ They want to turn back the clock to a time when women had no right to make decisions about their own bodies, when women had to seek care in the shadows and at great danger, when women were not treated as equal citizens under the law. This is another devastating step toward erasing the rights and liberties Americans have fought for on battlefields, in courthouses and in capitols. This is not the America we know – and it’s not the California way.”
What’s the difference between Gov. Newsom’s comments and those made by the Communist Party? All these traitors use the same language, share the same ideology, and wage the same war against human dignity, God-given rights, and rule of law.
Dear reader, we are witnessing a massive sifting. This sifting has been occurring for a while, but it has been expedited during the Coronahoax lunacy. This ruling will further speed up the relocation of brainwashed people to communist-occupied states and good folks to states that have a chance at restoring Freedom and becoming pockets of sanity, Liberty, and light in a dark country.
Yes, the wheat and tares are being separated (Matthew 13:24-30). We now have the express opportunity to vote with our feet – and at the ballot box – to show which side of the right to life we fall on. If we find ourselves on the side of baby-killers, we join ourselves to the group of those the Lord condemned in these words: “he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death” (Proverbs 8:36). If you find yourself on that side, you stand against the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the wise men who wrote you, against the American tradition, against natural law, and against nature’s God.
To close, I want to cite a few lines from the Court’s decision today. As you read them, consult your conscience and ask yourself if it is really so unreasonable or if protecting life justifies rioting and revolution. If not, then you know where you must stand. This comes from the syllabus:
“Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives. . . .
“. . . In interpreting what is meant by “liberty,” the Court must guard against the natural human tendency to confuse what the Fourteenth Amendment protects with the Court’s own ardent views about the liberty that Americans should enjoy. For this reason, the Court has been “reluctant” to recognize rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution. . . .
“Guided by the history and tradition that map the essential components of the Nation’s concept of ordered liberty, the Court finds the Fourteenth Amendment clearly does not protect the right to an abortion. Until the latter part of the 20th century, there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain an abortion. No state constitutional provision had recognized such a right. Until a few years before Roe, no federal or state court had recognized such a right. Nor had any scholarly treatise. Indeed, abortion had long been a crime in every single State. At common law, abortion was criminal in at least some stages of pregnancy and was regarded as unlawful and could have very serious consequences at all stages. American law followed the common law until a wave of statutory restrictions in the 1800s expanded criminal liability for abortions. By the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, three-quarters of the States had made abortion a crime at any stage of pregnancy. This consensus endured until the day Roe was decided. Roe either ignored or misstated this history, and Casey declined to reconsider Roe’s faulty historical analysis.
“Respondents’ argument that this history does not matter flies in the face of the standard the Court has applied in determining whether an asserted right that is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution is nevertheless protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Solicitor General repeats Roe’s claim that it is “doubtful . . . abortion was ever firmly established as a common-law crime even with respect to the destruction of a quick fetus,” 410 U. S., at 136, but the great common-law authorities—Bracton, Coke, Hale, and Blackstone—all wrote that a post-quickening abortion was a crime. Moreover, many authorities asserted that even a pre-quickening abortion was “unlawful” and that, as a result, an abortionist was guilty of murder if the woman died from the attempt. . . .
“Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. The Court overrules those decisions and returns that authority to the people and their elected representatives.”
Here are several excerpts from the main body:
“For the first 185 years after the adoption of the Constitution, each State was permitted to address this issue in accordance with the views of its citizens. Then, in 1973, this Court decided Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113. Even though the Constitution makes no mention of abortion, the Court held that it confers a broad right to obtain one. It did not claim that American law or the common law had ever recognized such a right, and its survey of history ranged from the constitutionally irrelevant (e.g., its discussion of abortion in antiquity) to the plainly incorrect (e.g., its assertion that abortion was probably never a crime under the common law). After cataloging a wealth of other information having no bearing on the meaning of the Constitution, the opinion concluded with a numbered set of rules much like those that might be found in a statute enacted by a legislature.
“Under this scheme, each trimester of pregnancy was regulated differently, but the most critical line was drawn at roughly the end of the second trimester, which, at the time, corresponded to the point at which a fetus was thought to achieve “viability,” i.e., the ability to survive outside the womb. Although the Court acknowledged that States had a legitimate interest in protecting “potential life,” it found that this interest could not justify any restriction on pre-viability abortions. The Court did not explain the basis for this line, and even abortion supporters have found it hard to defend Roe’s reasoning. One prominent constitutional scholar wrote that he “would vote for a statute very much like the one the Court end[ed] up drafting” if he were “a legislator,” but his assessment of Roe was memorable and brutal: Roe was “not constitutional law” at all and gave “almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”
“At the time of Roe, 30 States still prohibited abortion at all stages. In the years prior to that decision, about a third of the States had liberalized their laws, but Roe abruptly ended that political process. It imposed the same highly restrictive regime on the entire Nation, and it effectively struck down the abortion laws of every single State. As Justice Byron White aptly put it in his dissent, the decision represented the “exercise of raw judicial power,” 410 U. S., at 222, and it sparked a national controversy that has embittered our political culture for a half century. . . .
“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”
“The right to abortion does not fall within this category. Until the latter part of the 20th century, such a right was entirely unknown in American law. . . .
“Stare decisis, the doctrine on which Casey’s controlling opinion was based, does not compel unending adherence to Roe’s abuse of judicial authority. Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.
“It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives. “The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.” Casey, 505 U. S., at 979 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand.”
While I disagree that this is a state issue (because it touches the fundamental human right that is the very purpose of government to protect), it is nevertheless a thorough refutation of the flimsy façade of Roe v. Wade. Thank the God of Heaven that many more of His precious sons and daughters will now have a chance to come to earth to work out their own salvation!
Abortion is nothing but child sacrifice. It is Satanic and has been openly proclaimed by The Satanic Temple as a Satanic sacrament. It was anciently a demonic religious ritual. It is a grisly and dastardly act of supreme brutality and seething darkness.
The abortion scourge has, in America alone, killed approximately double the number of people killed during World War II. Today’s opinion doesn’t end the killing, but it will restrict it and will give the American People a chance to show what they are made of – whether they care about God-given rights or not. God help us use our agency more wisely than we have hitherto!
I sincerely pray that good Americans will hold the line and stand up to be counted when the issue is raised in their state. If you are in a state that doesn’t care about the rights proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights, get out quickly and relocate nearer to true patriots. It’s time to draw your line in the sand and mean it. Reject the dark and embrace the light. Let today’s opinion – a sure step in the right direction – steel you for the fight. It’s just getting started.
Zack Strong, June 24, 2022
Read more of my content on abortion and the depopulation agenda below:
On most heated issues, from gun rights to abortion to drugs, you inevitably hear someone raise the issue of federal vs state jurisdiction. Accordingly, I devote today’s article to answering the query: What is federal and what is state? After explaining the principles, I will specifically discuss the issue of infanticide (aka abortion) in this context.
In all honestly, my work is already done. The Constitution generally, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments specifically, have already defined state and federal jurisdictions. I consult the Ninth and Tenth Amendments first. The Ninth dictates:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
And the Tenth Affirms:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
As the best university professor I ever had used to put it, these amendments mean, from the point of view of the Founders: “If we forgot anything, these cover it.” And so they do.
In all honesty, could it be any clearer? These two amendments tell us that everything not explicitly enumerated, listed, and spelled out in the body of the Constitution as a federal matter, belongs properly and of right to the People and the states or local municipalities representing them.
It is a simple concept. Thomas Jefferson, for instance, marveled that anyone could hold an interpretation that the federal government could assume any powers except those which were specifically listed. Said he:
“[W]hen an instrument admits two constructions the one safe, the other dangerous, the one precise the other indefinite, I prefer that which is safe & precise. I had rather ask an enlargement of power from the nation where it is found necessary, than to assume it by a construction which would make our powers boundless. our peculiar security is in the possession of a written constitution. let us not make it a blank paper by construction. I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty making power as boundless. if it is, then we have no constitution. if it has bounds, they can be no others than the definitions of the powers which that instrument gives. it specifies & delineates the operations permitted to the federal government, and gives all the powers necessary to carry these into execution. whatever of these enumerated objects is proper for a law, Congress may make the law. whatever is proper to be executed by way of a treaty, the President & Senate may enter into the treaty; whatever is to be done by a judicial sentence, the judges may pass the sentence. nothing is more likely than that their enumeration of powers is defective. this is the ordinary case of all human works. let us go on then perfecting it, by adding by way of amendment to the constitution, those powers which time & trial shew are still wanting” (Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Cary Nicholas, September 7, 1803).
If our “construction” of one part of the Constitution would make null and void, or “blank,” the other portions, then it is to be disregarded. If anything other than what is explicitly or obviously and logically intended is admitted, it would mean “we have no constitution.” The point of our Constitution is to “specify” and “delineate” what the federal government is “permitted” to do and where its authority ends.
“To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.” For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.
“It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.
“It is an established rule of construction where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers, and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect. It is known that the very power now proposed as a means was rejected as an end by the Convention which formed the Constitution. A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution.
“The second general phrase is, “to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the enumerated powers.” But they can all be carried into execution without a bank. A bank therefore is not necessary, and consequently not authorized by this phrase.”
The logic is unassailable. There is no point in even having a written Constitution if any branch of government can do whatever it wants. What is the point of a Constitution if it doesn’t mean what it says and if it doesn’t empower federal representatives of the People from carrying out the delegated powers? If the national government can assume powers at random and at will, or contrary to those gifted in the charter, why even have a Constitution at all? Fortunately, we don’t have to rely on Jefferson’s word alone; the Ninth and Tenth Amendments comport completely with Jefferson’s strict interpretation.
The point of enumerated powers – the point of the Constitution – is to spell out in plain English what government can and cannot do. The Constitution was a tight circle drawn around government over which it could not justly, legally, and morally cross. The Bill of Rights was a set of “thou shalt nots” aimed at the government to prevent abuses, tyranny, and overreach. It was also designed to safeguard the rights that the People, through the states, had reserved exclusively to themselves and had not delegated to their elected representatives.
The text of the Constitution is rather plain regarding what each branch of the federal government is allowed to do. Depending how you break up the clauses, Congress, for instance, has about 19 powers delegated to it. None of them says: “Congress may do whatever it wants” or “Congress may overstep its authority in a crisis” or “Congress may decide for itself what its powers are.” Instead, those powers are narrowly defined for them. They include the powers to declare war, tax for specific purposes, maintain a navy, and operate a postal service. Very pointedly, there are no delegated powers that involve charity, healthcare, redistribution of wealth, education, foreign aid, disease prevention, surveillance of the nation, etc.
Furthermore, when congressmen take office, they raise their hands to God and swear with a solemn oath that they will not violate the Constitution, but will uphold and honor it. Why bother requiring such an oath if the Constitution is unspecific and vague or if elected representatives may do whatever they want anyway? The oath would be self-defeating and unenforceable if there were no enumerated powers and specific expectations, limits, and restrictions.
“But what about the ‘general welfare’ clause?” some ask breathlessly. This was covered in Jefferson’s quote earlier. The clause simply means that the federal government may employ the power necessary to carry out its delegated duties. If the American People delegated and entrusted something to Congress, then Congress has the right to carry out or enforce that thing. It does not delegate extra, unknown, or vague powers and prerogatives to the government. It is certainly no mandate for the government to do as it pleases so long as it can be construed as being “for the welfare of the People” or “for the greater good.” Such is always the rationale of ravenous totalitarians.
America was designed to be different. Unchecked power was done away with in 1776 and formally staked through the heart when the Constitution was ratified by the American People. On the ashes of rule of men, the People erected rule of law and self-government. Instituting limited governments defined and bound by written constitutions was to be the way forward.
These constitutions were compacts of the People, issued by them with their consent, and carried out by elected representatives chosen by them and holding their offices and limited powers at their pleasure and will. As long as the Constitution remains, the totalitarians have no just claim on power in the United States of America. Yes, they may seize it or a sleepy population may surrender their birthright, but tyranny has no just, legal, or moral claim here.
What, then, are states’ rights and which matters belong entirely to them? Frankly, it would be fruitless to attempt to list them all. Suffice it to say that everything that is not explicitly delegated to the federal government or logically a part of the nature of government in accordance with natural law is reserved formally and explicitly to the states or to local communities within them. It is that simple.
This balance between federal and state jurisdictions is called federalism. The National Center for Constitutional Studies has explained federalism like this:
“Widely regarded as one of America’s most valuable contributions to political science, federalism is the constitutional division of powers between the national and state governments. James Madison, “the father of the Constitution,” explained it this way: “The powers delegated.to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.” And Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not “subordinate” to the national government, but rather the two are “coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government.” Since governments tend to overstep the bounds of their authority, the founders knew it would be difficult to maintain a balanced federalism. In fact, that was one of the central issues raised by the state ratifying conventions as they met to decide whether to approve the new Constitution. Responding to this concern, Alexander Hamilton expressed his hope that “the people will always take care to preserve the constitutional equilibrium between the general and the state governments.” He believed that “this balance between the national and state governments forms a double security to the people. If one [government] encroaches on their rights, they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed, they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional limits by [the] certain rivalship which will ever subsist between them.” However, the opponents of the Constitution strongly feared that the states would eventually become subservient to the central government. Madison acknowledged that this danger existed, but he predicted that the states would band together to combat it. “Plans of resistance would be concerted,” he said. “One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations would result from an apprehension of federal [domination] as was produced by the dread of a foreign yoke; and the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other.””
This outwardly complicated, overlapping system confuses foreigners who are not used to it and who have never been properly educated in federalism or constitutionalism. It even confuses many Americans who have been “educated” in the Marxist public school system. Yet, the idea is simply that the general government is limited to specifically delegated and listed powers, held temporarily at the discretion of the People, and that the People retain the rest of their rights and powers over which the federal government has no say.
In The Federalist No. 51, James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” explained the paramount reason why federalism should be adopted:
“In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself. Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.”
Notice that the states were supposed to rein in the federal government, as demonstrated by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, but, also, the federal Constitution was supposed to check state power when it became abusive. Both had legitimate authority over the other when it came to injustice.
I illustrate one failure of Madison’s idea of federalism that is a black mark on American history – one that applies to our present discussion. On October 27, 1838, Governor Lilburn W. Boggs of Missouri signed the infamous “Extermination Order” against members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The order stated: “The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and exterminated or driven from the State if necessary.” Militias, acting on the governor’s authority, subsequently drove the Latter-day Saints from their property and homes in the dead of winter and murdered several of the fleeing group.
I ask you, was this correct, constitutional, or moral? No! It was a hellish atrocity. It was attempted genocide not only in actual fact, but in name. Yet, when Joseph Smith, the president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, met with President Martin Van Buren in Washington to appeal for the federal government’s help, Van Buren said there was nothing he could do and that he would come into confrontation with the state of Missouri if he got involved. Incredibly, the Senate judiciary committee likewise declined to act, stating that Congress and the federal government had no authority in the matter because of so-called states’ rights and recommended Joseph Smith appeal to the courts in Missouri – the same state which had just signed an order for his and his followers’ extermination!
Do you agree with Van Buren’s and the Senate’s take on the Constitution? Let’s put it in modern terms and see what you think. If California issued an expulsion and extermination order against Muslims, claiming they were a threat to its security, would that be constitutional? No! It would not only be a violation of due process, but of every principle of justice upon which America was founded. It would be an affront to the notion of “pursuit of happiness,” property, and so forth. Yet, this is what happened in Missouri in 1838 and which was permitted by Van Buren’s regime because they believed in a false notion of states’ rights that minimized the Constitution and spat upon the natural law as expounded in the Declaration of Independence.
Because of this massive affront to the Constitution, which declares itself “the supreme Law of the Land,” Joseph Smith and his followers demanded the protections guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. Many had become perverted in their view and believed that the Bill of Rights somehow did not apply to the states. Earlier, I described the Bill of Rights as a list of “thou shalt nots” aimed at government. That applies to all levels of government – not just to the federal government.
How idiotic would it be if we restrained the federal government from restricting free speech or taking guns or arresting us without a warrant, but then allowed states to do precisely that! What point would the Constitution serve if states could simply override it? And what does the phrase the “supreme Law of the Land” mean if it is not to be understood literally or if the Constitution has no jurisdiction in the states?
It was only after the Civil War that the Bill of Rights was fully applied to the states and that state governments were prevented from abusing their citizens. Had the true spirit of the Constitution and of Freedom resided in Van Buren’s heart, he would have promptly ordered federal troops into Missouri to stop the heinous expulsion and extermination. That would have been his duty under the Constitution.
This understanding of rights and constitutional protections is crucial. If we discard it, we discard everything. Without this fundamental understanding, we could have no federalism, no Constitution, and no security for our God-given rights.
The Preamble to the Constitution states the purpose of all those enumerated powers and of federalism itself:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
The Constitution is designed to secure Liberty and natural rights, not deprive people of them. Which people? All people. These natural rights include, but are not limited to, those noted conspicuously in the Declaration of Independence: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If we acknowledge what seems obviously, that the Constitution and Bill of Rights protect these natural rights and prevent all government from interfering with them, one more criterion needs to be discussed – implied powers.
The term “implied powers” is frequently appealed to by those who wish to empower government, expand bureaucracy, and trample rights. It is used to imply exactly what Jefferson rejected – the notion that government can do as it pleases for the so-called “general welfare.” There is only one type of “implied” anything that is relevant, and it really isn’t implied so much as its connection to the Constitution is misunderstood or ignored. I speak of duties and rights so logical, basic, and self-evident that they didn’t need to be explicitly recorded; that is, the right of life, Liberty, and property.
For decades, the Declaration of Independence held legal weight in the courts. This is indisputable. It was and is the nation’s first law. It is the first of the so-called four “organic laws” of the United States. Though some courts today discount the Declaration as a legal document, it was once used widely by the courts and is still sometimes referred to today in court opinions. It was the foundation that the American nation was built upon and it cannot be rejected lest the entire structure collapse.
I want to hammer this point home. The first line of the Declaration states that it is the voice of the American People and assumes the same prerogatives and rights of a nation. The Declaration of Independence was also voted on and unanimously approved by the first government of the United States; that is, by the duly chosen delegates of the respective thirteen states sent to the Continental Congress. It was then ratified by the voice and subsequent actions of the People. It became binding by default and everyone acknowledged the validity of the right to life, Liberty, and property.
“The role of the Declaration of Independence in American law is often misconstrued. Some believe the Declaration is simply a statement of ideas that has no legal force whatsoever today. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Declaration has been repeatedly cited by the U.S. Supreme Court as part of the fundamental law of the United States of America. “The United States Code Annotated includes the Declaration of Independence under the heading “The Organic Laws of the United States of America” along with the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Northwest Ordinance. Enabling acts frequently require states to adhere to the principles of the Declaration; in the Enabling Act of June 16, 1906, Congress authorized Oklahoma Territory to take steps to become a state. Section 3 provides that the Oklahoma Constitution ‘shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.’”
The Declaration clearly stated that life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, among others, were natural rights given by the Creator and superseded man-made government. These rights were declared to be “self-evident,” or, to quote Jefferson’s rough draft, “sacred and undeniable.” Furthermore, similar to the Preamble to the Constitution, the Declaration states that the entire purpose of government is to protect these natural rights and that no government that interferes with them is legitimate:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Isn’t this clear language? Can’t we justly assume that the U.S. government, as well as the state governments, were created pursuant to this Declaration and were intended to secure, among other God-given rights, life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? It would be insane not to make this connection and to deny the fact that our forefathers – including those in government and the court system – formerly believed as much.
The Founding Fathers did not suddenly discover rights in 1776 – they existed from time immemorial and preceded either the British empire, the colonies, of the United States. Samuel Adams proclaimed the following in 1772:
“Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.”
The Declaration of Independence was revolutionary, but not entirely new. American patriots acknowledged and cherished these same rights for generations before they were codified. Devotion to life, Liberty, property, and self-defense predate our War for Independence.
The Declaration of Independence was, in a sense, the prologue to the Constitution. Without it, no one can have a complete understanding of the Constitution and the latter would have little moral force and no higher focus and purpose. This was the correct contention of Larry P. Arnn in his book The Founders’ Key: The Divine and Natural Connection Between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and What We Risk by Losing It.
In that worthy text, Arnn explained the revolutionary nature of the Declaration, its fundamental basis, and why its principles are indispensable to any competent understanding of constitutional law and government purpose:
“The Declaration of Independence does not read like a document from this world of kings. It hardly reads like a document from any particular world at all.
“The first words of the Declaration are, “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people . . .” This does not mean now, in North America in 1776, where killing has broken out between a long-settled government and the people. It does not mean the room in Philadelphia where the signers are gathered. The Declaration does not refer to any particular place. It does not mean those particular signers, either. It does not mean the people who elected those signers. The Declaration does not begin with any reference to those who write and ratify it, or to the nation they are forming. . . .
“But what about this beginning, which is so abstract? The beginning treats these events not as something special or unique but as something that occurs “in the Course of human events.” Soldiers who do brace acts are often shy about discussing them: “Anyone would have done the same.” “I was very frightened, and I acted by instinct” . . . This modesty of the opening of the Declaration is rather like that. Its signers are at the crisis of their lives, and they begin by placing it in context. . . .
“Having established that the situation is not without precedent, the Declaration turns to the standard according to which one must act in such situations. That standard is the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Established in these laws is the principle of equality, first for people, who are entitled to a separate and equal station under these “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Also, each individual person is similarly entitled. This is established by a “self-evident” truth, that is, a truth whose proof is contained in the terms of the truth itself. If you know what a man is, you know that he is created equal. According to this self-evident truth, all men are “created equal,” and “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” among which are “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The purpose of government is to secure these rights.” This is the only reason stated why government is “instituted among Men.” In all cases, government derives its “just powers from the consent of the governed.”
“These principles are not mere abstractions. They are introduced into a concrete situation, a situation established in a long history that includes the elevation and fall of Sir Thomas More and of the Duke of Marlborough, the high station of George III and his ancestors, the titles and privileges and courtesies of the court. These “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” are therefore necessary to the situation. It is obvious that the Revolutionaries cannot appeal to the laws of Great Britain; the purpose of the document is to throw off those laws. It is obvious that they cannot appeal to their own opinions or wishes, unless they are megalomaniacs. Only of God can it be said that His will constituted a rule to all peoples, in all places, and at all times must obey. The Founders needed a law as universal as circumstances the law is supposed to cover. They needed a law applicable in all nature. . . .
“If particular things have a nature, and if things in general have a nature, one can see how one might think that there are rules in nature. The rules would be the combination of the particular nature of each thing and the grand way that things work. These are the rules suggested by the expression the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” . . . .
“The essential similarity among humans may be harder to see when they are standing together, their differences manifest. It is easier to see when they are compared to something else. Such a comparison is right there in the Declaration of Independence, and we have already mentioned it. God is named four times in the Declaration. We can consider another human being both excellent and powerful, but we are not likely to think him the Creator, divine Providence, or the Supreme Judge of the World. . . .
“The distinction between man and God, on the one hand, and man and beast, on the other, underlies our political arrangements and has often emerged as the explicit basis of our policy. . . .
“The necessity of government by consent is written, therefore, in the fact of human equality. That is also the basis for limited government. The very reason we have constitutional rule has to do with the fact that we are neither angels nor beasts, but in between the two” (Arnn, The Founders’ Key, 43-58).
The Declaration of Independence is the foundational document of the American nation. It is our first law. It set forth the thesis of Americanism. It laid down the principles which every future generation should live by and could invoke in its own situation. It declared that rights exist, that they come from God, that they are immutable, that they supersede all government, and that any government that violates those rights is illegitimate and may be – and should be – overthrown.
The Declaration talked about the equality of men. Equality, in a Marxist sense, is utter nonsense. We are equal in God’s eyes and in the eyes of just laws, but in no other way. Equality is not sameness. Men and women are different. Races have different traits. Individuals are stronger, faster, bigger, smaller, skinnier, better, worse, richer, more industrious, more honorable, more charitable, wiser, less intelligent, more talented, more capable, etc., than each other.
However, God created all of us. At birth, we each receive an inheritance of Liberty and free will which no government can rightly, justly, morally strip us of. These are natural rights – rights which no government has authority over. The purpose of government is to safeguard natural rights. Period.
This is the fundamental understanding that our Founding Fathers had. This is the context in which they wrote the U.S. Constitution and formed our great nation. They spelled out that if government ever overstepped these “self-evident” bounds, the People had not only a right, but a solemn duty, to abolish or change that government.
I now want to apply what we have learned today to the abortion debate. The Supreme Court is gearing up to potentially release an opinion that would not exactly overturn Roe v. Wade, but which would allow the states to decide for themselves. I think this is repugnant to the spirit and meaning of both the Declaration and the Constitution.
First in the list of rights declared to be self-evident, and which government is duty bound to protect, is life. Some among us repeat “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” without really thinking about it. If we believe these are rights, then how can we permit abortion? If life is a right, how can government, which is created for the purpose of securing our rights, deny that right to millions?
There is little difference between the atrocious institution of slavery and the infanticide of tens of millions of unborn men and women (in fact, more blacks have been destroyed through abortion than slavery in this country). Both deprive the individual of “life” in any meaningful sense. Without Liberty, life is meaningless. Without Liberty, there is no ability to pursue happiness. Before you can have Liberty or pursue happiness, however, you must have life. Without life, you have neither Liberty or happiness.
Those who support the life-destroying scourge of abortion are enemies to the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and America. This is not just another “political issue”; it is a defining principle dealing with the fundamental, natural, God-given rights of individuals. This is a right and a wrong as much as there is a right and a wrong about slavery, genocide, free speech, or the right of self-defense.
The U.S. government was created to defend natural rights, including the right to life. This is not the job of the states, though the states should be a secondary defense if the federal government neglects its duty. This is a federal, or national, issue. The federal Constitution, not the individual state constitutions, is the supreme law of the land. If the federal government has no jurisdiction to defend life in the states, then, in all honesty, please tell me why we even have national government and a constitution.
The Declaration of Independence, which declared our right to life, was written by the representatives of the whole People. It is as good as gospel law for Americans. Remember what the Founding Fathers said in the Declaration, that if ANY government falls short of its mandate to secure the rights of life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to its people, it is despotic and must be altered or abolished.
The feminists, liberals, and socialists who pretend to care about “equality” and Freedom are lying hypocrites if they reject an innocent human being’s right to live – the most fundamental of all rights and a necessary step in the equality process. If we are all equal, if no group is supposed to have greater privileges than another, and if the natural rights proclaimed in the Declaration and Bill of Rights supersede governmental authority and cannot be violated by individuals, state governments, or the federal government, then how can anyone rationalize abortion?
What say does the unborn child have in his own life or over his own body? I though the mantra was “my body, my choice.” What say does the child have in the matter of his right to life? In complete seriousness, has anyone asked the little human being if he or she wants their body torn apart and their brains vacuumed out by a heartless medical butcher with the consent of his unfeeling mother? Were that same child to be born, sometimes mere minutes later, he would have an explicit, legal, and constitutional right to life, yet being inside the womb somehow allows his life to be snuffed out.
No one has a right to summarily end another human being’s life. A person may forfeit their right to life by taking the life of another person or committing treason or some heinous crime that violates the rights of another person, but, barring these exceptions, the right to life is to be held sacrosanct. This brings up the argument of when life beings. Yet, it’s not a serious argument at all. The science is settled. The science is irrefutable. The biology is clear, settled, firm, and unshakable.
Science has conclusively shot to high hell the Satanic notion that babies are mere “clump of cells” with no cognizance or that life begins at any other time than at conception. Scientifically, religiously, logically, mortal life begins only at conception and at no time after that. It doesn’t begin at 6 weeks, or 15 weeks, or 30 weeks. It doesn’t begin when the body comes out of the womb. It begins at conception and no serious scientist refutes this. If we admit that life begins at conception, it follows that life must also be protected from conception.
I repeat that the right to life is a right guaranteed by the Declaration and the Constitution. The Declaration explicitly champions the right to life and the Preamble to the Constitution explicitly states that its purpose is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” If babies do not have a right to life, then we older human beings don’t either. It either applies equally to everyone or it’s not a right.
Roe v. Wade is a bastardization of law, Liberty, and logic, to say nothing of conscience and morality. It is a demonic violation of the most fundamental of all God-given rights guaranteed by our founding documents. The judges usurped power, concocted a “right” out of whole cloth, and stripped young human beings of their implicit right to life.
The executive branch, Congress, and the states had in 1973, and have today, not only a right, but a duty, to reject Roe v. Wade and to champion the right to life. Today, the president could take a leaf out of President Andrew Jackson’s book and overrule Roe, declaring it his sworn duty to protect life. This moment, Congress could announce that Roe is null and void, rightly saying that the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds. Right now, any state in America could throw out abortion and defend life, invoking the natural rights of life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
In America, we don’t take out principles from the courts, we take them from the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and they took them from natural law and the Bible. In America, polls and popularity don’t decide policy, law, or rights. It doesn’t matter how many feminists screech and howl or how many Antifa thugs march through the streets, the right to life is sacred and has been codified by U.S. law since 1776.
Defending Freedom is not a states’ rights issue; it is a human issue. Specifically, the right to life is one of the big-picture problems that the nation as a whole must face and must collectively solve. Life is a federal/national issue that the states do not have exclusive purview over, but one in which they may ratify, support, and confirm the People’s national representatives in safeguarding.
In all seriousness, dear reader, if the Constitution does not encompass the right to life, being one of the most fundamental rights, then what is its purpose? The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and I submit to every rational mind that it authorizes its agents – those who raise their arm and swear to uphold it – to defend, protect, and preserve life. Abortion is a blatant violation of eternal law, natural law, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and science. It is human sacrifice. It is evil and must be stamped out.
If the Supreme Court refuses to undo Roe v. Wade, eternal shame on them – and eternal shame on all government representatives and citizens at all levels who are too cowardly to stand up for the right to life. If the high court attempts to make it a state issue, they have abdicated their duty to uphold the Constitution and show their own cowardice. At least, if protecting life becomes a state issue, half of the nation will rise to the challenge and create pockets of life and Liberty. Sadly, however, the plague will not end, divine judgements will not be averted, and the Declaration of Independence and Constitution will slide further down the totem of importance.
As with life, so with any issue – government is designed to secure Liberty equally to all. When big issues are involved that impact humanity generally, the federal government has jurisdiction, such as in times of war or ensuring republican forms of governments to citizens in every states. These issues are usually explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. When something is not specifically stated therein, and if it is also not stated in the Declaration or in the “self-evident” precepts of natural law, the authority rests with the People acting in their individual states to decide.
Life is a fundamental human issue and is not a state issue. However, if the federal regime and its hijacked courts refuse to use their delegated power to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,” then the People, acting either through the states or by themselves in their sovereign capacity, have the right and duty to alter or abolish their government and provide new forms and guards to secure their God-given natural rights. May we finally enforce the Declaration and truly champion life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
*This is directed toward the ladies, but many of the principles I discuss also apply to how husbands treat their wives*
I have witnessed, and experienced, how some women treat friends, co-workers, and complete strangers better than they treat their own husbands. I suspect most of them have never thought of their behavior in this way. Consequently, I want to shine a needed spotlight on this relationship-destroying flaw and encourage wives to devote themselves more fully, passionately, and submissively to their husbands.
First, let’s start with appearance. A first impression is usually formed, at least in part, by our physical appearance, grooming, and clothing. Our outward appearance says a great deal about the things we value, how we see ourselves, and how we view others.
Ladies, think of your life and ask yourself a simple question: “Do I dress nicer for my friends, co-workers and strangers than I do for my husband at home?” Doubtless, your answer is yes and, doubtless, many women would retort: “Well, yeah, of course I dress up to go out, but I’m not going to dress up at home!” I would respond: “Why not?”
Think of it, you women spend so much time and effort dolling yourselves up, doing your hair, plucking this or that, and making yourselves fancy for people who are less important in your life – a boss, for instance. Many of you, however, let your hair down, throw on some sweats or shorts, and wash off your makeup when you get home; that is to say, you let yourself go when you are around your husband.
Alternatively, you might never do yourself up at all during the day if you stay home, thinking it unnecessary. In your mind, dressing up and looking good is only for being outside the home or for “special” occasions, implying the time with your spouse is less valuable and less special.
Maybe you feel extra comfortable around your husband and feel that lounging with him and never going out of your way to be visually appealing is no problem. If both of you are fine with that, then more power to you (though, truth be told, a lot of guys would prefer to see you looking neat and stylish even around the house, though they would probably never tell you so to your face). However, ask yourself a couple more questions.
First, ask: “When my husband arrives home from work, does he see me at my best?” If not, then ask: “Doesn’t my husband deserve to see me at my best?” In all honesty, why should you be better-dressed for your boss, your co-worker, your friend from high school you are meeting for lunch, or random people in public than for your husband?
Don’t misunderstand; you don’t need to wear high heels, a retro rockabilly dress, classy jewelry or a beautiful choker, styled hair, and neat makeup all day. Then again, I personally think that’s an absolutely adorable and attractive style. This high-class style helps accentuate a woman’s natural femininity. The point, however, is to consider whether you make more of an effort to dress up for the world or for your husband. If the former, then you might need to change what you’re doing.
When you were dating your now husband, did you let yourself look like a slob around him? Probably not. During courtship, you likely went out of your way to freshen up before you would see him, fix up your hair before a date, or put on something nice to impress him. What about now? Do you still try to impress him? Do still try to look your most gorgeous around him? Do you even make an effort at all to be his bombshell wife that he’s proud to have on his arm?
Making an effort to look desirable, well-kempt, and attractive will keep alive an element of passion, induce more respect and decent behavior in both you and your spouse, and will make you feel better. Physical appearance is not everything, but it’s a palpable way to show your investment in your relationship, your respect for your spouse, and your enduring desirability.
More important than appearance is attitude, mindset, and maturity. I refer specifically to femininity. Being feminine is only partially about your physical appearance, dress, and grooming. Rather, it is a mindset and a way of living. It’s the substance of womanhood and the thing that draws men to you like a moth to a flame. It is, in all likelihood, one of the reasons your husband was attracted to you to begin with and is, whether he says it or not, a quality he wants to see you nurture, display, and perfect.
As I wrote in my piece “A Girl Worth Fighting For,” femininity refers to appearance, certainly, but more to an inward quality unique to women; a quality that attracts men:
“Why is it that men are drawn to women of this sort; women who embrace their femininity and wear skirts, dresses, and other ladylike apparel? I believe that this style is attractive precisely because skirts and dresses set women apart as women. Men are inherently attracted to women. It’s in our microchip. People of both genders have the innate desire to cleave to one another (Genesis 2:24). It’s a godly impulse. Thus, to sharpen and strengthen that impulse by outward attire is positive and beneficial, whereas blurring those divine lines is destructive and disconcerting.
“A woman who habitually wears men’s clothing, participates in men’s activities, and acts like “one of the guys,” loses something precious. She diminishes, in a degree, her inherent femininity and a part of that which, by divine design, makes her attractive. Again, this is not to say that women who play basketball, spend time around men, or do something outdoorsy or physical, are bad people, foolish, or corrupt. Yet, women who spend their time competing with men and trying to be like them lose that edge God has given them – their divine femininity.
“However, the heart of the woman is more important than whether she occasionally wears pants or plays sports. It’s trumps skirts and long hair. The purest form of femininity exudes from within. It bubbles up in the form of charm, wit, allure, vivaciousness, and a type of unique light or energy that men simply can’t duplicate – and often can’t resist. . . .
“Femininity is a virtue and a strength. It is a gift and a talent. It has a very real power to entice, inspire, uplift, brighten, and persuade. Any woman who has mastered the art of femininity, both in dress and behavior, is a cut above the rest and is worth fighting for as only men can.
“When you combine virtue, submissiveness, and femininity together in one, you see the image of a real woman emerge. Unlike the counterfeit version offered by feminism, this blend of virtues is true empowerment. It’s the substance of real womanhood. It’s what causes good men to fight, risk their lives, and even die in foreign wastelands. It’s what prompts men to feats of strength and great exertions of character. It’s the thing that persuades men to raise their chin, square their shoulders, and work harder. Ironically, it’s the very thing that makes us become the sort of men women love and desire.”
Wives, do you behave and act in a feminine way around your husband? Did you when you were dating? I tend to think you probably did, even if you didn’t do it overtly or consciously. If you did act more femininely when you were dating, why not now? Should you put your best foot forward in the rehearsal or in the main event? Also, if you have drastically changed your behavior since tying the knot and have become less feminine or less of what you were before, you have to ask whether you were dabbling in false advertising during courtship or if your loss of femininity happened through carelessness.
It seems that women generally behave womanlier and more femininely when they are dating, but become more hardened, crass, and sloppy when they get married; as if it was all an act meant to catch a mate instead of who they really were. If you are in the same boat – even if this has happened unconsciously and was never your intention – you can course correct, embrace your natural femininity, and recapture your husband’s heart.
Becoming more feminine around your husband will produce magical effects. Perhaps not immediate effects, but palpable and lasting ones that will move your relationship in the right direction. It will show that you still care about him, that you respect him enough to look and act nice for him, and that you are still the high-quality woman he thought he was marrying.
Part of having a feminine attitude is being deferential, dutiful, and humble before your husband. Notice what I did not say. I did not say that being feminine is being a slave, a servant, or a voiceless, mindless, dependent “doormat.” Strong men want strong women, but not the unruly “strong and independent” type Hollywood and the Marxist-feminist movement promote. The strength we desire, honor, and crave is the confidence you show in your own femininity, your willingness to be submissive and trusting, and the respect and loyalty you show to us as men, husbands, and heads of households.
Being submissive to your husband shows far more strength of character and will power than being rebellious, back talking your man, or doing everything yourself. Any petulant, selfish, egotistical woman can behave like that and live her own “independent” life her way without regard to another person. It takes a stronger woman, a humbler woman, a more confident woman, to willingly submit to, respect, and live well for a man. That voluntary submission and willingness to work on yourself, go out of your way to tidy yourself up, and to express loyalty, love, and attentiveness in a hundred little ways, is what is so endearing.
Let me now draw more contrasting comparisons to work or public life and home or marriage. For you working women, do you defer to your boss, doctor, or priest? If not, you would probably be fired. Then why not also defer to your husband? Who is more important to you? Who besides God stands in a position of more importance in your life?
If you are a stay-at-home wife, which is awesome and preferable, do you listen to and receive counsel from your husband? If not, why not? What is stopping you? What is holding you back from truly trusting him and becoming his first officer?
Ladies, if your boss asked or told you to do something, would you back talk? Would you toy with him? Would you give him the run around? Would you give him some lip or sass and question his authority? Would you rebuff him? Would you ignore him? Of course not! Yet, the same woman who wouldn’t dare ignore or disobey her boss often has zero problem challenging, rebuking, or back talking to her husband. In all seriousness, ladies, isn’t this backwards and wrong? Why does your husband occupy a lower level on your totem of respect?
If your husband asks something of you, do you do it or do you shrug your shoulders and consider it to be optional? What about if your boss asks you to do something? Try shrugging your shoulders and ignoring him the next time he makes a request and see what happens. If you don’t expect your boss to tolerate insubordination and unruly behavior, why should your husband have to tolerate and endure it at home? If anything, you should be more willing to work harder, more promptly, and more enthusiastically when your husband makes a request than when your boss does.
Think more deeply about the language you use. Would you use the same insulting, sarcastic, dismissive language you use with your spouse with your boss or your friend or your dentist? Do you yell, get short with, or roll your eyes at, your store clerk, your co-worker, or your doctor? If not, then consider whether it is better to show respect to a boss, friend, lawyer, doctor, etc., or to a spouse.
Women have a unique ability to calm down, placate, and soothe angry, exhausted, or brooding men. Yet, there’s little in this life more grating and repugnant than a quarrelsome woman who raises her voice, yells, and demeans with her words. It’s not right when a man does it, but it is positively unnatural and noxious when a woman does. Ladies, if you wouldn’t dream of going around in public ranting, screaming shrilly, or dismissively treating those you meet, why would you ever do any of these things to the man you say you love – the one you have voluntarily chosen to be with for the rest of your life?
Part of the reason why we don’t treat each other as civilly as we should is the fact that modern life is so constructed as to prevent spouses from spending the maximum amount of time together. When life gets busy, husbands and wives only spend a few short waking hours together. Even on a normal day, the bulk of your time is spent at an office, factory, or away from home, spouse, and family. Is this conducive to growing positive relationships? Of course not!
People in general also lack emotional intelligence (normal intelligence, too). We are living in a state of arrested development. An argument can me made that men suffer from this malady more since women are jumping ahead in getting degrees, earning higher grades, and other factors I deem irrelevant. However, in my own life experience and observations at universities and in society, it’s the ladies who lack emotional intelligence.
Without any doubt, women are weepier than men. Women often lack the same fortitude as men and quit difficult things more readily. This perhaps shines a light on why over 80% of divorces are initiated by women. When the going gets tough, they get going; they don’t have the character to see it through or the willingness to do those things that would help their relationship most.
Recently, I read a great statement from one Jon Sole on The Tradwives Club Facebook page that said: “A marriage without a head is chaos and a marriage with two heads is a monster.” This is not only true, but profoundly so.
From the beginning, women have played a crucial support role in the home. While the man is the head of the home, the woman is the heart. Both need each other to function, but each has a different function. A heart trying to do the brain’s job is a failure because it wasn’t designed to be a brain. Instead, it was designed to be a heart and can do that job better than a brain ever could.
The same is true in marriage. This is why it is so critically important to understand the proper roles of men and women and to acknowledge, accept, and embrace God’s marriage dynamic as illustrated in the scriptures. If women understood their proper place in the home, they would not rebel against it as much, find as much cause for complaint, be as unhappy, or be susceptive to feminist propaganda that tries to paint them as victims of oppression. And if men understood their role, they would likewise be better leaders, more attentive, and more effective.
The Christian writer Charlotte Maxfield explained a solution to marital conflicts. She addressed herself to wives who feel the need to be “independent” and who don’t want to, or can’t bring themselves to, truly trust their husbands and follow the Lord’s Plan for marriage:
“The solution I suggest to you for overcoming your problems in marriage and bringing peace to your family is exactly what Paul commanded: Submit to your husband in everything! [Ephesians 5:22-24]
“It’s crazy, you say? It can be done, and I’ve seen it accomplished many times. The changes and blessings it brings are so great that I can hardly express the difference. I have seen several hundred women accomplish it in their lives and as they relate the results of their change in behavior and the reaction within their whole family, their happiness brings tears of joy to your eyes.
“Can you dare to do it? Have you the courage and faith? What have we really got to lose that is of eternal importance? . . . .
“Don’t allow yourself to have hurt feelings. It is a sign that you are not truly dedicated yet, and are indulging yourself in childish self pity and it is a form of rebellion against him. If you have displeased him, just honestly tell him that you are sorry and that you’ll correct it. When you really mean it, he’ll know by your actions and respect and worship you for it. . . .
“Your single and most compelling desire is to obey and please him 100%. As you do this you’ll never have to worry about yourself again: your needs, wants, or welfare.
“The women who have succeeded in this attitude have found that their husband has become even more confident and manly, more fully accepting of his authority and the responsibility for the welfare of everyone’s needs. Soon, before she even realizes that she has a need, he has provided for it. . . .
“I know that there are some women who might read these things and the idea of complete submission sends chills of agonizing fear into their hearts, but I have heard fear referred to as lack of faith. In order to succeed in this challenge you must believe that your husband is good. It is frightening to place yourself at the mercy of someone else, but you will find that it will become the most glorious dedication of your existence. The two of you shall reach such realms of exalted joy in your lives together that you will finally begin to know what “home – a heaven on earth” really means. . . .
“Let me talk to the woman who might tend to feel that she wouldn’t dare to obey everything her husband tells her, because he isn’t perfect and therefore doesn’t have the right. This kind of woman is usually manipulative. Though she’s deathly afraid to admit it to herself, others can see it. She may be the kind of woman who has been unconsciously looking down on her husband in self-righteousness, and treating him like a child who is not permitted to grow into complete manhood. Such a woman will often laugh at such an approach to her future happiness and try to find some logical reason why she couldn’t possibly do it. This justifies her failure to commit herself. It is easier to condemn something as foolish, impractical, faulty, and ridiculous than it is to say, “I haven’t the humility or faith to do it,” or “I’m scared.” Remember, “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” (Gen. 3:16) Some women would like to erase that from the scriptures, but I don’t think that our Father in Heaven could have made it more clear.
“The only reason a woman will look for an excuse to rationalize or justify her behavior is because she is defending her inside self who is frightened of the truth and afraid of having to humbly dare to change.
“You must have faith. It is difficult to believe that any man who is entrusted with the welfare and safety of a loving woman who has completely sacrificed all her selfish desires and wishes and pledged her undying obedience unto him would ask such a submissive and delicate possession to commit sin. If he did, I feel that the sin would be upon his head, if she were obeying God’s law. And I cannot believe that any of our husbands are that corrupted.
“You must have faith in him and in yourself, and in God – that He will bless your sincere efforts. I believe that He will answer you beyond your most vivid imaginings. Ask, knock – for His greatest desire is to have heavenly marriages. Remember that you and the Lord are an “invincible team.”
“After all, isn’t that what the Lord is asking of you? He has commanded us to place nothing before Him in importance. . . .
“Well, are you willing to set aside your pride? Are you willing to obey God’s law? Can you willingly obey the head of your home as a similitude of your love for your Savior as Eve did? You know what your husband can become, but only if you will cease to resist and fight him. Your pride may be the only thing which is stifling his spiritual growth into what he can become.
“Is there any price too great to pay for this promise? If we are to become worthy of this tremendous reward, we must practice and grow now. We must take those few frightening babysteps with faith and courage and humbly pray to the Lord to guide us. I have faith that He will.
“Great blessings are in store for you if you can now give life to the words and beliefs you have merely been giving lip service to all these years” (Charlotte S. Maxfield, “A Husband – To Have and To Hold,” in Duane S. Crowther and Jean D. Crowther, ed., The Joy of Being a Woman: Guidance for Meaningful Living By Outstanding LDS Women, 198-202).
After reading this, how do you evaluate yourself? Do you rationalize and justify slighting your husband, disrespecting him, or disobeying him, or do you faithfully, joyfully, proudly jump into your role as his wife? Do you fight against your husband instead of fighting together side by side with him? Do you nitpick at your husband’s flaws as a way to deflect from your own? Do you give your husband the benefit of the doubt or use his imperfections as an excuse to undermine, accuse, or disobey him? Are you stunting your spiritual growth and womanly potential because you refuse to adopt a feminine, submissive, humble heart?
Mrs. Maxfield is correct when she says that men respond to the way women treat them. Let’s face it, if a woman does not value her husband, he won’t care as much about his own appearance and actions. He should care for himself regardless and can’t blame anyone else for his behavior, but that’s an ideal, not reality. The reality is that the way a woman chooses to respect or disrespect her husband has a powerful influence over him.
Maxfield is right when she says that a man will live up to the high standards you have for him. If you accept him at a low level, what’s his motivation to improve? Give a man a lofty goal and a clear quest and he will move Heaven and earth to accomplish it. If you have a low opinion of your husband, and, worse, if you make it clear to him that you have a low opinion of him, then he won’t achieve the greatness that he’s capable of. Again, the way a woman responds to a man’s leadership will often decide the course of that leadership in the future.
The author is also right that a real man will not abuse your trust. That doesn’t mean he won’t make mistakes or fail in life at times or in decision making, but it means that he will sincerely appreciate, cherish, and honor your submission, your loyalty, and your devotion. It makes us rise to the challenge when we know a woman is relying on us, counting on us, and looking to us for leadership, strength, and composure. Most husbands are not tyrannical and won’t turn a wife’s submission – which is a great gift – into a weapon against her.
Wives, do you truly trust your husband or are you holding back? The answer to this question is a great indicator of the strength of your relationship. If you can’t trust your spouse and fully give yourself to him, you can’t truly be “one flesh” (Genesis 2:24) or have a completely harmonious relationship. If you can’t be submissive to him, show him sincere respect, and work to be a feminine lady, what can you truly offer? The most unique thing you can give is your heart, but you can’t really give it while disrespecting him, treating him worse than a stranger on the street, giving him less deference than you would a boss, dismissing him, or acting like an “independent” woman who “don’t need no man.”
Ladies, please ask yourself if you love your husband enough to treat him better than anyone else in your life. Are you willing to show him more respect, more deference, more submission, more eagerness to listen, more attentiveness, more care, and more selflessness than to any other person? Are you willing to put in the same effort you made when you were dating to look and behave nice for him? Are you willing to bite your tongue, retain a humble attitude, and nurture a meek mindset with your husband? Finally, are you willing to be the feminine woman he really wants you to be?
However you act, and whatever you choose to do and be in your marriage, I hope you put your husband first before strangers, co-workers, friends, or anyone else. I hope that the way you treat your spouse is better, kinder, more patient, more compassionate, and more devoted than how you treat anyone else in your life. If not, then why are you even married?
To close I want to make a confession: I don’t do all of the things I suggested perfectly. Does that surprise you? I doubt it! People often accuse me of being condescending or hypocritical. It’s not condescending to speak assertively and it’s not hypocritical to live imperfectly while sincerely trying to follow your principles. Only one Man has ever lived His principles perfectly and no woman has ever done it. All of us fall short.
As a husband, I have fallen short of nearly everything above that applies to both men and women. In terms of appearance, for instance, I most often wear shorts here in Panama where I currently reside. I would prefer to wear nicer clothing, but humidity does terrible things to my body. I melt with no clothes on let alone with layers of formal clothing! That said, back in the States I had gradually adopted a little nicer, neater style and, when I finally get back to America with my family, I plan to be even more disciplined in this aspect.
Committing to live better and more strictly does not mean we will succeed in every situation or that we should be condemned as hypocrites when we fail. All of us, men and women, husbands and wives, must devote ourselves to higher ideals. We will never become better by holding lower standards that don’t ask much of us. What I have outlined above for wives is a hard road, but it’s also a holier road that leads to more rewards for them and for their husbands. It leads to true fulfillment and satisfaction, passion and sincerity, love and commitment, happiness and joy.
Wives, treat your husbands with the respect owed them, the submissiveness that will make you both more devoted partners and lovers, the femininity that will endear yourself to him and give you more confidence, and with at least the same level of attentiveness and excited love you showed during courtship, and watch as your relationship improves and flourishes. Or, alternatively, continue treating him worse and with less respect than you treat total strangers and watch as your marriage withers and dies. It’s your choice.