The Book of Mormon Speaks of Freedom

Freedom is a topic that we all have a pressing need to study and master. The human spirit innately craves Liberty and personal accountability, yet few times in history have people been able to attain and then maintain their rights. The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ, which you can read about in my previous article, is a volume of inspired scripture that speaks first and foremost of the divine mission of Jesus Christ and calls upon all people to worship Him. An important secondary mission of The Book of Mormon, however, is to teach us the correct principles of Liberty, expose Satan’s Freedom-destroying schemes, and show what is required for a people to maintain their God-given rights under a free government.

Captain Moroni13

Because it helps us identify the Devil’s tyrannical tactics and teaches us true principles of self-government, The Book of Mormon is the ultimate handbook of Freedom. While there is not much by way of exposition about the principles of Liberty, we see them in action in the lives and experiences of the Nephite nation. For the first five-hundred years of their history, the Nephites lived under a system of kings. The final king, a God-fearing man named Mosiah, decided to abolish the monarchical system and encouraged the Nephite people to take upon themselves responsibilities, rights, and privileges of self-government.

While contemplating the future of his people, Mosiah made a proclamation wherein he explained the dangers posed by monarchy. The foremost problem he identified was factionalism. Those vying for the position of king could easily divide the nation and cause senseless civil war. What’s more, a wicked king would be unstoppable by any means other than bloodshed. With this context in mind, we read a few lines from Mosiah’s proclamation:

And now let us be wise and look forward to these things, and do that which will make for the peace of this people.

. . . let us appoint judges, to judge this people according to our laws; and we will newly arrange the affairs of this people, for we will appoint wise men to be judges, that will judge this people according to the commandments of God.

Now it is better that a man should be judged of God than of man, for the judgments of God are always just, but the judgments of man are not always just. . . .

Now I say unto you, that because all men are not just it is not expedient that ye should have a king or kings to rule over you.

For behold, how much iniquity doth one wicked king cause to be committed, yea, and what great destruction! . . . .

And behold, now I say unto you, ye cannot dethrone an iniquitous king save it be through much contention, and the shedding of much blood.

For behold, he has his friends in iniquity, and he keepeth his guards about him; and he teareath up the laws of those who have reigned in righteousness before him; and he trampleth under his feet the commandments of God;

And he enacteth laws, and sendeth them forth among his people, yea, laws after the manner of his own wickedness; and whosoever doth not obey his laws he causeth to be destroyed; and whosoever doth rebel against him he will send his armies against them to war, and if he can he will destroy them; and thus an unrighteous king doth pervert the ways of all righteousness.

And now behold I say unto you, it is not expedient that such abominations should come upon you.

Therefore, choose you by the voice of this people, judges, that ye may be judged according to the laws which have been given by our fathers, which are correct, and which were given them by the hand of the Lord.

Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law – to do y our business by the voice of the people.

And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon them. . . .

And I command you to do these things in the fear of the Lord; and I command you to do these things, and that ye have no king; that if these people commit sins and inquities they shall be answered upon their own heads. . . .

. . . I desire that this land be a land of liberty, and every man may enjoy his rights and privileges alike” (Mosiah 29:10-12, 16-17, 21-27, 30, 32).

The Book of Mormon30

The Nephite kingdom being conferred on Mosiah by his father, King Benjamin

It should be noted before I proceed with my commentary that Mosiah was not merely a king, but also an inspired Christian prophet. The Holy Spirit therefore moved upon him to formulate a new government that was pleasing to the Lord and compatible with His Gospel.

Mosiah was emphatic that men could not be trusted with the power of kingship. He knew that an unstable or immoral king could cause havoc throughout the land. He was worried that a king would amend the good laws that had been handed down for generations, instituting in their place corrupt laws that would permit sin, punish righteousness, and trample individual Liberty.

Instead of monarchy, Mosiah desired that the Nephite people take upon themselves the responsibility for administering the government. He believed that the people should “do [their] business by the voice of the people.” Note that he did not advocate for pure democracy. Rather, he suggested a system of rule of law with judges selected by the people who would enforce the law. It was, thus, a representative government very similar to that set up in the United States under the Constitution. Just as Mosiah said the law had been given to the Nephites’ forefathers by God, so, too, do I witness that the U.S. Constitution was inspired by Almighty God.

In a portion of Mosiah’s declaration that I did not cited, he made it clear that judges who did not judge “according to the law” could be taken and judged by other judged and removed from their posts (Mosiah 29:28-29). He also verified that the judges were accountable “to the voice of the people” (Mosiah 29:29). The similarities to the system set forth in the U.S. Constitution are too vivid to ignore.

Just as Mosiah said not to place trust in men but instead to make men accountable to the law, the great Thomas Jefferson advised: “In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution” (Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, draft, 1798).

Thomas Paine was obviously in tune with the same patriotic spirit (2 Corinthians 3:17). In 1776, he explained:

[I]n America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the Crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is.

A government of our own is our natural right” (Thomas Paine, Common Sense).

Just as the American Founding Fathers established a government based on the rule of law, individual Liberty, and accountability, so, too, did the Nephites set up a free government in ancient America. When Mosiah presented his plan to the Nephite people, they were thrilled with the prospect of governing themselves. The scripture recounts:

And now it came to pass, after king Mosiah had sent these things forth among the people they were convinced of the truth of his words.

Therefore they relinquished their desires for a king, and became exceedingly anxious that every man should have an equal chance throughout all the land; yea, and every man expressed a willingness to answer for his own sins.

Therefore, it came to pass that they assembled themselves together in bodies throughout the land, to cast in their voices concerning who should be their judges, to judge them according to the law which had been given; and they were exceedingly rejoiced because of the liberty which had been granted unto them” (Mosiah 29:37-39).

The Nephites became enamored with the idea of governing themselves and placing this huge responsibility on their own shoulders. They embraced the idea of rule of law and self-governance. The laws that Mosiah gave “were acknowledged by the people; therefore they were obliged to abide by the laws” (Alma 1:1). This is similar to the concept espoused by George Washington when he said:

The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government” (George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796).

The people supported Mosiah’s plan, accepted the laws he proposed, and thus bound themselves to obey the established system of self-rule. As noted, the people were generally ecstatic to have the chance to determine their own futures. Mosiah made it plain that maintaining such a system would require great exertion. Self-government is indeed the most demanding form of government. It requires individuals to be informed, to make decisions, to be accountable, and to live in accordance with moral principles.

In 1938, Elder Albert Bowen, a modern apostle in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, spoke of self-government. He said:

Self-government involves self-control, self-discipline, and acceptance of the most unremitting obedience to correct principles. . . .

No other form of government requires so high a degree of individual morality” (Elder Albert E. Bowen, Improvement Era, 1938, 41).

Founding Fathers1

The Founding Fathers of the United States were emphatic in their warnings that only a virtuous people is capable of Freedom. It takes no virtue or excellence to be ruled and enslaved, but it takes a high degree of greatness, personal discipline, and exertion to be free. Because our Founding Fathers’ Freedom philosophy dovetails so nicely with the principles preached by Mosiah and other Book of Mormon figures to be cited later, I present a brief smattering of their thoughts on the connection between morality and Liberty.

My ancestor, Caleb Strong, is one of those forgotten Founding Fathers. He was an intimate associate of John Adams and helped him write the constitution for Massachusetts. He filled many positions during the War for Independence. He attended the Constitutional Convention and was the man who successfully proposed that all money bills originate in the House of Representatives. He served as the first senator from Massachusetts and, later, as governor of that state for eleven years. Mr. Strong made this observation:

Almost every nation, at some period of their existence, have enjoyed the privileges of a free State; but how few have preserved them! – they have been lost by the inconstancy of the citizens, or forfeited by their vices. . . .

. . . 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” (Caleb Strong, speech to the Massachusetts Legislature, January 17, 1806).

John Adams similarly believed:

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).

In a more famous quotation, John Adams, then the president, wrote:

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).

John Witherspoon, the fiery Revolutionary era minister, gave us this gem:

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).

Benjamin Franklin also subscribed to this philosophy, writing:

[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).

George Washington by Tim Davis

In his Farewell Address, which ought to be required reading in every part of our Republic, President George Washington took up the subject of morality and religion in a free country and proclaimed:

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

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?” (George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796).

Finally, George Washington stated simply but unequivocally: “Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society” (George Washington to the Protestant Clergy of Philadelphia, March 3, 1797).

The Founding Fathers believed that the American People could only maintain their hard-won Freedom if they were virtuous and lived in accordance with the laws of God. Anciently, Mosiah believed the same thing and established his system of judges and laws in such a manner that required the Nephite people to be righteous in order for them to work. The Nephites consented to this state of affairs and gladly took upon themselves the burden and blessing of self-government. This history contextualizes the most iconic struggles for Liberty related in The Book of Mormon.

The first struggle came only five years after the system of judges had gone into effect. A man name Amlici, who is described as “being a very cunning man, yea, a wise man as to the wisdom of the world” sought to be king (Alma 2:1). Amlici was an anti-Christian zealot who belonged to a sect called the order of Nehors which attempted to impose itself upon the rest of society. We read in the record that Christians and all who loved their Liberty were alarmed at Amlici’s desire to become a king. They knew that “according to their law” all such matters “must be established by the voice of the people” and that “if it were possible that Amlici should gain the voice of the people, he, being a wicked man, would deprive them of their rights and privileges of the church; for it was his intent to destroy the church of God” (Alma 2:3-4).

As time went on, Amlici successfully courted a large number of people “and they began to endeavor to establish Amlici to be a king over the people” (Alma 2:2). Whether they joined him because they were not accustomed to their newfound Freedom, or because they found self-government too demanding, or whether they were also opposed to the Church of Jesus Christ and wanted the strong arm of government to suppress it, Amlici’s followers became so numerous that they forced a vote to decide whether or not their government would be abolished.

We read what happened next:

And it came to pass that the people assembled themselves together throughout all the land, every man according to his mind, whether it were for or against Amlici, in separate bodies, having much dispute and wonderful contentions one with another.

And thus they did assemble themselves together to cast in their voices concerning the matter; and they were laid before the judges.

And it came to pass that the voice of the people came against Amlici, that he was not made king over the people.

Now this did cause much joy in the hearts of those who were against him; but Amlici did stir up those who were in his favor to anger against those who were not in his favor.

And it came to pass that they gathered themselves together, and did consecrate Amlici to be their king.

Now when Amlici was made king over them he commanded them that they should take up arms against their brethren; and this he did that he might subject them to him” (Alma 2:5-10).

Amlici’s rebellion fulfilled Mosiah’s earlier warnings to a T. Recall that Mosiah warned that “ye cannot dethrone an iniquitous king save it be through much contention, and the shedding of much blood.” The Nephites were compelled to fight a sanguinary civil war all because one very wicked man sought for power over his countrymen and sought to dictate how they should live worship.

The Book of Mormon16

Amlici’s forces, being outnumbered by those who desired Freedom, were quickly defeated. However, Amlici ran to the Nephites’ rivals, the Lamanites, for assistance. The Lamanites routinely watched and waited for opportunities to subjugate the Nephites. A civil war was the perfect opportunity to strike. They joined forces with Amlici and the remainder of his men and waged war against the Nephites.

The Book of Mormon recounts that the ensuing battle was fierce but that “the Nephites being strengthened by the hand of the Lord, having prayed mightily to him that he would deliver them out of the hands of their enemies, therefore the Lord did hear their cries, and did strengthen them, and the Lamanites and the Amlicites did fall before them” (Alma 2:28).

After the brief but devastating war, the Nephites went back to the work of self-government. Their peace did not last long, however, because there are always those who seek for power over others.

Eighteen years after the “reign of judges” began, we learn of a great warrior named Captain Moroni. Moroni appeared on the scene at a time when the fledgling Nephite republic was again beginning to fracture. A segment of society, led by those of high birth who thought themselves above their fellows, wanted to revert back to the rule of kings. This faction was referred to as “king-men.” The opposing faction took upon themselves the name “freemen” and was determined to maintain their system of self-government at all costs.

This war of ideas came at a precarious time. It came as the aforementioned Lamanites, were again mobilizing for war. The Lamanites were encouraged, as before, by Nephite dissenters. In particular, a group calling themselves Zoramites “began to mix with the Lamanites and to stir them up also to anger” so much so that they “began to make preparations for war” (Alma 35:10-11). The anger stemmed from a difference in religion, the Zoramites and Lamanites denying the Christian Gospel preached by Nephite prophets, but was ultimately aimed at subjugating the independent Nephites once and for all.

At age twenty-five, Captain Moroni was appointed as head of the Nephite army. Moroni, a brilliant tactician and a man inspired by Almighty God, won the initial battles against the Lamanite-Zoramite armies and the latter retreated to regroup and devise a new strategy. During this tense period of war preparations, and as Captain Moroni was occupied fortifying the land in anticipation of the coming onslaught, the seditious king-men seized their chance.

The king-men were led by a singularly devious man named Amalickiah. Amalickiah, as Amlici before him, hated the Gospel of Jesus Christ and wanted to destroy the Church of Christ. He also lusted for power and wanted to eviscerate the Nephites’ Freedom. The Book of Mormon speaks of him and his followers in this way:

And it came to pass that as many as would not hearken to the words of Helaman [the prophet] and his brethren were gathered together against their brethren.

And now behold, they were exceedingly wroth, insomuch that they were determined to slay them.

Now the leader of those who were wroth against their brethren was a large and a strong man; and his name was Amalickiah.

And Amalickiah was desirous to be a king; and those people who were wroth were also desirous that he should be their king; and they were the greater part of them the lower judges of the land, and they were desirous for power.

And they had been led by the flatteries of Amalickiah, that if they would support him and establish him to be their king that he would make them rulers over the people. . . .

Yea, we see that Amalickiah, because he was a man of cunning device and a man of many flattering words, that he led away the hearts of many people to do wickedly; yea, and to seek to destroy the church of God, and to destroy the foundation of liberty which God had granted unto them, or which blessing God had sent upon the face of the land for the righteous’ sake” (Alma 46:1-5, 10).

Captain Moroni12

Amalickiah and his elitist, anti-Christian hordes rose up to challenge the Nephites. They openly sought to destroy the government, impose a monarchy over the land, and sweep away the Christians. Captain Moroni, a Christian and a fierce Freedom Fighter, would have none of it. The sacred record tells us:

And now it came to pass that when Moroni, who was the chief commander of the armies of the Nephites, had heard of these dissensions, he was angry with Amalickiah.

And it came to pass that he rent his coat; and he took a piece thereof, and wrote upon it – In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children – and he fastened it upon the end of a pole.

And he fastened on his headplate, and his breastplate, and his shields, and girded on his armor about his loins; and he took the pole, which had on the end thereof his rent coat, (and he called it the title of liberty) and he bowed himself to the earth, and he prayed mightily to his God for the blessings of liberty to rest upon his brethren, so long as there should a band of Christians remain to possess the land. . . .

And he said: Surely God shall not suffer that we, who are despised because we take upon us the name of Christ, shall be trodden down and destroyed, until we bring it upon us by our own transgressions.

And when Moroni had said these words, he went forth among the people, waving the rent part of his garment in the air, that all might see the writing . . . and crying with a loud voice, saying:

Behold, whosoever will maintain this title upon the land, let them come forth in the strength of the Lord, and enter into a covenant that they will maintain their rights, and their religion, that the Lord God may bless them.

And it came to pass that when Moroni had proclaimed these words, behold, the people came running together with their armor girded about their loins, rending their garments in token, or as a covenant, that they would not forsake the Lord their God” (Alma 46:11-13, 18-21).

Moroni ordered that his Title of Liberty be published throughout all the land. With the stirring slogan “In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children,” Captain Moroni rallied the Nephites against Amalickiah. He inspired them to stand up and be counted. He roused them to rise in defense of their Faith, Families, and Freedom.

Captain Moroni4

When Captain Moroni had rallied the people to his standard, he marched against Amalickiah to put an end to his machinations. When they saw Moroni coming, many of Amalickiah’s people became “doubtful concerning the justice of the cause in which they had undertaken” (Alma 46:29). Amalickiah, fearing capture, took a small group of followers, including his brother Ammoron, and fled to the Lamanites. Moroni sent his men to apprehend Amalickiah because “he knew that he would stir up the Lamanites to anger against them and cause them to come to battle against them; and this he knew that Amalickiah would do that he might obtain his purposes” (Alma 46:30).

Unfortunately, Amalickiah escaped. Most of his followers, however, were captured. We read:

And it came to pass that whomsoever of the Amalickiahites that would not enter into a covenant to support the cause of freedom, that they might maintain a free government, he caused to be put to death; and there were but few who denied the covenant of freedom.

And it came to pass also, that he caused the title of liberty to be hoisted upon every tower which was in all the land, which was possessed by the Nephites; and thus Moroni planted the standard of liberty among the Nephites” (Alma 46:35-36).

The immediate threat of civil war was eliminated. However, as Moroni predicted, and in a fascinating story of trickery and treachery that I will not recount here, Amalickiah gained control over the Lamanite army, had his men murder the Lamanite king, and installed himself as monarch. His first command as king, unsurprisingly, was to launch a war of subjugation against the Nephites.

The Book of Mormon gives us this interesting passage about the interim period before the war began in earnest and about the type of man and leader Captain Moroni was:

Now it came to pass that while Amalickiah had thus been obtaining power by fraud and deceit, Moroni, on the other hand, had been preparing the minds of the people to be faithful unto the Lord their God. . . .

And thus he was preparing to support their liberty, their lands, their wives, and their children, and their peace, and that they might live unto the Lord their God, and that they might maintain that which was called by their enemies the cause of Christians.

And Moroni was a strong and a mighty man; he was a man of perfect understanding; yea, a man that did not delight in bloodshed; a man whose soul did joy in the liberty and the freedom of his country, and his brethren from bondage and slavery;

Yea, a man whose heart did swell with thanksgiving to his God, for the many privileges and blessings which he bestowed upon his people; a man who did labor exceedingly for the welfare and safety of his people.

Yea, and he was a man who was firm in the faith of Christ, and he had sworn with an oath to defend his people, his rights, and his country, and his religion, even to the loss of his blood.

Now the Nephites were taught to defend themselves against their enemies, even tot he shedding of blood if it were necessary; yea, and they were also taught never to give an offense, yea, and never to raise the sword except it were against an enemy, except it were to preserve their lives.

And this was their faith, that by so doing God would prosper them in the land. . . .

Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men” (Alma 48:7, 10-15, 17).

Captain Moroni exemplified what it means to be a patriot. He was the ultimate freeman. He has an honored place in the Freedom Fighter Hall of Fame. His Herculean struggle for his people earned him eternal glory. And he was the epitome of the “Christian soldier” marching “with the cross of Jesus” (Hymn No. 246, “Onward, Christian Soldiers,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).

We have an analog to Captain Moroni in our own history. General George Washington was such a man of similar stature. He was also a strong and mighty individual, a man with a brilliant mind, a patriot who worked for the welfare of his country, and a deeply devout Christian. Just as Moroni bowed himself to the earth and supplicated the Lord for assistance, General Washington relied upon the Lord during the Revolution. At the outset of that struggle, he wrote:

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

Captain Moroni16

The righteous portion of the Nephites were well-grounded in just principles. They knew that conquest was wrong. They knew that the Lord only supports taking the sword in self-defense and to fulfill His divine purposes. Similarly, early Americans abhorred aggressive war and only shouldered their muskets when the British monarchists came to disarm and enslave them. Thomas Jefferson observed:

If there be one principle more deeply rooted than any other in the mind of every American, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest” (Thomas Jefferson to William Short, July 28, 1791).

The Americans’ War for Independence was a defensive action against modern-day king-men. Our People, like the Nephites, fought a war for their very survival. We had General Washington and the Nephites had Captain Moroni. And as the Nephites rent their coats as a token that they would serve God and thereby receive His protection, so, too, did modern Americans declare their “firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.” When you recognize the parallels between ancient and recent history, and recognize that we are today passing through a similar period of division centering on religion and Liberty, The Book of Mormon becomes all the more relevant and useful.

We return to Captain Moroni’s story. Eventually, King Amalickiah’s Lamanite forces invaded Nephite territory. Moroni had cleverly fortified every city throughout the land (the ruins of those impressive forts can be found throughout the heartland of America) and the initial thrusts were repulsed. Amalickiah “was exceedingly wroth, and he did curse God, and also Moroni, swearing with an oath that he would drink his blood” (Alma 49:27). Amalickiah restrategized and, approximately five years later, personally led a new invasion.

This invasion happened as yet another group of Nephites attempted to break away and the society was rife with division. The Book of Mormon gives a commentary about those who caused the new contentions:

Therefore, those who were desirous that the law should be altered were angry with [the newly-elected chief judge Pahoran], and desired that he should no longer be chief judge over the land; therefore there arose a warm dispute concerning the matter. . . .

And it came to pass that those who were desirous that Pahoran should be dethroned from the judgment-seat were called king-men, for they were desirous that the law should be altered in a manner to overthrow the free government and to establish a king over the land.

And those who were desirous that Pahoran should remain chief judge over the land took upon them the name of freemen; and thus was the division among them, for the freemen had sworn or covenanted to maintain their rights and the privileges of their religion by a free government.

And it came to pass that this matter of their contention was settled by the voice of the people. And it came to pass that the voice of the people came in favor of the freemen, and Pahoran retained the judgment-seat, which caused much rejoicing among the brethren of Pahoran and also many of the people of liberty, who also put the king-men to silence, that they durst not oppose but were obliged to maintain the cause of freedom.

Now those who were in favor of kings were those of high birth, and they sought to be kinds; and they were supported by those who sought power and authority over the people” (Alma 51:4-8).

Captain Moroni17

This division and infighting happened at the exact time that Amalickiah attacked. So bitter were the king-men that they had been thwarted yet again by the freemen that when they knew the Lamanites had invaded “they refused to take up arms, for they were so wroth with the chief judge, and also with the people of liberty, that they would not take up arms to defend their country” (Alma 51:13).

We read that when Captain Moroni was apprised of the king-men’s sedition, he was “exceedingly wroth because of the stubbornness of those people whom he had labored with so much diligence to preserve; yea, he was exceedingly wroth; his soul was filled with anger against them” (Alma 51:14). Moroni was forced to withdraw his troops from their defensive positions to deal with the king-men problem first. The record states that “he sent a petition, with the voice of the people, unto the governor of the land” requesting power “to compel those dissenters to defend their country or to put them to death” (Alma 51:15).

The Book of Mormon attests that Moroni was so concerned because such sedition “had been hitherto a cause of all their destruction” (Alma 51:16). The Captain’s petition was granted and he “commanded that his army should go against those king-men, to pull down their pride and their nobility and level them with the earth, or they should take up arms and support the cause of liberty” (Alma 51:17).

The same king-men who refused to lift their weapons to defend their country nevertheless drew the sword to fight against their countrymen. Moroni’s disciplined men were victorious, however, and the king-men were killed, imprisoned, or “compelled to hoist the title of liberty upon their towers, and in their cities, and to take up arms in defence of their country” (Alma 51:20). Though he did not entirely wipe out the monarchical ideology, Moroni successfully destroyed the king-men as an organization. “[T]hey were brought down to humble themselves like unto their brethren, and to fight valiantly for their freedom from bondage” (Alma 51:21).

During the chaos, Amalickiah was able to capture a number of Nephite cities. He would have continued cutting his way through the land, but a commander named Teancum was dispatched to stop him, which he successfully did because his men were “great warriors; for every man of Teancum did exceed the Lamanites in their strength and in their skill of war” (Alma 51:31). Being repulsed after a hard day of fighting, Amalickiah camped for the night. Teancum, however, wanted to end the war as quickly as possible. He crept into the Lamanite camp, found Amalickiah as he slept, and “put a javelin to his heart,” thus ending Amalickiah’s evil reign (Alma 51:33-36).

The war did not end as Teancum had hoped, however. Amalickiah’s brother Ammoron ascended to the throne and intensified the conflagration, besieging all parts of the land. The war raged for years with both victories and setbacks for the Nephites. I leave you to read about the specific battles and strategy in the book of Alma in The Book of Mormon. I jump to the concluding episode of the war.

The Book of Mormon32

Though the king-men were no longer called by that name, enough people maintained the elitist philosophy to be a major impediment to the war effort. Near the end of the war, Moroni and other commanders stopped receiving sufficient supplies of men and food. Moroni began to suspect that a faction existed within the government which sought their defeat. “Moroni was angry with the government, because of their indifference concerning the freedom of their country” (Alma 59:13). He wrote a bristling epistle that everyone should read in full. I draw a few noteworthy excerpts from its contents – lines which equally apply to those traitors who infest our own government today.

Speaking to the “the chief judge and the governor over the land, and also to all those who have been chosen by this people to govern and manage the affairs of this war,” Moroni chided:

Can you think to sit upon your thrones in a state of thoughtless stupor, while your enemies are spreading the work of death around you? Yea, while they are murdering thousands of your brethren –

Yea, even they who have looked up to you for protection, yeah, have placed you in a situation that ye might have succored them. . . .

. . . many have fought and bled out their lives because of their great desires which they had for the welfare of this people; yea, and this they have done when they were about to perish with hunger, because of your exceedingly great neglect towards them.

. . . ye ought to have stirred yourselves more diligently for the welfare and the freedom of this people; but behold, ye have neglected them insomuch that the blood of thousands shall come upon your heads for vengeance; yea, for known unto God were all their cries, and all their sufferings. . . .

. . . had it not been for the war which broke out among ourselves; yea, were it not for these king-men, who caused so much bloodshed among ourselves; yea, at the time we were contending among ourselves, if we had united our strength as we hitherto have done; yea, had it not been for the desire of power and authority which those king-men had over us; had they been true tot he cause of our freedom, and united with us, and gone forth against our enemies, instead of taking up their swords against us, which was the cause of so much bloodshed among ourselves; yea, if we had gone forth against them in the strength of the Lord, we should have dispersed our enemies. . . .

But behold, now the Lamanites are coming upon us, taking possession of our lands, and they are murdering our people with the sword, yea, our women and our children, and also carrying them away captive, causing them that they should suffer all manner of afflictions, and this because of the great wickedness of those who are seeking for power and authority, yea, even those king-men.

But why should I say much concerning this matter? For we know not but what ye yourselves are seeking for authority. We know not but what ye are also traitors to your country. . . .

Do ye suppose that God will look upon you as guiltless while ye sit still and behold these things? Behold I say unto you, Nay. Now I would that ye should remember that God has said that the inward vessel shall be cleansed first, and then shall the outer vessel be cleansed also.

And now, except ye do repent of that which ye have done, and begin to be up and doing . . . behold it will be expedient that we content no more with the Lamanites until we have first cleansed our inward vessel, yea, even the great head of our government.

And except ye grant mine epistle, and come out and show unto me a true spirit of freedom. . . .

. . . I will come unto you, and if there be any among you that has a desire for freedom, yea, if there be even a spark of freedom remaining, behold I will stir up insurrections among you, even until those who have desires to usurp power and authority shall become extinct.

Yea, behold I do not fear your power nor your authority, but it is my God whom I fear; and it is according to his commandments that I do take my sword to defend the cause of my country, and it is because of your iniquity that we have suffered so much loss.

Behold it is time, yea, the time is now at hand, that except ye do bestir yourselves in the defence of your country and your little ones, the sword of justice doth hang over you. . . .

Behold, I am Moroni, your chief captain. I seek not for power, but to pull it down. I seek not for honor of the world, but for the glory of my God, and the freedom and welfare of my country” (Alma 60:1, 7-10, 16-18, 23-25, 27-29, 36).

Captain Moroni18

Captain Moroni was a man of such integrity, sincerity, and passion that he would move Heaven and earth to fulfill his covenants, defend his country, and secure his people’s Freedom. He knew that there is a price to be paid for Liberty and that everyone must pay it. He further understood that a divided nation is easily conquered, but a united one is difficult to destroy. He chided the government for its neglect and singled out those whose desire was power as traitors to their country. As patriots in all ages have done, he put his own neck on the line in denouncing tyrants and advocating Freedom. He was willing to challenge even his own government when that government was wrong. Such was the integrity of Captain Moroni.

In response to Moroni’s epistle, the chief judge Pahoran responded that he stood firmly with the freemen but that a faction had “risen up in rebellion against me, and also those of my people who are freemen” (Alma 61:3). It was this group of power-hungry autocrats who took over the capital, drove the legitimate government out, and stopped the supply of provisions to Moroni’s armies. They went so far as to appoint a king and entered into an alliance with the Lamanites. Part of Pahoran’s letter to Moroni reads:

I, Pahoran, do not seek for power, save only to retain my judgment-seat that I may preserve the rights and the liberty of my people. My soul standeth fast in that liberty in the which God hath made us free. . . .

Therefore, my beloved brother, Moroni, let us resist evil, and whatsoever evil we cannot resist with our words, yea, such as rebellions and dissensions, let us resist them with our swords, that we may retain our freedom, that we may rejoice in the privilege of our church, and in the cause of our Redeemer and our God” (Alma 61:9, 14).

Upon receiving news of the insurrection and Pahoran’s continued faithfulness, Captain Moroni took a part of his army and marched to Pahoran. Together, they put down the rebellion in the capital and then turned their sights toward the Lamanite invaders. With the cancer of rebellion finally in remission and the Nephites unified under Captain Moroni’s banner, the Nephites swept the Lamanites before them. They drove the Lamanites, led by King Ammoron, to the edge of their land and prepared for a final fight.

At this juncture, Teancum again appears in the story. Recall that Teancum had previously snuck into the Lamanite camp and killed Amalickiah. As the Lamanites camped, Teancum attempted a repeat of his earlier feat. This time, however, Ammoron was able to alert his guards before dying. The Lamanite guards chased Teancum and killed him, ending the life of one of the greatest Nephite Freedom Fighters.

We are told that when Moroni and the other commanders learned of his death, “they were exceedingly sorrowful” (Alma 62:37). The Book of Mormon pays great tribute to this warrior. Teancum’s memorial is one that I have always striven for. On my tombstone, I hope it is said of me what was written and said of Teancum:

[B]ehold, he had been a man who had fought valiantly for his country, yea, a true friend to liberty” (Alma 62:37).

The day following Teancum’s tragic death, Captain Moroni’s armies drove the Lamanites out of their land, ending that phase of senseless war. Once the fortifications had been built up again, Moroni resigned his post and retired to his home, much the same way George Washington resigned his generalship after the War for Independence and took his rest at Mount Vernon.

The times of war and struggle recorded in The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ give us clear examples of what Freedom is, what it takes to maintain, and what type of threats we should be on guard against. In the first place, we learn that a free government is one in which the “voice of the people” is prominent. However, unlike a pure democracy where the mob rules, a truly free government is based on the rule of law. Nephite law was originally revealed from God and accorded with the commandments. The government was not a theocracy, but the laws were just and inspired.

Constitution7

Similarly, the U.S. Constitution is an inspired document that promotes the power of the People tempered by just laws. It is part of my religion that the Lord established the Constitution. In modern times, our Lord has referred to “the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh” (Doctrine and Covenants 101:77).

In a parallel to Mosiah’s wish that the Nephites practice self-government so that every the people’s sins may “be answered upon their own heads,” the Lord further stated that He established the U.S. Constitution so that every person may act “according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment” (Doctrine and Covenants 101:78).

The Savior continued by saying that “it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.

And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood” (Doctrine and Covenants 101:79-80).

Elsewhere, the Lord has revealed:

And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting the principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me” (Doctrine and Covenants 98:5).

Finally, the Lord has said, regarding government, that “whatsoever is more or less” than the holy principles of the Constitution “cometh of evil” (Doctrine and Covenants 98:5-7).

The Nephite example captures these principles and shows them in action. The Nephite people lived under an inspired system of self-rule that involved just laws which protected individual Liberty. The society consented to follow these laws and maintain their collective privileges and individual rights. They understood that the individual is accountable to God for his behavior and must shoulder the responsibility of exercising his moral agency correctly.

We also see that judges, comparable to elected representatives today, were appointed not to dictate, but to enforce the law. They were strictly accountable to the voting public and could be removed from their posts if they failed to uphold the law. Even this removal process was not a knee-jerk thing, but a procedure codified in the law similar the way modern impeachments are heavily regulated and should never be based on majority ire.

As Nephite history shows, when a small group of people try to exercise their power to overrule the accepted law in order force their point of view or lifestyle on the majority, contention and warfare often result. We also see that when people become detached from the Gospel of Jesus Christ and consumed with anger toward that which is good, even the results of a popular election can’t stop their agitation. People in this situation are prone to violence – even civil war. Nothing but the firmness of freemen can stop king-men, insurrectionists, and revolutionaries from destroying the Liberty of a nation. At times, good men who love Liberty and who cherish peace must fight to maintain them and to defend their families.

The salient points to understand from the history of Nephite government, then, are these: That ordered Liberty is the ideal; that Liberty and law go hand in hand; that political power springs from the People; that government representatives are accountable to the public; that the People are accountable to God for their actions in relation to government; and that self-rule is vastly superior to monarchy.

Furthermore, in the example of the power-hungry king-men, we see that lust for control leads to bitterness, treason, contention, and bloodshed. We see that evil yet persuasive men like Amlici and Amalickiah have the power to upend society, overthrow governments, and destroy Liberty unless the People are vigilant and humble themselves before God, relying upon His deliverance. We also learn that tyrants motivated by a lust for power are inherently weaker than people motivated by their love of God, Freedom, and country.

Captain Moroni15

And in the story of Captain Moroni and the freemen, we see the qualities a free people must possess. First, we note that the greatest Freedom Fighters and patriots are those who bow the knee to the King of kings, Jesus Christ. Next, we learn that unity is key to any endeavor. A unified society can do great things, but a divided nation is bound to fail. Third, we see that a real leader, a man like Moroni, is one that is full of passion and sincerity, a person who drives on toward his goal regardless of opposition, and a selfless servant who willingly gives his time, talents, and everything he possesses to noble causes, such as the cause of Freedom.

In our day of rampant confusion where personal Liberty is on the wane and the forces of Satanic communism are on the rise, which I discuss at length in my upcoming article “The Book of Mormon Speaks of Conspiracy,” the lessons contained in the pages of The Book of Mormon are absolutely priceless. We can gain badly needed wisdom from Mosiah, courage from the freemen, and inspiration from Captain Moroni, Teancum, and Pahoran. We can be motivated by knowing that another free people who lived on this American continent went through the same struggles we’re passing through today and that they prevailed with the Lord’s help. The Book of Mormon lets us know that we are not alone in our quest for Liberty, that Freedom is worth fighting for, and that every sacrifice for our Faith, Families, and Freedom is not only worth it, but is needed and remembered.

Finally, The Book of Mormon informs those of us who inhabit the same land that the Nephites inhabited, this Promised Land of America, this shining city on a hill, the future Zion of God, that we are under special obligations. If we meet our obligations faithfully, we have special promises extended to us. An ancient prophet, speaking to you and me, told us that America is a covenant land – a special land blessed above all others. He spoke of this land as “the land of promise, which was choice above all other lands, which the Lord God had preserved for a righteous people.” He then explained:

And he had sworn in his wrath . . . that whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fulness of his wrath should come upon them.

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 2:7-12).

From this passage, we learn that America is a Promised Land – a covenant land. The covenant is that those who live in America will serve Jesus Christ or they will be destroyed. If they serve the Lord, He has promised that we will “be free from bondage, and captivity, and from all other nations under heaven.” Almighty God has decreed that America shall be inhabited by a righteous, Christian people and no other.

The prophet Nephi, the namesake of the Nephite nation, saw a vision of the discovery and founding of America by a Christian people that carried the Bible with them. He saw that they would fight and win a war for their Independence. He prophesied that they would gain the land for their inheritance because they would humble themselves before their Maker. And, because of their humility, the Lord would prosper and protect them, saving them from all hostile nations. Nephi wrote:

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

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

The Book of Mormon19

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

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

And I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles that had gone forth out of captivity were delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations.

And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld that they did prosper in the land; and I beheld a book, and it was carried forth among them.

And the angel said unto me: Knowest thou the meaning of the book?

And I said unto him: I know not.

And he said: . . . The book that thou beholdest is a record of the Jews, which contains the covenants of the Lord which he hath made unto the house of Israel . . . wherefore, they are of great worth unto the Gentiles” (1 Nephi 13:14-19).

The Lord has presided over the history of America from the beginning. It was He who brought the Nephites here and it was He who brought our own forefathers to this land. It was the Lord who protected and delivered the Americans out of Europe’s iron grip. His miraculous power was on display to such a high degree during the War for Independence that George Washington was compelled to write:

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).

America is the Lord’s base of operations. It is His land. He protects it. And He requires that those who are privileged to live here worship Him. When we do, His power is poured out in our behalf.

Another Nephite prophet named Jacob similarly prophesied about this special land. His prophecies deal specifically with our day. He foretold:

But behold, this land, said God, shall be a land of thine inheritance, and the Gentiles shall be blessed upon the land.

And this land shall be a land of liberty unto the Gentiles, and there shall be no kings upon the land, who shall raise up unto the Gentiles.

And I will fortify this land against all other nations.

And he that fighteth against Zion shall perish, saith God.

For he that raiseth up a king against me shall perish, for I, the Lord, the king of heaven, will be their king, and I will be a light unto them forever, that hear my words” (2 Nephi 10:10-14).

As before, we see that America is a covenant land where the people are expected to serve Jesus Christ, the rightful King of America. If they do, they will be blessed and protected against all other nations. Anyone who attempts to establish a king over this land and thereby abolish the system of Freedom and self-rule established by the Lord via the Constitution “shall perish.” We have a great need as Americans to internalize these promises and humble ourselves before the Redeemer.

The Book of Mormon11

The Bible contains similar promises of a general nature. In the Old Testament, we read:

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).

Isaiah also told the House of Israel that if they repent and become obedient to God’s laws, they will “eat the good of the land” (Isaiah 1:19). Also, if they repent and “put away the evil” from among them, the Lord “will restore [their] judges as at first, and [their] counsellors as at the beginning” (Isaiah 1:16, 26). These promises are only made to the penitent, however, just as the promises in The Book of Mormon are extended only to the righteous.

Lastly, the Bible tells us that “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” (2 Corinthians 3:17). And so it is.

The Book of Mormon is immeasurably valuable for many reasons, not least of which is that it speaks of Freedom. It shows us what Freedom is and how to maintain it. It gives us examples of correct principles in action. It shows the innate power possessed by the People and the frailty of tyrants. It inspires us to rely upon the Lord and go forward in His power to defend our Faith, Families, and Freedom. Because of its poignant examples, such as the story of Captain Moroni and the Nephite freemen, The Book of Mormon is the ultimate handbook of Freedom.

This sacred volume of scripture also is important to Americans because it speaks specifically to them. It informs them of the covenant they are under by virtue of living in this land. It tells them that they must repent and worship the Lord Jesus Christ. It states rather clearly that the Lord is the King of America and that His law is our legitimate law.

Dear reader, The Book of Mormon is the word of the Lord equal to the Bible. These two divine witnesses belong together. They confirm each other. They both fervently testify of Jesus Christ. Together, they abolish false doctrines, dispel myths, and confirm the truth. And as one they prove that only a righteous and virtuous people, a people that trusts in the Lord, and people that humbles itself, is capable of the Freedom and blessing of self-government.

Captain Moroni1

Let us raise our own Title of Liberty in our own lives and wherever we have influence. Let us rise in defense of our Faith, Families, and Freedom. Let us exalt God, our Freedom, and the Constitution. Men, be men. Step forward to safeguard your wives and children, your families, and your homes. We are under unrelenting attack we need all hands on deck. Do your duty, stand firm, submit to the Lord’s laws, uphold the Constitution He established, and then trust that the Lord will fulfill His promises to defend our land against tyrants.

May the Lord bless you, my fellow patriot. May all who come to the Lord in sincerity be electrified and given the power to stand firm through tribulation. May the Lord bless all those who faithfully share the thrilling stories found in The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ. May Almighty God prosper people like Darin Southam who are attempting to inspire freemen everywhere through the remarkable history of Captain Moroni. And may we live so that it may be one day said of us that we were true friends to Liberty. I close with my testimony, which I have from the Holy Ghost and cannot deny, that The Book of Mormon is true and that it speaks of Freedom.

Zack Strong,

February 27, 2020

State Flags and American Values

All Americans recognize the U.S. flag. We all know the stars and stripes when we see them. However, many Americans may not be able to identify individual state flags. There are are fifty state flags and many of them give us a hint about what we as Americans cherish and stand for. This article will give an overview of what some of our state flags reveal about the values Americans have traditionally held dear.

flag of Pennsylvania1

The Pennsylvania flag is one of the most interesting. The state coat of arms was designed in 1777 and used on the militia flag of 1799. In 1907, the current flag, bearing the coast of arms, was finally adopted. The image shows a plow, wheat stalks, and a ship, surrounded by corn stalks and olive branches, with two horses on the sides and a bald eagle on top. The words “Virtue, Liberty, and Independence” show at the bottom. The various symbols represent the industry of Pennsylvanians, the prosperity and abundance of the state, and the loyalty of the state’s citizens to the Union.

The three words on the flag of course have the most overt message. Let’s discuss the word “virtue.” When you examine letters, documents, speeches, and sermons from the founding era, you find mention of the word “virtue” everywhere. Pennsylvania’s own Benjamin Franklin once wrote:

I understand it to be the Will of God, that we should live virtuous, upright, and good-doing Lives. . . .

. . . Faith is recommended as a Means of producing Morality: Our Saviour was a Teacher of Morality or Virtue. . . .

. . . Peace, Unity and Virtue in any Church are more to be regarded than Orthodoxy . . . Morality or Virtue is the End, Faith only a Means to obtain that End No point of Faith is so plain, as that Morality is our Duty; for all Sides agree in that. A virtuous Heretick shall be saved before a wicked Christian” (Benjamin Franklin, “Dialogue Between Two Presbyterians,” April 10, 1735).

Even those not considered particularly religious were expected, by society, to be virtuous. Being virtuous was held in high regard by the ancient Romans and early Americans believed it was paramount for their fledgling Republic. Virtue was considered a part of citizenship. President George Washington explained:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. . . .

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government” (George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796).

George Washington52

Virtue was seen as the embodiment of manliness, loyalty, morality, character, sturdiness in principle, the Christian faith, and so on. Without virtue, there could be no civil society and no Liberty. It was the “spring” from whence came our government. John Adams said it this way:

Statesmen my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. . . . 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).

Virtue, then, was considered the keystone of Americanism and a prerequisite of true patriotism. It was essential to the other two words on Pennsylvania’s flag – Liberty and Independence. Pennsylvania is not the only state, however, with such slogans proudly emblazoned on its flag.

Iowa’s flag proclaims: “Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain.” The words are written on a banner being carried in the beak of a flying eagle. Simple, yet powerful. The design is compelling and the expression is true. It’s sad to watch the ongoing Democratic Party caucus catastrophe making a mockery of that state and of its election process. It is equally sad to see that radicals like the homosexual socialist Pete Buttigieg, the Jewish-Marxist Bernie Sanders, and the fake Indian Elizabeth Warren leading the Democratic wolf pack in the state. Yet, if the people of Iowa ever need inspiration to guide their choices in the future, they need only look at their flag and take its words to heart. Valuing our God-given rights and maintaining them through selfless sacrifice has always been the duty of an American freeman.

Georgia’s great flag has several important messages. Set in a pattern unmistakably similar to Old Glory, the flag bears the words “Constitution,” “Wisdom,” “Justice,” “Moderation,” and “In God We Trust.” The words are part of our surrounding an arch on top of pillars. A soldier in a Revolutionary War uniform stands holding a sword, ready to defend the Constitution.

flag of Georgia1

Though not always the design of the state flag, the current image tells us a lot. The flag points our minds to those things which are most important: God, the Constitution, and values like justice and wisdom. Abraham Baldwin, one of Georgia’s signers of the U.S. Constitution, had a major hand in creating the University of Georgia. In the university’s 1785 charter, we find these wise recommendations:

As it is the distinguishing happiness of free governments that civil Order should be the Result of choice and not necessity, and the common wishes of the People become the Laws of the Land, their public prosperity and even existence very much depends upon suitably forming the minds and morals of their Citizens. When the Minds of people in general are viciously disposed and unprincipled and their Conduct disorderly, a free government will be attended with greater Confusions and with Evils more horrid than the wild, uncultivated State of Nature. It can only be happy where the public principles and Opinions are properly directed and their Manners regulated. This is an influence beyond the Stretch of Laws and punishments and can be claimed only by Religion and Education. It should therefore be among the first objects of those who wish well to the national prosperity to encourage and support the principles of Religion and morality, and early to place the youth under the forming hand of Society that by instruction they may be moulded to the love of Virtue and good Order.”

You will notice the similarity in sentiment in these ideas and those of John Adams and George Washington. Everyone in our founding era knew that Freedom – even that protected by a written constitution as marvelous of our own – cannot remain and will profit little if the People are not virtuous. If our manners are not regulated by bringing them into harmony with the principles of religion and morality, and if we are not “moulded to the love of Virtue and good Order,” our Liberty will turn to licentiousness and our Republic will crumble. Georgia’s flag reminds us that we must trust in God and embrace just principles in order to maintain our Constitution.

flag of Rhode Island1

Rhode Island, one of the original thirteen states, has a simple flag with another great message: Hope. The flag depicts a golden anchor above the word “Hope” surrounded by thirteen golden stars. Several sources attribute the impetus for using the word to the Apostle Paul who said that hope is “an anchor of the soul” (Hebrews 6:19). Specifically, our hope was to rest in Jesus Christ and His promise of eternal life to the faithful. Rhode Island’s flag, therefore, is another reminder that our forefathers looked to Christ and relied upon the “protection of divine Providence” in their endeavors.

Finally, I discuss what is likely my favorite state flag – the flag of Virginia. Certainly this flag is the most evocative of them all. The flag has gone through some superficial alterations, but has remained substantively the same. Virginia’s seal, which shows on her flag, was designed by a committee of four patriots in 1776: George Wythe, George Mason, Richard Henry Lee, and Robert Carter Nicholas Sr. George Wythe, the personal tutor of Thomas Jefferson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and a temporary delegate to the Constitutional Convention, was the primary creator of the seal.

flag of Virginia3

The seal depicts the Roman goddess Virtus, or Virtue, standing triumphantly over the slain body of a despotic king. Virtus holds both a spear and a sword whereas the fallen king’s whip and chain, symbols of his oppressive rule, lay impotently on the ground along with his crown. The Latin phrase Sic Semper Tyrannis, “thus always to tyrants,” or, more popularly, “death to tyrants,” features prominently on the image.

Virginia’s flag sums up the core American values of resistance to tyrants and obedience to God. Americans once believed that when the laws of despotic rulers contradict those of Almighty God, they had a sacred duty to resist and depose the despots and honor God instead. They certainly did not believe the mistaken doctrine that individuals owe blind obedience to their government no matter what. Instead, they knew that freemen only owe obedience to just laws – laws that safeguard their rights. Benjamin Franklin’s proposed motto for the nation summed up our forefathers’ attitude: “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.”

John Adams reiterated the right of the American People – or any people – to kill a tyrant. He wrote:

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

It is further significant that Virginia’s bold flag was adopted in 1861 when Virginia succeeded from the Union after Abraham Lincoln arbitrarily and unconstitutionally raised an army to attack South Carolina. Virginians in 1861 knew that Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant who treated the Constitution like toilet paper. It was with Lincoln’s despotism in mind that they adopted the state seal with the iconic words Sic Semper Tyrannis as the official flag of the Old Dominion. It was this very phrase, death to tyrants, that John Wilkes Booth yelled when he shot President Lincoln in Ford’s Theater four years later.

Sic Semper Tyrannis is a phrase that all Americans should keep on the tip of their tongues. The great Thomas Jefferson proclaimed:

God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion . . . What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants” (Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, November 13, 1787).

flag of Virginia4

Not only do Virginia’s tyrannical Democrat leaders who are assaulting the 2nd Amendment need to be warned and rebuked, but all American representatives who are threatening the God-given, Constitution-protected rights of Americans need to be warned and threatened. They need to know that “death to tyrants” isn’t an archaic notion, but an eternal American verity.

Many of America’s state flags are interesting and many are striking. However, it is the message they convey that matters. And, taken as a whole, they remind us of those things that made America great in the first place: Reliance upon God; hope centered in Jesus Christ; love of Liberty; ordered Freedom protected by the Constitution; and our People’s virtue. These are the things that really matter. They are the heart of what it means to be an American.

In this time of deep division and cultural crisis, we need to look to the past. The slogans of our noble past, those wise mottoes which fly overhead every day, point the way to the future. If we truly want to make America great again, we must recover and act upon the core values that made us great in the first place.

We have some very hard questions to ask ourselves as Americans. For starters, we can decide the following: Are we freemen who believe in Liberty and Independence or servile serfs who kow-tow to our own government representatives? Are we Americans whose hope centers in Christ or are we like godless socialists who put their trust in the state? Are we real Christians like our forefathers or will we reject our authentic heritage in favor anti-Christ systems of belief?

America239

Fellow American, look to our state and national mottoes for guidance. Make “In God We Trust” a part of your everyday life. Uphold the principles of Liberty. And stand firm in defense of your rights with “Sic Semper Tyrannis” on your lips. God help us to restore our Republic!

Zack Strong,

February 6, 2020

Virginia Showdown

The eyes of the nation are fixed on Virginia. The newly-elected Democrats have been busy trying to ram tyrannical gun control down Virginians’ throats. Governor Ralph Northam is fully on board with their efforts and has disgraced the governorship of his great state in so doing. This article will explain the unfolding crisis and why it is significant even for those of us not living in Virginia.

guns97

The current anti-gun bills that have just cleared the Virginia Senate are: Senate Bill (SB) 35, which will create additional gun-free zones and prohibit citizens from carrying firearms at public events requiring permits; SB 69, which prohibits the purchase of more than one firearm per 30 day period; and SB 70, which will severely restrict the sale and transfer of private firearms and require additional background checks and licenses. Other draconian bills, such as SB 240, which would institute a Leninist red flag gun confiscation order, have been tabled for the time being.

Virginia is going so far off the deep end that they are even pondering a bill that would charge individuals with a felony for “unlawful paramilitary activity.” If you do any of the following, it would be considered “unlawful”:

“1) Teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use, application, or making of any firearm, explosive or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or intending that such training will be employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder; or

“2) Assembles with one or more persons for the purpose of training with, practicing with, or being instructed in the use of any firearm, explosive or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, intending to employ such training for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder.”

In other words, the despotic bill could effectively prohibit formal firearms training and private militias. No doubt our Founding Fathers, who fired the first shots of the War for Independence because the British were attempting to confiscate their firearms at Lexington and Concord, would recoil and oppose such a measure.

When this gaggle of anti-gun bills was first making its way down the pipe, Governor Northam made national news when a Democratic colleague suggested he call out the Virginia National Guard to enforce the unconstitutional laws. Let’s address this point for a moment. First, the governor of a state absolutely does have authority to call out the National Guard to enforce state laws. That’s not the issue. The issue is that the laws that would be enforced are unconstitutional and, thus, void and invalid.

The supremacy clause of the Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2, plainly states:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Constitution10

This means that the Constitution trumps state law. It trumps Supreme Court rulings. It even trumps Congressional laws and executive orders if those are not in harmony with constitutional principles. Let’s look at how this applies in our present situation.

The relevant part of the Second Amendment states that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” If a law – state, local, federal, it makes no difference – infringes upon the individual’s right to keep and bear arms, that law is, by the default pronouncement of the Constitution, null and void! That is, it is an unconstitutional and, therefore, unenforceable, law. All officers of government throughout the country are “bound” by the Constitution and must obey it.

Oaths are important. It is not a trivial matter to swear to one’s Maker and before the American People. Anyone swearing an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, which military personnel, congressmen, the president, National Guardsmen, and others do, would be in direct violation of that oath were they to enforce unconstitutional, gun-grabbing, Liberty-destroying, property-stealing laws like SB 35, SB 70, SB 69, and SB 240. There is simply no debate on the subject – a freeman has the duty to disobey tyrannical, unconstitutional laws. This the Constitution requires.

Benjamin Franklin’s motto, which he proposed for the motto of the United States, was: “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.” This was a general maxim at the time of America’s founding. Everyone believed that they not only had a right, but a duty, to resist and oppose tyrants. And what is a tyrant? Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines tyranny as:

“Arbitrary or despotic exercise of power; the exercise of power over subjects and others with a rigor not authorized by law or justice, or not requisite for the purposes of government. Hence tyranny is often synonymous with cruelty and oppression.”

Since the Second Amendment to the Constitution plainly guarantees that the individual’s right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed,” and the Constitution binds everyone in a position of public trust to support only laws in harmony with its principles and directives, it follows that anyone promoting unconstitutional laws is, by very definition, a tyrant. Governor Northam and the mob of Democrats in the Virginia Legislature are tyrants. Perhaps they would do well to recall that the flag of the great state of Virginia proudly displays the words: Sic Semper Tyrannis; or, in popular expression, Death to Tyrants.

Sic Semper Tyrannis6

The public reaction to the Democrats’ hostile legislation and the governor’s threats has been heated. Many Virginians are livid. Over 100 cities and counties in the state have passed resolutions declaring themselves sanctuary counties for guns. Sheriffs have gone on record stating flatly that they will disobey any anti-gun law or gun confiscation order. Sheriff Scott Jenkins of Culpeper County, for instance, has taken a firm stand and stated bluntly:

“My office will always encourage and support our citizens in firearms training, concealed carry permits, and the ability to defend themselves and their families. I remain very optimistic that our General Assembly will not pass the proposed bills. Obviously, if passed, there are many of us willing to challenge these laws through the courts. In addition, if necessary, I plan to properly screen and deputize thousands of our law-abiding citizens to protect their constitutional right to own firearms.”

Stories have circulated that Tazewell County is forming their own militia to resist gun control. This isn’t precisely accurate, though it is in the ballpark. Tazewell County Administrator Eric Young explained:

“We are not forming a militia. Our intent is to provide all of our residents the opportunity to own weapons, learn basic survival skills, and learn basic military discipline, if they are interested in doing so. In the unlikely event we were to need a militia, we would have a population which would include people with weapons and those skills.”

Everywhere you look in Virginia, anger is rising. As these tyrannical bills lurch closer to becoming law (albeit unconstitutional law), the free citizens of Virginia are gearing up for a fight. A pro-gun, pro-Freedom rally is scheduled to meet at the capital in Richmond on January 20. So paranoid is Governor Northam that he has declared a state of emergency and banned all guns from the premises. The tyrannical order was protested by the besieged Virginians, but an activist court allowed it nonetheless.

While thousands of patriots are projected to attend Monday’s rally to protest the assault on their rights, hordes of anti-Freedom activists are also vowing to attend. For instance, the Marxist rabble known as Antifa are planning to attend in order to stir up and provoke violence. A quick word about Antifa. Antifa is a domestic terrorist organization founded by Jewish Marxists nearly ninety years ago. I quote from the Cleveland Jewish News:

“In 1934, Milwaukee police arrested three leftists who infiltrated a pro-Nazi meeting and began scuffling with supporters of Hitler. The leftists were part of a group of several hundred anti-fascists who entered the meeting, broke it up and pelted the keynote speaker with rotten eggs. The melee ended only after 100 police arrived to restore order.

communism785

“Today’s antifa (an abbreviation of “anti-fascist action”) sees itself as the ideological descendant of activists like these. Anti-fascist brawlers — many of them communists, socialists or anarchists — began organizing in the 1920s and ’30s.”

Antifa and those who cover for them label anyone opposed to communism as “Nazis,” “fascists,” and “white supremacists.” In truth, those who oppose the Antifa/Marxist agenda are Freedom-loving patriots. Antifa thugs were the ones who initiated the much publicized violence in Charlottseville, Virginia, among other places. They, not the alleged “white supremacists” and “Nazis,” were the ones responsible for the carnage there. And it will be they, not the Virginian patriots, who will be guilty of causing violence should there be any in Richmond.

It is interesting to note that yesterday I discovered YouTube has begun censoring my Liberty Wolf podcast just as Facebook has for censoring my work for years. YouTube recently deleted episode #17, which exposes Antifa for the domestic terrorists they are, for “hate speech.” Yes, “hate speech” is what they call truth. Truth is to communists as the cross is to vampires. And I find the timing curious. At the time that Antifa Marxist thugs are planning to shake things up in Virginia, my podcast calling them out for their violent terrorist activities is silenced. Coincidence?

There is a nation-wide effort to pin the blame for violence and civil disturbances on normal, everyday American patriots – especially those of us who are white. There are many forces, including the media, which are behind this effort. I mention only two: The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

The ADL is one of the most vile, tyrannical, and maniacally savage organizations in the country. It is in its own right a domestic terrorist organization. The ADL is linked with Israeli intelligence and is little more than a wing of the Israeli regime. It is also part and parcel of the Jewish Masonic sect B’nai B’rith. If one word characterizes its activities, it is, ironically, defamation. They defame patriots, constitutionalists, white folks, and anyone who opposes the Marxist-Zionist agenda. Here’s the ludicrous spin the ADL is spewing about the Virginia situation:

“White supremacists, meanwhile, are using the event to further their own violent agenda and to spread hatred of Jews and other minorities. In a post that was shared by numerous white supremacist and accelerationist channels, a user alleged that the Jews now control the state of Virginia, and that they are leading the push to “confiscate ‘assault weapons.’”

“Conspiracy theories and false information campaigns are further exacerbating tensions in Virginia. The most pervasive conspiracy theory on social media is the notion that Virginia’s Democrats intend to confiscate firearms, despite Gov. Northam’s and other Democratic lawmakers’ consistent reassurances they have no plan to do so. Another popular theory suggests the United Nations is somehow involved in Virginia’s gun debate, a conspiracy theory linked to far-right fears regarding a “globalist” takeover of the U.S.

“These conspiracy theories, however outlandish, can have real world implications. If people believe that Jews are behind efforts to confiscate firearms, then it is more likely that malicious actors will threaten or attack Jewish targets. Similarly, if people believe that the rally will be targeted by groups such as Antifa and that they might have to fight, then they are more likely to react violently to events on the ground.”

ADL6

In the ADL’s eyes, anyone who shows up to protest the Democrats’ oppressive anti-gun laws is a “white supremacist,” a “conspiracy theorist,” and, probably, an “anti-Semite.” This is the type of narrative they’ve been pushing for eons. They want everyone to think that constitutionalists and pro-gun patriots are out-of-touch, racist, anti-Semitic Nazis on the verge of violence. The reality is that we who oppose the ADL’s defamation and their radical anti-Constitution, anti-Liberty agenda are in touch with reality.

For instance, it is not a “conspiracy theory” to say that Jews support gun control. In 2017, Rabbi Eric Yoffie wrote an editorial in the Israeli publication Haaretz titled “U.S. Jews Support Gun Control, but the Political Debate Ignores It.” Speaking in the context of the Aurora, Colorado shooting, Rabbi Yoffie stated:

“And almost immediately, liberals, some Democrats, Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City, and even a very few mainstream Republicans demanded to know why laws have not been passed to keep guns out of the hands of those who commit these outrageous crimes.

“And Jews were cheering them on.

“Americans in general may be divided about gun control, but Jewish Americans are not. They have always been among the most enthusiastic advocates of legislation that will regulate gun ownership in a reasonable way. At the Million Mom March a dozen years ago, the largest gun-control demonstration in American history, Jews attended in droves.

“This is because most Jews are still Democrats, and gun control is more of a Democrat issue than a Republican one; this is because Jews are an overwhelmingly urban people who lack a culture of hunting and gun ownership; and this is because the NRA is associated in the minds of many Jews with extremist positions that frighten Jews and from which they instinctively recoil.”

gun control12

Again, I ask, is it a “conspiracy theory” to say that Jews constitute one of the major blocs pushing the anti-gun agenda? Hardly! Is it wrong to point out that the most hardcore anti-gunners in the nation – Bloomberg, Feinstein, Schumer, et al. – are Jews? Not at all. In fact, it is dishonest to deny this important link.

Yet, to the ADL, truth is dangerous. They don’t want Americans to know the truth. Instead, they want us to be scared to criticize a Jew for any reason. They want us to be terrified of being branded with the “Nazi” stigma. Yet, patriots need to man up and realize that these false labels don’t matter. If you’re branded as a “Nazi,” “fascist,” “Klansman,” or “white supremacist,” for standing up for Liberty and Americanism, so what? Wear it as a badge of honor and know that you’re getting under the ADL’s exceedingly thin skin.

The second anti-Freedom organization I will mention is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). In an absurd article titled “Conspiracy Theories, Threats of Violence Loom Over Coming Gun Rally in Richmond,” which is part of their “Hate Watch” campaign, the Marxist SPLC opined:

“Gun-rights activists and antigovernment extremists are planning a protest in Richmond, Virginia, on Monday fueled by antigovernment conspiracy theories and accompanied by online calls for violence. . . .

“Gov. Ralph Northam also declared a state of emergency before the expected protest.

““We’re seeing threats of violence,” Northam said Tuesday at a news conference. “We’re seeing threats of armed confrontation and assault on our Capitol.”

“Those threats of violence have been rampant among antigovernment and far-right groups online. The Virginia Militia, a Facebook group that shares antigovernment memes, posted a paid Facebook advertisement featuring a gallows and three hanging nooses. Beneath the photo is the caption “Government Repair Kit.” . . . .

“On Telegram, the event is being lauded by a subset of white nationalists and neo-Nazis that have enthusiastically endorsed violence and terrorism as a means to their political ends. One channel has posted the names of Jewish lawmakers in Virginia who have spoken out in favor of stronger gun regulations. The Justice Department said Thursday that three men were taken into custody by the FBI amid an investigation into the white nationalist group The Base. . . .

“The event is underpinned by antigovernment conspiracy theories.”

SPLC2

Apparently SB 35, SB 69, and SB 70 are all “conspiracy theories.” Apparently there is no agenda (SB 240) to confiscate guns – it’s all just a hateful “conspiracy theory” pushed by “neo-Nazis” and “white nationalists.” Ladies and gentlemen, can you see how their false narrative goes? Can you see how they push their lies? Can you see the type of baseless smears they use to vilify their opposition? Surely you can see that their real agenda is to demonize white people, patriots, and anti-Marxists so that they can proceed to destroy our national Freedom as guaranteed by the Constitution.

It is clear that neither the ADL terrorist group nor the SPLC Marxist radicals have never looked at the Virginian flag which proclaims Sic Semper Tyrannis. “Death to tyrants” it not a threat – it is a duty. Tyrants have forfeited their right to life by attempting to destroy the lives, by demolishing the Liberty, of the people who put them into their positions of trust in the first place. In doing so, they mark themselves as enemies of the Republic and as tyrants in the fullest meaning of the definition.

Let the words of John Adams be imprinted on your heart – and let them stand as a warning to tyrants in every part of the Republic:

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

It is the right of the American People, which includes the good people of Virginia, “to kill a tyrant.” I don’t suggest they storm the Richmond Capitol and lynch the governor. I don’t recommend violent self-defense at this stage. But I am stating a true principle. The people may hang a traitor and tyrant from the highest gallows if he attempts, as Governor Northam and his Democrat cohorts are attempting, to destroy their rights vouchsafed by the Constitution.

Sic Semper Tyrannis7

Virginians, like Americans everywhere, only owe obedience to God and to the supreme law of the land, which is the Constitution. Their obedience is to principle, not party; ideas, not individuals; the Constitution, not the collective whim. They owe zero obedience to the wild dictates of a president, the activist opinions of a court, or the tyrannical laws of a congress or state legislature.

Indeed, Virginians would be violating George Washington’s maxim that the Constitution is “sacredly obligatory upon all” if they were to disobey that sacred document and allow a hostile law, calculated to destroy the Second Amendment and infringe on the rights of the people to defend themselves, to go into effect. To allow evil is evil. To allow tyranny to proceed without protest is to be complicit in the destruction of Liberty. To be silent in the face of hostility is to stand guilty of aiding and abetting it.

For Virginians to allow their state to ramrod gun control down their throats is not only embarrassing, but anti-American. It flies in the face of Virginia’s noble traditional of fighting for Freedom. Good Virginians like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, Stonewall Jackson, and Robert E. Lee are surely rolling in their graves as they watch their state be reduced to slavery.

The showdown in Virginia is important to Americans in every corner of the Republic because of a principle Thomas Paine once articulated:

“He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself” (Thomas Paine, Dissertation on First-Principles of Government, 32).

If we watch the Virginia regime strip the right of self-defense away from its people and merely shrug and go about our lives, will we then have a right to protest when it happens in our state? If we sit silently now, won’t it be hypocritical to speak up when the gun-control overlords seek to steal your Liberty’s teeth? Simply put, if the Constitution can be violated in Virginia, it can be violated in Montana, Idaho, Utah, or Wyoming. None of us is safe when another state can defy the Constitution at will and curtail the rights of its people.

When the War for Independence broke out against the British monarchist invaders and their ruthless mercenaries, Americans from the thirteen states rushed to the aid of their oppressed brothers wherever they needed assistance. Doubtless there will be people from many states in Richmond next Monday. God bless them for taking a stand for Freedom! And may God give you the strength, wherever you are, to raise your voice in defense of our besieged Virginian countrymen.

guns103

I end with a statement from the Virginia Citizens Defense League which is hosting the upcoming rally and with my own plea for American patriots to rise in defense of the Constitution:

“There have been many rumors, videos, and articles flying around the internet. We cannot stress enough that this is a peaceful day to address our Legislature. Yes, we hold a rally, but the point of the day is communication with our Representatives. To our knowledge there are no credible threats of violence. That being said, please practice appropriate situational awareness. IF YOU SEE A BAD ACTOR flag down a police officer and point it out. If someone tries to provoke you, smile and walk away. There is probably someone secretly recording the interaction, with the intent of capturing some kind of inappropriate reaction on your part. Don’t take the bait. It’s not worth the bad press. The eyes of the nation and the world are on Virginia and VCDL right now and we must show them that gun owners are not the problem. Lead by example. . . .

“Thank you all for your support. For those coming from other states to stand with Virginia, we appreciate you making the long trip. This will be a notable day in history. Let’s all work together to keep it positive and to achieve our goal of protecting our right to keep and bear arms.”

Zack Strong,
January 18, 2020

Letters of Marque and Reprisal

What if I told you that the U.S. Constitution offers a way for America to eliminate her enemies – terrorists, pirates, hostile groups, drug cartels, and so forth – without engaging in disastrous, lengthy, and costly wars? The device I refer to is Congress’s authority to issue letters of marque and reprisal. A letter of marque and reprisal is essentially a declaration of war on an individual or group rather than on a nation. It is a contract issued by the U.S. government to allow private individuals or organizations to hunt down our nations enemies and/or seize their assets. It operates like a government-issued warrant against private, non-state enemies – a warrant that does not need to be executed by the U.S. military but which is fulfilled by private American citizens and groups.

Guns For Hire - Afghanistan

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water” is one of the few powers delegated to Congress in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. The very fact that this authority was included in the Constitution when the Founders were so careful about limiting Congress’s power is evidence enough of its importance. Our nation also has a long history of using letters of marque and reprisal. They were issued by Congress during the War for Independence, during our struggles with the Barbary Pirates, and all the way up through the Second World War. There is simply no reason why we should not be using them today to make America safe while keeping our nation out of disastrous, illegal wars like those in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On December 12, 1812, President James Madison signed a congressional letter of marque. It read:

BE IT KNOWN, That in pursuance of an act of congress, passed on the 26th day of June one thousand eight hundred and twelve, I have Commissioned, and by these presents do commission, the private armed Brig called the Prince Neufchatel of the burden of three hundred & Nineteen tons, or thereabouts, owned by John Ordronaux & Peter E. Trevall of the City & State of New York and Joseph Beylle of Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania Mounting eighteen carriage guns, and navigated by one hundred & twenty nine men, hereby authorizing Nicholas Millin captain, and William Stetson lieutenant of the said Brig and the other officers and crew thereof, to subdue, seize, and take any armed or unarmed British vessel, public or private, which shall be found within the jurisdictional limits of the United States, or elsewhere on the high seas, or within the waters of the British dominions, and such captured vessel, with her apparel, guns, and appertenances, and the goods or effects which shall be found on board the same, together with all the british persons and others who shall be found acting on board, to bring within some port of the United States; and also to retake any vessel, goods, and effects of the people of the United States, which may have been captured by any British armed vessel, in order that proceedings may be had concerning such capture or recapture in due form of law, and as to right and justice shall appertain. The said Nicholas Millin is further authorized to detain, seize, and take all vessels and effects, to whomsoever belonging, which shall be liabel thereto according to the law of nations and the rights of the United States as a power at war, and to bring the same within some port of the United States, in order that due proceedings may be had thereon. This commission to continue in force during the pleasure of the president of the United States for the time being.”

Notice what letters of marque and reprisal can do. They can authorize individuals – in this case, a private ship crew – to act with the full authority of the U.S. government in destroying our enemies. Captain Millin and his crew were authorized under this grant of power to “subdue, seize, and take” any British ship and their assets. In this case, the letter was issued during wartime. But it equally applies to peacetime – or whenever our sworn enemies threaten us.

To really comprehend what letters of marque and reprisals are all about, I quote from several excellent sources.

In an essay titled “Resurrecting Letters of Marque and Reprisal to Address Modern Threats,” Navy Commander Jonathan L. Still wrote:

[T]he origin of the “letter of marque and reprisal” stems from its use in time of peace. Although often synonymous with privateering because they were typically issued to privateers, the concept of such letters is historically distinct from privateering. The traditional law of marque allowed a private citizen to cross borders, while reprisal referred to the act of seeking restitution for a perceived slight. Thus letters of marque and reprisal licensed private citizens of one state to take recompense from the citizens of another for a legally recognized grievance. . . .

Evidence of the Framers’ intent to create a strong national government can be seen in the Constitution’s provisions, as well as its preamble, which states that it was established to “provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty.” The fact that the Congress’ power to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal has never been revoked, despite international treaties against privateering, should be considered indicative of the nation’s collective desire to ensure that the United States remains adaptive to developments in the global environment and the ever-changing international relations framework. The Framers understood that the U.S. must always have a means to protect itself against foreign threats and ensure economic vitality if it is to remain the guarantor of American freedom and prosperity.

America136

As the U.S. and the international community contemplate a host of difficult security concerns modern extraterritorial threats such as piracy, terrorism, and cyber exploitation, U.S. policymakers and legal scholars should contemplate the conceptual merit of letters of marque and reprisal as a means of combating these threats short of “war.””

In a 2013 article, Joe Wolverton, II provided insight into the present topic. He spoke of our illegitimate War on Terror and the constitutional issues of invading nations without a declaration of war to supposedly fight terrorists. He wrote:

First, violating the Constitution is never an answer; neither is carrying out acts of war against non-belligerent nations who are — whether willingly or not — harboring those public enemies. . . .

Fortunately, there is a means of exposing suspected terrorists to justice, even when they are hiding out in nations that refuse to extradite them to the United States for that purpose.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution authorizes Congress to “grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal.”

This is a power that is rarely discussed and almost never exercised. . . .

Consecutive presidents have explained that since 9/11 we face a “new kind of enemy.” Isn’t this type of supranational foe exactly the kind that could be best fought using the immense and elastic power of issuing letters of marque and reprisal? . . . .

The irrefutable fact remains, however, that the issuing of letters of marque and reprisal is an effective and available constitutional alternative to the launching of missiles from drones or “boots on the ground” inside the borders of foreign countries with whom we are not at war.”

Wolverton also cited the text of letters of marque and reprisal granted by Congress in 1781. It reads:

You may by force of arms attack, subdue, and seize all ships, vessels and goods, belonging to the King or Crown of Great Britain, or to his subjects, or others inhabiting within any of the territories or possessions of the aforesaid King of Great Britain, on the high seas, or between high-water and low-water marks. And you may also annoy the enemy by all means in your power, by land as well as by water, taking care not to infringe or violate the laws of nations, or laws of neutrality.”

America153.jpeg

Writing for The Federalist, Georgi Boorman similarly explained:

The U.S. military wears a heavy boot, but at the moment it does nothing more than cast a shadow over the growing terrorist threat. However, the U.S. Constitution allows another way for citizens to combat threats to life or property: a letter of marque.

Letters of marque are expressly granted in the Constitution . . . Letters of marque are essentially permits for private individuals to use force against enemies of the state on its behalf. In the early eighteenth century, these letters began to function as a way to supplement national navies. “Privateers” were given letters of marque permitting them to capture and plunder enemy ships; an admiralty court adjudicated on the legality of the capture. . . .

Pulled out from under a dozen other tactics and strategies, dusted off, and cast onto the table where “war” and “diplomacy” are the only options on display, letters of marque could be the centuries-old concept that aids a modern armed-forces effort. . . .

One can think of letters of marque as an old solution fashioned anew to meet the unique challenges of an ideologically motivated organization bent on destroying the West and any regions touched by its influence.”

Finally, in an article about the rising threat of piracy, Bob Confer wrote:

It’s a little-known fact that the Constitution allows Congress to essentially deputize private individuals to protect American interests on international waters . . . It is those letters [of marque and reprisal], contracts of sort, which would authorize a seafarer to take the law into his own hands and engage the pirates in gun play when threatened and take those pirates into custody, a citizen’s arrest as it were. Without such legal authorization, the mariner — who was only trying to protect the safety of crew and cargo — could theoretically be looked at as a pirate under international law. . . .

One congressman, who is one of the very few who truly comprehends and respects the wonders of the Constitution, sees merit behind dusting off this piece of America’s foundation. Dr. Ron Paul has been a consistent proponent of the letters, demanding their reintroduction through the years. He famously called for them in 2002 in response to the 9/11 terror attacks (which would have tempered some of the unconstitutional trappings of the USA PATRIOT Act) and again following this past spring’s Somali standoff.

It’s a little disconcerting that Congressman Paul’s commonsense — and legal — ideas have fallen on deaf ears and that shippers haven’t been granted their privilege of protection. Despite the logic behind such a faith in force — and the natural right to self-defense that far outweighs the legal privilege — the more “politically correct” officials of the day have opted to ignore letters of marque and reprisal and rely instead on our naval forces.”

letter of marque and reprisal1

It was Congressman Ron Paul whom I first heard talk about letters of marque and reprisal in terms of combating terrorists. In October 2001, Congressman Paul authored a bill “to commission, under officially issued letters of marque and reprisal, so many of privately armed and equipped persons and entities as, in his judgment, the service may require . . . to employ all means reasonably necessary to seize outside the geographic boundaries of the United States and its territories” Osama bin Laden and his co-conspirators. This method would have been vastly preferable to sending thousands of troops to Afghanistan, bombing innocent villages, occupying a sovereign nation, making ourselves a world pariah, and wasting trillions of dollars. Also, as a point of historical fact, the Taliban offered to hunt down Osama bin Laden if the U.S. government could provide evidence that he was behind the 9/11 attacks. Of course, no such evidence exists and the Taliban’s offer was ignored in favor of launching the pre-planned “War on Terror.”

In today’s chaotic world with terrorists, pirates, and international enemies under every stone, would it not be wiser and more efficient to again issue letters of marque and reprisal to combat them? Instead of fighting against nations, we would fight against hostile individuals and organizations wherever they’re found. Instead of mobilizing our military and wasting trillions of dollars and spilling our blood all over the world, private citizens or private security forces would act on our behalf. Instead of senselessly invading a nation like Iraq, we could make targeted attacks on individuals like the terrorist Qasem Soleimani who was thankfully taken out earlier this week.

America has thousands of veterans – many of whom are unemployed and in need of work – who no doubt would sign up as privateers to hunt down our country’s enemies (indeed, there are already thousands of hired guns fighting for us in the Middle East). Their skill and expertise could be easily channeled into legitimate endeavors against our enemies rather than wasted in years-long occupations of sovereign nations following undeclared and costly wars. There would be many other patriotic Americans and organizations who would doubtless sign up for such missions. And would not these commissioned, targeted strikes by passionate patriots be preferable to large-scale wars that drag on for years and divide our Republic?

In my own personal conception, letters of marque and reprisal could be issued against wicked enemies of the United States like George Soros and the Rothschild clan. These are sworn enemies of America who use their billions to bring us to our knees and who are in the process of transforming us into a communistic banana republic. Just because they don’t wield weapons, but instead use the very real weapons of finance, credit, media propaganda, and so forth, does not diminish their danger to our People. Granting commissions to willing and able Americans to hunt down and either eliminate or capture these miscreants could be nothing but a good thing for our country.

America1 (2)

Ladies and gentlemen, the Constitution is an inspired document. It was given to our nation by God Almighty. It was crafted under His inspiration by good, honorable, and wise men. Congress’s power to grant letters of marque and reprisal to safeguard our nation while avoiding the unnecessary dangers of full-scale war is a godsend. It is a device that we must start using again. If we truly love America, we should use the Constitution’s natural methods to defend and protect her. Issuing letters of marque and reprisal is one tried-and-tested way of deterring America’s enemies, saving American lives, and protecting the Republic.

Zack Strong,

January 4, 2019

Please consider reading and signing my petition to Congress on letters of marque and reprisal:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/resurrect-letters-marque-and-reprisal-combat-americas-enemies

Abortionism – Cult of Death

What is “abortionism”? When you search the word “abortionism” on Google, you get a paltry 7,010 results and not a whole lot of substance. Even as I type the term into my word processor, a squiggly red “error” line appears underneath it telling me it’s not a word. Yet, abortionism is very real. It is my purpose today to introduce you to abortionism and raise my warning voice against this evil.

abortion32

In a brilliant 2014 article for LifeSiteNews, one of the premier sources for pro-life news, Jonathon Van Maren gave us this description of abortionism:

““Abortionism” is essentially a philosophy that raises abortion to a sacred status, above all other democratic principles.

. . . Abortion’s now-sacred status is symptomatic of something far more sinister: the sweeping success of the Sexual Revolution. So-called “sexual rights” are now considered to be the most important “rights” our society has, and take precedence over all other rights, regardless of how fundamental they are.”

Abortionism is part and parcel of a creed that places sex on an altar. For adherents, sex and self-gratification is a religion. Anything connected with sex, such as “sexual rights” – of which abortion ranks first – is considered sacrosanct. “My body, my choice” has become their mantra. And abortion is their highest sacrament. The deluded parishioners of this death cult view any opposition to abortion-on-demand and the hedonistic culture that necessitates it as an attack on their core beliefs.

This sycophantic assembly of abortion-lovers is oblivious to the fact that they are imitating the cultures of the past which sacrificed precious babies to pagan gods. In my article “Moloch’s Modern Children,” I wrote:

Abortion is nothing if not child sacrifice. It is perhaps more systematized and sanitized by impersonal medical jargon than its ancient counterpart, but the result is the same – the mass slaughter of infants. Whereas the heathen peoples of the past sacrificed their children to false gods and idols for religious purposes, we sacrifice our children on the altar of political ideology. . . .

Truly, abortion is modern human sacrifice disguised in medical terminology and deceptively euphemistic language. It is just as grotesque and cruel today as when the heathens did it anciently. . . .

Abortion is infanticide, plain and simple. It is our modern-day version of public ritual sacrifice. We don’t sacrifice our children to Moloch by making them “pass through the fire” (2 Kings 23:10), but we do sacrifice them in murder facilities known as abortion clinics. We don’t burn them to death, but we do rip their little skulls apart and suck out their brains, inject them with fatal chemicals, snip their spinal cord, leave them in freezers to die, or cut them apart while still alive in order to harvest their organs. How are we any different than the pagan peoples of the past? If anything, we are worse because we deny that our actions are wrong and turn a blind eye to the gruesome ways in which our children are butchered.”

abortion12

Like the Hebrews of the past in their times of wickedness, modern peoples sacrifice their children to false gods – whether those gods be ideologies, political parties, or religious beliefs. Though we don’t usually burn our children to death before a chanting crowd, we nevertheless butcher them – and then feminists and LGBT maniacs clamor for this “right” in mass protests. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Al Lemmo, a self-declared “pro-life activist” and current Republican congressional candidate running against the radical socialist feminist Muslim Rashida Tlaib, has written some of the most scathing rebukes of abortionism you can find on the net. Lemmo defined abortionism as an “idolatrous cult . . . based in a philosophy of human self-worship.” He further observed:

Its standard practices are three “abortions”:

1) The Theological Abortion of the authority of God to grant us our human rights . . . This act of idolatry is at the heart of all sin. It can also be described as idolatrous worship of the human intellect as competent to choose criteria for who deserves the recognition and protection of the human community as persons under the law. This enables the second abortion, which is…

2) The Mental Abortion, by which the target population, however defined, is mentally relegated to some subhuman category such that anything can be done to it. This step is essential to overcoming the moral obstacles to committing the most egregious violations of other human beings that all human societies prohibit. Conscience is effectively removed from the picture by this process such that the third and final abortion can be done. This is…

3) The Physical Abortion of lives or liberties by some form of murder, enslavement, plunder or bodily violation. In the case of prenatal child-slaying it is literally [a] living human sacrifice (abortion rites) to the idols this nation has come to worship (money, power, reputation, convenience, unrestricted sexual expression, etc.).”

The self-worship premise of abortionism brings to mind a statement from the ex-communist Whittaker Chambers. In his exposé Witness, Chambers observed:

Communism is what happens when, in the name of Mind, men free themselves from God” (Whittaker Chambers, Witness, xxxvii).

As will be discussed later, the plague of abortion – modern human sacrifice – has been promoted most fervently by the Marxists. But in a broader sense, abortionism, hedonism, feminism, and all other selfish, me-centered ideologies, are a result of man’s rejection of God. This amalgam of Devilish philosophies is a complete repudiation of reality and nature. It is a rebellion against the very notion of eternal law and order!

abortion25

Abortionism is a rejection of God and, with Him, a rejection of moral laws. The creed deifies man – though not unborn humans, apparently. It negates all just laws and the decrees of the Constitution. It abolishes the notion promulgated in the Declaration of Independence that we have certain natural rights from our Creator, such as the right to life. It completely dismisses the basis of Western civilization as incorrect and instead embraces the might-makes-right barbarism of the past.

I cannot emphasize this too strongly. And so at the risk of sounding like a broken record, let me restate these points. As Americans, it is particularly crucial that we understand that abortionism strikes at the heart of everything that made our Republic great and that those who promote it are inherently anti-American. Abortionism is not merely another lifestyle – it is alien and hostile to Americanism. It is incompatible with our traditional culture and societal system. The United States was founded on the idea of eternal law. Our nation’s first law, first creed, and first public declaration proclaims that we are all “endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” It is to “secure these rights, [that] Governments are instituted among Men.” The U.S. government was brought into being to protect life and all that a free existence entails!

Americanism, at its core, is based on the concept that there is a God, that the universe is governed by immutable laws, that human beings are bound by those laws, and that the primary purpose of individuals forming civil societies and erecting governments is to better secure those rights and defend against those who would destroy them. Abortionists, by default, are at open war with the first of all rights, the right of life, and with our Constitution which guarantees this right. The malicious destruction of innocent human life, therefore, is an attack upon God’s laws, Christian culture, the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Americanist philosophy.

In another editorial, Al Lemmo wrote the following about this vile death cult and further explained why it is incompatible with the American Freedom philosophy, rule of law, and Christian civilization:

Abortionism is the world’s oldest and most destructive cult. Its central dogma, unchanged through millennia, has held that the fundamental and inalienable rights to life, liberty and property are not rights at all but conditional grants that may be terminated or aborted at any time on the basis of whatever criteria those who have the power to do the aborting choose to recognize. Any portion of the human community may be summarily excluded from recognition and even destroyed based on these criteria. The criteria may include race, color, creed, national origin, class, sex, abilities and birth.

The Abortionite dogma is totally opposed to that of the originally established “religion” of America which was an inclusive philosophy of unconditional and intrinsic human rights. The only criterion for inclusion was to be a living member of the human species, born or unborn. I choose to call this philosophy “Intrinsicism”. The Abortionite dogma is then an extreme subset of a philosophy that can be called “Extrinsicism”, or the belief that fundamental human rights derive from extrinsic human sources rather than being inherent with each individual.

abortion24

The extremism of the Abortionite lies in his willingness to destroy (or abort) the fundamental human rights of those he has refused to grant recognition or personhood. . . .

Regardless of exclusionary criterion, the central dogma and guiding philosophy of Abortionism – that rights are granted to powerless people by powerful people rather than intrinsic with every individual – remains intact from one sect to the next. The reverence for power, especially the power to decide whose lives and liberties may be destroyed, has always been the common thread among all Abortionites. . . .

The first objective of any Abortionite campaign has been to breach the wall of separation between freedom and oppression (or civilization and barbarianism) which is the philosophical foundation of a free or civilized society. This wall is the philosophy of Intrinsicism. Once the wall is breached by compromising the integrity of the philosophy that protects life and liberty, all the criteria of the various Abortionite sects then compete on an equal basis because they are justified in principle.

Abortionism is humanity’s original false religion . . . Eternal vigilance is the price of keeping Abortionism in check, yet it has such an amazing capacity to evade detection, mutate and adapt itself to any culture, that it has continued to plague humanity, even infecting a society as dedicated to human rights as our own in epidemic proportions.”

We can debate some of Lemmo’s definitions perhaps, but there is no debating the fact that the death cult of abortionism is hostile to everything America has traditionally stood for – Faith, Families, and Freedom. It is inimical to the rights declared in our founding documents. It is antithetical to the Christian norms that have undergirded our society for centuries. It is an offensive, perverse, murderous ideology born in and suckled on blood. The voices of millions of infants cry out to the God who gave them life against this ritualized slaughter.

abortion9

The Lord anciently said “all they that hate me love death” (Proverbs 8:36). It is an eternally true proverb. Those in rebellion against the Lord’s laws in our day are part of a massive death cult. Communism is the ultimate murder cult and all those who support and tolerate the socialist/communist ideology – which advocates abortion as a “human right” – hate the Lord and love death.

In 1971, the great religious leader Spencer W. Kimball took to the pulpit to admonish society for adopting hedonistic practices. He spoke of the lax sexual norms that lead to ideologies like abortionism and how these trends destroy families and will eventually upend our entire society. He stated:

Men and women are “lovers of their own selves.” They boast in their accomplishment. They curse. They blaspheme. Another sin is disobedience of children to parents and parents’ disobedience to law. Many are without the natural affection, which seems to be eroding family life as they seek to satisfy their own selfish wants.

There are said to be millions of perverts who have relinquished their natural affection and bypassed courtship and normal marriage relationships. This practice is spreading like a prairie fire and changing our world. They are without “natural affection” for God, for spouses, and even for children.

Paul speaks of continencea word almost forgotten by our world. Still in the dictionary, it means self-restraint, in sexual activities especially. Many good people, being influenced by the bold spirit of the times, are now seeking surgery for the wife or the husband so they may avoid pregnancies and comply with the strident voice demanding a reduction of children. It was never easy to bear and rear children, but easy things do not make for growth and development. But loud, blatant voices today shout “fewer children” and offer the Pill, drugs, surgery, and even ugly abortion to accomplish that. Strange, the proponents of depopulating the world seem never to have thought of continence!

Libraries are loaded with books with shocking pictures, showing people how to totally satisfy their animal natures, but few books are found on the self-control of continence. With a theory that “life is for sex,” every imagination of the minds of men devises ways to more completely get what they call “sexual fulfillment,” which they demand at the expense of all elsefamily, home, eternal life. There should be from press and lecture platform and pulpit deep and resounding voices urging man to rise above the carnal and rest his mind on things clean and sacred” (President Spencer W. Kimball, “Voices of the Past, of the Present, of the Future,” General Conference, April, 1971).

abortion49

Yes, society is wrapped up in self-love to the detriment of everything holy and good. People want the benefits of sex without marriage, of intimacy without responsibility, and of pleasure without “burdens” like children. They use devices, pills, and procedures to ensure that they won’t fulfill the highest purpose of sexual intimacy – having children. But of course they’ll happily receive the sexual benefits formerly reserved for marriage! They are so self-absorbed and care only about themselves and their own convenience and pleasure to such an extreme degree that they’re willing to murder their offspring.

Let’s make no bones about it. Abortion is infanticide! It is de facto murder. It is the premeditated destruction of another human being – a little child with fingers, eyes, and a heartbeat. Mortal life begins at conception. In spite of all the propaganda to the contrary, science has conclusively proven this to be the case. With this in mind, we can positively state that elective abortion – which accounts for 99% of all abortions whereas exceptions for rape victims account for less than one percent of procedures – is the willing, deliberate, and unnecessary taking of life and has no place in a free and ordered society.

Feminists and their ilk say “my body, my choice.” But this is not true. It is such an intellectually flimsy argument that every honest person can see through it. In a 2008 sermon, the world-renowned heart surgeon and current president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Russell M. Nelson, spoke of abortion and the “my body, my choice” myth. He said:

This war called abortion is a war on the defenseless and the voiceless. It is a war on the unborn. This war is being waged globally. Ironically, civilized societies that have generally placed safeguards on human life have now passed laws that sanction this practice. . . .

. . . Most abortions are performed on demand to deal with unwanted pregnancies. These abortions are simply a form of birth control.

abortion3

Elective abortion has been legalized in many countries on the premise that a woman is free to choose what she does with her own body. To an extent this is true for each of us, male or female. We are free to think. We are free to plan. And we are free to do. But once an action has been taken, we are never free from its consequences. . . .

Yes, a woman is free to choose what she will do with her body. Whether her choice leads to an astronaut’s mission or to a baby, her choice to begin the journey binds her to the consequences of that choice. She cannot “unchoose.”

When the controversies about abortion are debated, “individual right of choice” is invoked as though it were the one supreme virtue. That could only be true if but one person were involved. The rights of any one individual do not allow the rights of another individual to be abused. In or out of marriage, abortion is not solely an individual matter. Terminating the life of a developing baby involves two individuals with separate bodies, brains, and hearts. A woman’s choice for her own body does not include the right to deprive her baby of lifeand a lifetime of choices that her child would make. . . .

Life is precious! No one can cuddle an innocent infant, look into those beautiful eyes, feel the little fingers, and kiss that baby’s cheek without a deepening reverence for life and for our Creator. Life comes from life. It is no accident. It is a gift from God. Innocent life is not sent by Him to be destroyed. It is given by Him and is naturally to be taken by Him alone” (President Russell M. Nelson, “Abortion: An Assault on the Defenseless,” General Conference, October, 2008).

Life is precious, indeed! Babies are cherished gems trusted into our care. A baby is a “reward” from our Father in Heaven (Psalm 127:3-5). No one has a right to snuff out an innocent life – and especially not for mere convenience sake. No one has a right to destroy another body while erroneously claiming it is their own body. No one has a right to deny nature or escape the consequences of their choices – including the beautiful gift that is a human child. And no unrepentant soul will escape the harsh judgment reserved for those who destroy innocent children.

abortion63

Yet, despite these seminal truths, the selfish mindset of abortionism is spreading. It is so bad that some spiritually sick women are now getting pregnant just so they can abort their babies in what is nothing more than ritual murder! Despite recent pro-life legal victories, our culture is becoming continuously saturated with the death cult mentality. Life is little valued. The weakest among us are scarcely protected. And far too many otherwise good people are silent, thus becoming complicit in the criminality.

No civilized society, no society that is just, no society that values the rule of law, can allow abortion. It is a plague like slavery. As slavery did, it is tearing our society apart. And what Thomas Jefferson said of slavery applies to abortion:

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever” (Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII).

I tremble for America when I think that since the infamous Roe v. Wade decision – an affront to the Bill of Rights’ guarantee of the right of life – over 70 million innocent, defenseless infants have been slaughtered. For context, this is a higher death toll than that accrued at the hands of the Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union! It is many times more than all the deaths of American service men in all of our nation’s wars combined! How truly sad it is that more Americans have been killed by their own mothers than at the hands of all our enemies!

One final point should be discussed. Perhaps my readers tire of me mentioning the communists, but out of fidelity to truth, I must do so. In modern times, abortion has been popularized and normalized by the Marxists. Yes, the feminists have been at the forefront of promoting this infanticide as a woman’s “right,” but feminism itself is only part of cultural Marxism and the leading feminists were usually card-carrying members of the Communist Party (and, frequently, anti-Christian Jews). The LGBT movement which also promotes hedonism and abortion was started by a homosexual man named Harry Hay who was, you guessed it, also a card-carrying member of the Communist Party USA (he originally married a fellow communist Jewess before divorcing her to pursue his homosexual fantasies). And the Soviet Union was the first nation to legalize abortion-on-demand (as well as no-fault divorce). All of this was introduced to fulfill The Communist Manifesto’s dream of “abolishing the family” and subverting Christian society to make way for global domination by the Marxist state.

abortion58

It should be startling to Americans do know that we are following in the footsteps of the Soviet Union and adopting the avowed principles of Marxism – the world’s most murderous ideology. Not only did communism slaughter between 100-150 million people in Russia and China alone, but it has the blood of dozens of millions more on its hands through the wars its has started and the practice of abortion is popularized. I sincerely believe we will never win our fight against abortionism as an emerging religion if we do not identify it as a branch of the communism conspiracy. And we will never win that fight unless we acknowledge that communism is Satanism and that Satan is a real being who leads the forces of darkness in the fight against the Son of God. If we are to throw off the shroud of darkness that hangs over us, we must do so with the light of Christ – for only light expels darkness.

We battle, as Paul said, “against powers, against the rulers darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places” (Ephesians 6:12). What wickedness could be greater than the deliberate mass slaughter of infants? What can be called “darkness” if not the genocide of unborn children being perpetrated in abortion clinics worldwide? What, if not abortionism’s assault on life, can possibly rouse us to stand up in defense of our God-given rights?

We have an option as a society. We can stand up and say, “No more” to those who advocate killing the next generation of Americans or we can continue to allow the slaughter of our infants until the act of killing for convenience so saturates our culture that we begin killing the elderly, the diseased, and others we think encumber our lives. Don’t fool yourself – history cries out that this is exactly where this genocidal road leads.

And so, what will you do? Will you sit silently, making yourself an accessory to this great crime of infant slaughter? Or will you exercise all your avenues for speaking out, swaying minds, and warning your neighbor? And what of President Trump? What is he doing? Does he not understand that when he swore his oath to uphold the Constitution that he also swore to protect our rights, including our right to life, regardless of what a rogue Supreme Court said nearly fifty years ago? Do we, as a People, not understand that Roe v. Wade was an unconstitutional, and, thus, void, opinion by an activist court that abused its authority? Do we, the American People, not understand that no ruling, no law, no decree from any leader is valid and enforceable unless it conforms to the Constitution – a document which defends life? Or do we simply not have the courage to hold our elected representatives accountable for fulfilling their oaths?

abortion53

I make a plea for everyone to reject the scourge of abortion, to combat the cultish dogma of abortionism, and to only support men for office who will take their oaths to the Constitution seriously and defend our God-given rights. Stand firm against the onslaught of popular opinion – for we are on the Lord’s errand in defending His precious sons and daughters. He gives life not to be destroyed, but to be cherished and protected. As Americans, do your duty and rise in defense of those ideals which made ours the greatest nation on the face of the earth. Defend our Faith, Families, and Freedom against the demonic assault of the Marxist abortionists!

Zack Strong,

December 31, 2019

America Needs Nationalism

Nationalism is a good thing. Nationalism is an organic expression of a people’s will to survive. It is a visible expression of a people’s sovereignty and self-determination. It is patriotism in action. America needs nationalism!

Republican National Convention: Day Three

 

In this day of rampant political correctness, controlled media bombardment, and Marxist mind manipulation, the word “nationalism” has been branded as something taboo, divisive, or hateful. The Elite who seek to coalesce the nations into a world government ruled by them despise nationalism. It is antithetical to their goal of collectivist one-world government. This cabal of traitors to humanity is behind the attempt to paint nationalism as a destructive force. They know that if the nations of the world turned inward in self-preservation and rejected the internationalist scheme of world government, their plot would crumble. They will do and say anything, therefore, to demonize and stamp out our inherent nationalist tendencies.

America needs nationalism now as never before. In the past, the United States was a fiercely nationalistic Union. “America First” was the rule of the day. It would have been unthinkable in the early days of the Republic to condemn nationalism. Our Founding Fathers were strict nationalists. Did not the Declaration of Independence proclaim that all power in a society is held by the People, that the People have the right to abolish any government or system they see fit, and that free and independent states have the power to make war and peace and do those things that all sovereign peoples have a right to do? Free peoples are inherently nationalistic. It cannot be otherwise.

The type of proud nationalism that once dominated the United States was primarily of the ideological type. America was often called an “Empire of Liberty.” This referred to the fact that the principles of Liberty were the glue that held our People together. Our unique Americanist ideology – that of limited government, checks and balances, constitutional republicanism, states rights, individual Liberty, power in the People springing from the ward level on up, free enterprise economics, and so forth – was the rallying point for all who wanted to be Americans. People of all races, religions, and backgrounds were free to join this confederacy of love for law and Liberty.

Theoretically, this American brand of nationalistic sentiment could expand beyond borders and encompass all of humanity, binding them together in the love of Freedom. Perhaps a cross-border ideology sounds the opposite of nationalism, but in fact it’s not. Love of law and Liberty would not destroy nations and rope them into a collectivized super state. Rather, it would embolden their inherent nationalist tendencies and make them into free and independent states like the United States.

America129

Remember, though we are one People, the United States is a confederacy of sovereign units representing the individuals within them. Each state has its own culture, customs, geography, demographics, and so forth. But each is bound together under the principles set forth in the national Constitution and in their shared heritage of Liberty unsurpassed by any other people on earth. It is this example of ideological nationalism in action – this patriotic love of Liberty that propels a people to sacrifice to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity– that America can offer to the world.

As noted, the people who oppose nationalism are those who advocate internationalism or globalism. Nationalism is natural; internationalism is an aberration. The biggest proponents of this internationalist agenda are the communists, among whom international Jews fill the top posts. Bolshevism is an inherently international ideology that seeks to enslave all peoples under a centrally-controlled oligarchy of gangsters. The symbol of the USSR was the hammer and sickle superimposed over the globe. The symbol of the communist-controlled United Nations is a pair of deceptive olive leaves surrounding the earth. And the international bankers are, as the name suggests, international and have backed communism from the beginning as a tool of creating a worldwide government monopoly that they believe, because of their stranglehold on the global money supply, they will be able to control.

Any way you look at it, the internationalists despise nationalism and seek to destroy any nation that promotes it. This is why they destroyed and continue to ruthlessly demonize Hitler’s Third Reich which, love ‘em or hate ‘em, was openly nationalist and posed a real threat to the Freemasonic, banker, and communist machinations aimed at subjugating Europe under a Bolshevist regime. Germany’s idea was to unite Europe in a brotherhood of shared ideals and shared heritage, but not necessarily under a single government.

The Germanic peoples, by their own votes, wanted to be united in a single economic and political entity – and it was their right of self-determination to do so. Every nation in Europe, under the Third Reich’s ideal, was to be self-governing, but unified in their ideological outlook – and foremost in their determination that communism have no place in Europe. The racially diverse, multi-national volunteer Wehrmacht was a microcosm of what Europe could have been had Germany won. In this sense, the Third Reich promoted a type of cross-border nationalism similar to that once promoted by the United States. And this the global Elite simply could not, and cannot, tolerate.

Let me now say a word about “ethnonationalism.” Wikipedia has defined ethnonationalism as “a form of nationalism wherein the nation is defined in terms of ethnicity. The central theme of ethnic nationalists is that “nations are defined by a shared heritage, which usually includes a common language, a common faith, and a common ethnic ancestry”. It also includes ideas of a culture shared between members of the group, and with their ancestors.”

white16

Many collectivist-minded anti-nationalists claim ethnonationalism is nothing but “racism.” They equate it almost exclusively with “white nationalism,” which they dismiss as “white supremacy” or “Nazism.” This is false. As even Wikipedia acknowledges, the concept refers to much more than ethnicity and race. It includes language, ancestry, shared heritage, faith, and more. I contend that a shared heritage and culture, which includes a shared political/religious ideology, is the most important aspect of ethnonationalism – or of any type of nationalism. I agree with the sentiment that “demographics is destiny,” but I use the phrase to mean ideological demographics (though, as will be seen, ideological demographics usually run along racial lines).

It is natural for a people to congregate with others similar to them. Japanese usually stay near Japanese people. Indians stay with Indians. Congolese huddle with Congolese. Chinese immigrants create China Towns, Russians establish Little Odessas, and Jews launch Yiddish language magazines to rally their own. And so forth. No one complains when these groups promote their own kind, but when whites do it, they’re considered “racist.”

When someone puts up an “It’s Okay To Be Whiteflier in Oklahoma, the police investigate it as a “hate crime,” the FBI get involved, and the individual is expelled from the local university. When “It’s Okay To Be White” posters go up in Scotland, the local political leaders excoriate the act, saying “We must stand together to resist this unacceptable material” while brainwashed locals pretend to be scared and parrot talking points like, “It’s sickening and disgusting to know that people think like this.” Yes, to Marxists it is “sickening and disgusting” for whites to think it’s ok to be white! (but of course it’s fine if you say “Black Lives Matter” or to belong to La Raza) Perhaps people need to stop listening to the rabid anti-white propaganda emanating from the ironically named Anti-Defamation League.

It’s true that the most prominent people pushing nationalism and ethnonationalism today are whites who are sick of being treated the way the are in Scotland and Oklahoma. Those of us in the United States are fed up with the “white guilt” mantras. We want to rid ourselves of cultural Marxism and return to traditional Americanism. Yes, we want to make America great again (a phrase we were saying long before before Donald Trump started using it).

Furthermore, nationalists want to reenthrone the rule of law and general order. We want to scrub our culture clean of the perversions that blemish it. We want to control the rampant immigration which is converting the United States, culturally, into a cesspool. We want to promote beauty and goodness and reject all forms of virulent Marxism and collectivism. We simply want the American People to return to their roots which are found in the ideological expressions of our noble Founders. Great nationalist organizations like VDARE.com are doing the best they can to “argue that the US is in fact a nation-state . . . with a unifying history, traditions and language” – traditions and history that are absolutely “legitimate and defensible.”

As the Western world continues to drown in a sea of immigrants from the third world, ethnonationalism will only rise. We see the rising tide of ethnonationalism in states like Hungary and Poland. It is even rising in the United States, though the controlled media does a good job of covering up this fact. But the truth will not be hid. The reality that diversity is not necessarily a strength unless diverse groups agree to a unified ideology is leaking out and becoming more accepted.

America145

Voting records contribute to our understanding of how ethnonationalism is relevant. Recent voting records demonstrate an interesting fact; namely, that fewer whites vote Democrat than any other race. To be specific, in the 2018 U.S. midterm election, 90% of blacks, 77% of Asians, and 69% of Latinos voted Democrat, while only 44% of whites did the same. The 2016 national election was much the same with 91% of blacks and 69% of Latinos voting for Hillary Clinton while only 39% of whites cast their vote for the Democrat. Concerning voter turnout, consistently around 66% of whites come out to vote whereas other races have significantly lower civic participation.

Furthermore, when you look at rallies for the 2nd Amendment, for preserving historical monuments to past national heroes, or to protest the LGBT sickness in our cultural bloodstream, you occasionally see non-white individuals in the crowd, but the audience is usually overwhelmingly white. It doesn’t matter where you go in the country, this is the case. When you look at the makeup of Congress, Republican representatives are overwhelmingly white males and professed Christians whereas Democrats are a hodgepodge of minorities and women and a disproportionately large number of prominent Jews (such as Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler who directed the impeachment charade). If you don’t think this is reflected in the two parties’ recent conduct, think again. And I say this not out of partisan love for the Republicans but as someone who equally despises both major parties.

Moreover, those patriots leading courses on the Constitution, forming militias, and promoting third parties are predominately white. There are exceptions such as conservative commentators Thomas Sowell and Michelle Malkin, but this is the rule. Whites also own more firearms than any other race. These facts lead me to conclude that the only reason the United States hasn’t tilted fully into the abyss of communism is because whites still have the highest voter turnout, vote predominantly Republican, and are the most active in promoting the constitutional republicanism that originally made America great.

None of this means that whites are intrinsically superior to other races or have a higher value, but it does demonstrate the fact accepted by everyone with eyes open to reality that the races have inherent differences and that we can thank the white majority for keeping our Republic’s head above water (if only barely). I will not theorize at this time as to why the fiercest defenders of Liberty, with a few notable exceptions, are, and have been throughout time, white. Suffice it to say that this is the case and that those with Caucasian blood in their veins are the staunchest Freedom Fighters to be found anywhere. If America falls, however, it will ultimately be because this same majority shirked their duty and allowed it to happen.

ap_411003015

A Charles Lindbergh America First Committee rally

To conclude this piece, I plead with Americans of all races, faiths, and backgrounds to rally around the principles and ideologies that made the United States the greatest nation in world history. The Constitution and its sublime principles should be our standard. We should cling to the laws of God that undergird the Constitution. We must defend our Faith, Families, and Freedom at all costs from the international communist conspiracy. Join with me in rallying around principles and ideas, not parties and individuals.

Nothing short of unity in principle – nationalistic, America Fist unity – can save us as a society. Unless we rally around the principles that made America great in the first place, we will no longer be great. Unless we reject the diabolical one-world agenda and promote a one-nation under God, under law, and under Freedom program, we will continue to falter and fall as a People.

By the same token, nothing short of nationalism in every country on earth can save the nations from the Red Beast that is spreading its tentacles around the globe. No nation is free from detrimental socialist and communist influence. Not one. But some nations are in a better position to quarantine and eradicate the cancerous ideology chewing through their vitals than others. In order to do it, however, they must properly identify the contagion as the Red Plague of communism. In order to succeed, they must become fierce nationalists, reject the dangerous system of international finance holding them in bondage, extinguish all parties and organizations espousing Marxist principles, and eliminate all traitors in the traditional way.

I pray that my countrymen in the United States will lead the rest of the world by example, but whether or not we fulfill our lofty responsibility, people everywhere are duty-bound to be nationalists and defend their peoples against Satanic influences from within and without. Humanity is besieged by a corrupt, gangster Elite chomping at the bit to slap shackles of slavery on us. Nationalism is one of the major remedies to this problem and I urge its adoption as well as a resurrection of a Lindbergh-style America First Committee.

America143

A Charles Lindbergh America First Committee rally

I repeat that nationalism is a good thing. It is the logical response of a people to threats and danger. It is an ideological expression of a free people and an evidence that a nation is yet independent and not controlled. If we are still sovereign, as we claim, then we must be nationalists. If we are no longer nationalists, however, then we are no longer free. In either case, America needs nationalism!

Zack Strong,

December 20, 2019

The Most Hated Minority

I am the most hated minority on the planet. Let me explain. The controlled press would have you believe that blacks, people of color, people afflicted by homosexuality, women, the poor, or Jews, are the most hated minorities, that these groups are oppressed and don’t get a fair shake in this “racist,” “sexist,” “white nationalist” “patriarchy” we live in. The reality, of course, is that the various groups mentioned are protected classes. They are the privileged ones, along with the Elite puppet masters who lead them by the nose. I am the real hated minority.

If I’m the most hated minority, what am I? What are the qualifications to be considered the most hated minority? In short, I am:

1. White

2. Male

3. Heterosexual

4. American

5. Constitutionalist

6. Independent voter

7. Idahoan

8. Live in rural communities

9. A “conspiracy theorist”

10. A Christian (and, more damning still, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)

This, my dear reader, is the real definition of “minority” in today’s world. According to nearly every metric, I’m in the minority. Everything I am, believe in, and stand for is everything the ruling Elite hate and are attempting to destroy. I’ll discuss each of the ten points listed above and explain why this marks me, and you if you share these traits, as a true “minority.”

white3

1. Being white in today’s politically correct world is tantamount to having leprosy in ancient times. White skin often bars you from opportunities and “privileges” that non-whites enjoy on college campuses, in Hollywood, in competitions, in media coverage, in applying for jobs, and so forth. Affirmative Action has stamped anti-white racism on our institutions. And the Jewish-Marxist “white guilt” mantra has done incalculable harm to the American psyche, including severing us from our roots by making us demonize the heroes of our past. This anti-white crusade has become so blatantly obvious that two years ago a poll suggested that 55% of white Americans now believe whites are discriminated against. And how can they not think this? After all, Oklahoma police recently investigated a sign proclaiming “It’s okay to be white” as a possible “hate crime.” To be white and proud of that fact is “hateful” in the eyes of the demonic Elite.

In an article titled “The US white majority will soon disappear forever,” The Chicago Reporter explained that by 2050 whites will be a minority in both the United States and Europe – the last real bastions of Caucasian peoples on earth. The article takes a swipe at whites, referring to anyone alarmed at this demographic trend as “white nationalists.” They gloated: “White nationalists want America to be white again. But this will never happen. America is on its way to becoming predominantly nonwhite.” The Reporter also noted that two of the major reasons for this trend are the pitifully low white birth statistics and the massive Latin immigration into the United States.

It is a crying shame that society is taught that having children is a bad thing or “dangerous” for the environment. In the past, large families were the rule and they ought to become so again. Today, all races have lower birth rates than in the past and the average white family, ranking among the lowest, only has 1.7 children – not even enough to sustain itself. And don’t think this is by accident. It is the result of a coordinated global effort at population control.

white2

The constant anti-marriage, anti-family attacks by feminists and LGBT radicals – that is, by cultural Marxists – is mostly responsible for our declining families. Red environmentalists have also played their part by deceiving people into believing that the earth cannot sustain our current population, let alone a larger population. And, not to be discounted, is the constant sexualization of our civilization which places emphasis not on love or selfless and responsible relationships, but on selfish, me-centered, hedonistic ones. Spencer W. Kimball, a great warrior for Christ, once taught that “a sexless civilization would die in one generation, if indeed it could be born. A sexy civilization will die of its own rottenness when it is ripe in iniquity” (Spencer W. Kimball, “Love vs. Lust,” Devotional, July 10, 1974).

As bad as it is becoming in the United States and Europe, in nations like South Africa, being white can be a death sentence. The controlled media has carefully covered up the fact that the blacks in South Africa, spurred on by their black communist government once headed by the convicted terrorist Nelson Mandela, are perpetrating white genocide. White farmers are having their land stolen. Whites are being murdered literally every day. And white women are being brutally raped by the savage local populations. The numbers are horrifying. Upwards of 70,000 whites have been butchered since Nelson Mandela’s communist regime took power in 1994. In the majority of cases, hatred – not theft – is the reason for the murders. The theft of the whites’ land is usually only an after thought.

As much as I disapprove of many Israeli operations, I fully endorse the Israeli special forces’ efforts to train white South African farmers in self-defensive techniques. And as much as I despise the Russian regime and believe their motives to be less than sincere, I applaud them opening their doors to white refugees. It makes one wonder, however, why the United States and Europe – ostensibly so concerned about refugees from the Africa and the Middle East – aren’t clamoring to help white South Africans. Why aren’t the Western-based churches who chide us to help black and Arab refugees also mentioning the white South African refugees? Clearly, there is a dangerous double standard.

white5

One final word before moving on to the next point. It’s sad that I need to say this, but in some people’s eyes my white skin automatically brands me as a “racist.” No, I’m not a racist. If you want to verify that, simply ask my Panamanian wife. Despite the fact that I married a beautiful brown-skinned Latina (of largely Spanish and French ancestry), I care deeply about the plight of my people. Of earth’s 7.53 billion inhabitants, only around 900 million of us are white. I am, therefore, a racial minority in a global sense and soon to become a racial minority in my own country.

2. Being a man is also seen by society as an inherent defect. Our feminist society is rabidly anti-male. There are at least two major reasons for this anti-male bias. First, the communists comprehended early on that they could never conquer societies that were guarded by strong families. And they knew that the protectors of families, and therefore of society, were the men. In order to take down society, they determined to first take down families. In order to do this, they decided to manipulate women into weakening men. This dovetails into the second reason for the anti-male narrative. From day one, the feminists (i.e. Marxists in heels) have blamed the so-called “patriarchy” for their alleged “oppression.” I would contend that there is no evidence women have ever been oppressed in Western society – certainly never in America. And I would also contend that the past “patriarchy,” if such ever truly existed, actually protected society. It is not coincidental that the more the “patriarchy” is attacked and men are dethroned as heads of their households, as protectors, and as providers, the more society has faltered.

We all saw the absurdly anti-male Gillette commercial earlier this year. They portrayed men as grunting, stupid, uncaring monsters posing a threat to everyone. This is really how the Elite see us. It is how the committed feminists see us. They see our natural masculinity as “toxic” and, therefore, dangerous. They’ve gone to great lengths to feminize and emasculate men. To a large extent, their conditioning has worked. Everywhere you look you see foppish “men” in their skinny jeans. Makeup for “men” (real mean don’t wear makeup) is becoming a huge trend. Schools are teaching children that boys can have periods, too. And in everything from literature to movies to media to school curriculum the ideal “man” is depicted as kowtowing to women, behaving in a groveling and weak manner, and, of course, expressing support for everything vile and perverse from LGBT mania to liberal politics.

Men and boys are clearly discriminated against in female-dominated schools. Once all-male groups like the Boy Scouts have been forced to accept girls. All-male sports are starting to succumb to female interference. Commercials and ads depict us as stupid apes in comparison with the bright, classy woman. There is nothing in traditional masculinity that is accepted and celebrated by our modern, debauched culture. Many men, perceiving this extraordinary bias, have begun tuning out of the conversation, dropping out of university, and abandoning their traditional duties as husbands and fathers. In the final equation, it is feminists and their abettors who are to blame for this trend because they have deliberately targeted and attacked men with the intent of sidelining them and making families and society ripe for the picking.

Sadly, many American men – once the picture of masculinity – have become Europeanized. Those of us who reject the metrosexual ideal foisted upon us in favor of our natural manliness are hated and considered “sexist,” “misogynistic,” and “chauvinist.” We are considered “toxic” and “dangerous.” We are hated for our biology for people who claim we hate them for theirs. The irony is not lost on me, nor is the reality that as a traditional man, I’m in the minority.

men6

3. Heterosexuals are still very much in the numerical majority, but politically and ideologically speaking, proud heterosexuals are outcasts. Said differently, those of us who openly defend heterosexuality and candidly denounce the aberrations of homosexuality and anything-goes LGBT mania, are in the minority. Unless you declare your allegiance to the LGBT community and bend over backwards to help this radicalized group change the definitions of marriage, family, sex, and gender to accommodate their degeneracy and delusions, you’re hated and discriminated against. Because I declare the truth that men are eternally men and women are eternally women and speak out against destructive LGBT movement (which is a verifiable communist front), I am in the minority.

4. As a proud, nationalistic citizen of the United States of America, I’m a pariah in many parts of the world (and, indeed, in certain parts of the USA!) While there are people in every nation who respect and love America, there is at least an equal number – and I dare say a larger number – which hate America. I have a relative who once told me that when he travels abroad, he now tells people he’s from Canada so as to avoid discrimination for being an American. I tasted this rampant vitriol when I lived in Russia. The Bulgarian researcher Ivan Krastev, editor of the book The Anti-American Century, noted in a paper that:

[A]nti-Americanism has worked its way more than ever before into the mainstream of world politics . . . The appeal of anti-Americanism transcends Left-Right divisions, and it works equally well with anxious governments and angry publics. It fits the definition of an all-purpose ideology. What we are seeing is not so much the rise of anti-Americanism in the singular as the rise of anti-Americanisms in the plural. Anti-Americanism assumes different guises in different political contexts. It can be a prodemocratic force in Turkey and an antidemocratic rallying point in Central and Eastern Europe.

Thus any attempt to find a global explanation for current anti-American sentiments is doomed to fail. The popular view that America is hated for being hostile to Islam may have some explanatory power when applied to the Middle East, but it is a nonstarter in the case of the Balkans, where the United States is hated for being proIslamic and pro-Albanian. In Islamic fundamentalist circles, the United States is castigated for being the embodiment of modernity, but Europeans accuse it of not being modern (or postmodern) enough—for practicing capital punishment and for believing too much in God. The United States is blamed both for globalizing the world and for “unilaterally” resisting globalization. . . .

The latest surveys in Western Europe indicate an important change in the profile of the anti-American constituency. The pattern long typical for France has now become common throughout Western Europe. Elites have become more negative toward the United States than the general public, and younger people are more critical than their elders. Elites in search of legitimacy and a new generation looking for a cause are the two most visible faces of the new European anti-Americanism. . . .

The rise of anti-Americanism could become a major obstacle to promoting democracy in the world. In the context of the new suspicion of the United States and its policies, many non-democratic, semi-democratic, or even almost-democratic regimes are tempted to criminalize any internal pressure for democracy, labeling it “American-sponsored destabilization.” The recent events in Georgia provide a classic illustration of this point. At the very moment when Georgian civil society took to the streets in defense of their right to fair elections, former President Shevarnadze was quick to label the popular movement an American-inspired conspiracy. The strategy of authoritarian governments is to try to force democratic movements to dissociate themselves from the United States, thus isolating them and depriving them of international support. For the United States, democracy promotion is a vehicle for winning the hearts and minds of people around the world. But if anti-Americanism can succeed in identifying pressure for democracy with “American imperialism,” this will undermine the prospects for the spread of democracy” (Ivan Krastev, “The Anti-American Century?” January, 2004).

America15

I’m personally confident that the United States is the most hated nation on earth, with Israel coming in second place. Never in world history have there been more nations arrayed against a single power as there are against the United States today. Though we like to think of ourselves as the “only” superpower, the truth is that we’re becoming isolated and cut off. The communists, having long ago taken over most of the rest of the world, initiated a process of encirclement against us. Latin America is their staging point for this effort. Russia and China are militarizing the Arctic, China is consuming Latin America, Africa, and Asia, Russia’s forces are more entrenched than ever in the Middle East, and the socialist cancer is at a critical stage in Europe. To our North and South, and in all points of the compass, our enemies are gathering and our influence is waning. Because America is my homeland and my ideology is proudly American First, I’m in the minority both abroad and in the United States.

5. I am a Constitutionalist. Many people probably don’t even know what a Constitutionalist is and certainly don’t identify as one. I reject the “conservative” and “libertarian” labels. Instead, my ideological allegiance is to the principles of Liberty lodged in the U.S. Constitution. I believe the Constitution was and remains an inspired document given to us by God. It is the greatest political charter ever written and is largely responsible for the unrivaled success of the United States.

In a 2011 article, the Cato Institute cited various studies and polls whose conclusion was that only one in ten Americans “demonstrated acceptable knowledge” of our Constitution. Seventy percent also could not identify the Constitution as “the supreme law of the land.” In 2017, CNN covered a major study demonstrating the “bouillabaisse of ignorance” in the United States. Among the statistics cited were the following: 33% of people could not name even one of the branches of our government; only 26% could name all three branches of the federal government; and 37% could not name even a single right protected by the First Amendment. Pitiful. And, finally, a November 2019 article from the Heritage Foundation talked about Americans’ appalling lack of understanding of our system of government, citing a study claiming that 57% of Americans have not even read the Constitution. The author, indeed, noted: “I took two courses in constitutional law in law school and was never required to read it.”

I add my own witness that throughout my undergraduate studies in history and political science, the Constitution was rarely mentioned – and even more rarely spoken of in a favorable light. In one particularly dreadful course on U.S. foreign policy at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, the Constitution was only mentioned in one class period for about ten minutes by the professor. The rest of the term we studied international law instead. This is the same professor who was fond of saying, “Sovereignty is dead.” Of course it’s dead – we ignore the document that wold protect it!

To reiterate, I am a Constitutionalist. I’m a dyed-in-the-wool American of the Jeffersonian persuasion. I reject modern libertarianism which is little more than libertinism. I reject modern conservatism which is little more than a mixture of Zionism and socialism (the neo-conservative movement was founded by Trotskyites). And, having read the platforms of both the Republican and Democratic Parties, I reject both of them because their principles conflict with those sublime standards enshrined in the Constitution. Because I reject nearly every movement and party in existence and instead cling to the U.S. Constitution, revering it as a literally inspired document, I’m certainly in the minority.

voting10

6. As a natural expression of my Constitutionalist outlook, I am now, and have always been, an independent voter. Around 2002-2003 I discovered and joined the Independent American Party (IAP). I have yet to find a better, more grounded political organization. Over the years, I’ve been involved with the IAP as a member of their Executive Committee, as the Issues Committee Coordinator, as a primary author of their Declaration of Freedom, and as their candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives out of Utah’s 3rd District in 2014. I encourage everyone to investigate the IAP’s “Principles of Liberty” and consider throwing their support behind this great organization. I have also been very fond of the Constitution Party (CP) and have frequently voted for CP candidates such as Chuck Baldwin for president in 2008 and Darrel Castle in 2016. They are worthy of your support as well.

Because I vote third party and independent, I’m frequently accused of supporting the enemy (i.e. the Democrats). The supposition that a third party vote is either wasted or, worse, helps the enemy, is an egregious one. First, third party candidates are almost never in contention, so the idea that my third party vote sways an election in favor or the Democrats is absurd. Second, and most importantly, voting is not about popularity or even winning elections; it’s about doing the right thing. We should never vote for the “lesser of two evils.” It doesn’t matter how horrible the other guy is, you should simply never compromise your principles. Rather, we should always vote for good, godly, stalwart men to fill positions of trust. Also, think of it: What does it matter if my independent vote sways an election to the greater or lesser of two evils so long as my conscience is clear and I did the right thing in the eyes of God? Also, how does it help me in the long run to compromise my principles just to help win an election? I couldn’t live with myself if I did that.

I ultimately vote to show God that I support His principles and laws and that I have the integrity to stand with moral, upright, good, and honest individuals though they be in the minority. It is indeed a tenet of my faith that I will stand before God one day and account to Him for my political actions (Doctrine and Covenants 134:1). I also commend to you the words attributed to John Quincy Adams:

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”

Those of us who truly vote, not merely register, independent are drastically outnumbered. Yet, we are the ones with clear consciences. We are the only authentic hope for the Republic because we alone have the integrity to stand on principle regardless of the consequences. We, the independent voters, are the minority in America.

Idaho1

7. I’m an Idahoan. This needs little explanation. However, I included it on the list because being from the Intermountain West is something of an anomaly. I believe the cream of the crop of our citizenry inhabits the mountains and valleys in this blessed part of the country. There is a reason why humble people like Chuck Baldwin are feeling prompted by the Holy Spirit to relocate from the insane coasts and dilapidated cities into the rural communities of the American West. In Chuck Baldwin’s case, his family moved to gorgeous northwestern Montana. I believe the safest and most blessed part of the country is the Intermountain West, roughly including the states of Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana. The population of these four large states is a mere 6,555,000. And, for the most part, they are hard-working, politically conservative, and fairly religious with a high gun ownership and a penchant for third parties. This is really the best part of this Promised Land of America to live in (and if I didn’t make it clear earlier, yes, I’m a staunch nationalist and advocate a strict America First program). And living here, by default, puts you in the happy minority.

8. As the previous point demonstrates, I’m from rural America. How rural? you may ask. To put it into perspective, I was the valedictorian of my graduating class . . . my graduating class of five students. I spent my high school years in a fishing village of two-hundred people. There were no stores, gas stations, or stoplights; no police, little crime, and no gangs; and clean air, gorgeous wildlife, and unfiltered water (until the federal government later forced them to pollute the naturally pure water with chemicals in the name of “health and safety”). I’ve lived in multiple towns under 500 people and my home the past four years is a small farming community of about 360 Idahoans. It is the rural folk – the farmers, the backwoodsmen, the hunters, the so-called “rednecks,” etc. – who embody what it really means to be an American.

The Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson in particular, believed that city life was not conducive to Liberty. They believed that cities made people foppish, weak, and immoral. Cities encourage vice. They emphasize ease and comfort over hard work and manliness. They promote dependence whereas country living induces independence and self-sufficiency. They are impersonal whereas rural communities are, well, communities.

When you look across time, you see that great peoples grew out of rural environments and that they began to degenerate when they formed large cities and lost touch with the soil. This is true of the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, and others. It is lamentable that in their drive to collectivize society and implement Agenda 2030, the radicals have persuaded Americans to abandon rural living in favor of concrete jungle life. We need to wake up and learn the truth that Thomas Jefferson shared when he wrote:

The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of pure government, as sores do to the strength of the human body. It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution” (Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia).

9. Being a “conspiracy theorist” is certainly taboo. Conspiracy is an ageless fact of existence. Our court system prosecutes criminal conspiracies every day and history furnishes us with countless examples of political conspiracy (the assassinations of Julius Caesar, Abraham Lincoln, and Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the Gunpowder Treason, and the Bolshevik plot to overthrow the Russian government, to name only five), yet many people don’t want to admit the reality of conspiracy. According to some polls, the majority of Americans believe in conspiracy. I question the veracity of these polls, however, because as a very active conspiracy researcher, I fail to see more than a minority of people willing to talk about and admit conspiracy. I’m routinely shouted down or banned from groups and pages on social media when I mention conspiracy. The word conspiracy almost never enters the mainstream discourse and, when it does, it is dismissed as something only kooks, lunatics, and “anti-Semites” believe in.

conspiracy58

Even within the conspiracy research community I’m in the minority because of my views on such subjects as World War II, the Third Reich, and the “Holocaust.” I’m routinely trying to persuade my fellow conspiracy researchers to look deeper, study harder, and stop repeating mainstream talking points. There are so many errors and misconceptions that have crept into – or been maliciously inserted into – the conspiracy community that it’s difficult to find someone with their head screwed on straight. Rare indeed is the conspiracy buff who doesn’t repeat falsehoods. Even in the conspiracy world, then, I’m in the minority.

10. Lastly, if you are a true, authentic Christian, you’re in the minority. You’re not only in the minority globally, but you’re within the minority of Christians! Long ago an appalling apostasy overtook Christendom. Today, the average self-proclaimed Christian is anything but Christian in conduct and principle. In 2018, the Pew Research Center stated: “One-third of U.S. adults believe in a higher power of some kind, but not in God as described in Bible.” Specifically, only 56% of Americans believe in the God of the Bible. And what of those fifty-six percent? Do they really believe in Christ’s teachings?

Let’s look at several Christian doctrines and see how faithful modern Christians really are to the Lord’s Gospel. First, chastity before marriage. One article reported that “in the General Social Survey (GSS), in 2014 through 2018 combined, only 37% of “fundamentalist adults said that sex outside marriage was “always wrong,” while 41% said it was “not wrong at all.”” It further observed that “by the time they are young adults, roughly two-thirds of Evangelical young people have engaged in sexual intercourse, and about three-quarters have engaged in at least one of three forms of sexual activity. Among those ages 15 to 17, those percentages were about one-quarter and well over 40%, respectively.” Clearly, so-called Christians don’t follow the seventh commandment, one of the most serious of all commandments.

Second, belief in the reality of Satan. In one Barna survey, 40% of Christians denied the existence of Satan. An additional 19% said they “agreed somewhat” with the idea that Satan is not real, but a mere symbol. And 8% didn’t have an answer at all. That’s well over half who denied the reality of the Devil. Can you fight what you don’t believe in? Can you truly believe Jesus Christ is the Savior if you don’t believe in an Adversary and all that his existence implies?

Third, the perfection and divinity of Jesus Christ. In the same Barna survey, 22% of “Christian” respondents said they believed Jesus had sinned and 17% “somewhat” agreed. Another 9% disagreed only “somewhat.” How can a person have faith in the Atonement of an imperfect and sinful being? Additionally, to say Jesus sinned is to deny His own words and the testimonies of His apostles. To believe Jesus sinned is to negate His divinity and perfection and, in a very real since, to deny Him altogether.

Fourth, the same Barna survey showed that many Christians don’t believe in the third member of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit. 38% said the Holy Ghost is a symbol, 20% somewhat agreed, and 9% had no idea. Again, well over half of these supposed “Christians” denied one of the greatest verities of the Gospel – the existence of the Holy Ghost and the possibility to have His divine presence with you when you enter into the proper ordinances, have them performed by the proper Priesthood authority, and live righteousness enough to enjoy it.

Fifth, and finally, only 47% of Americans, according to a 2017 Pew article, believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. 26% regard the Bible as “a book of fables, legends, [and] history” as opposed to holy scripture. And only 24% believe that the Bible should be taken literally.

http://www.wga.hu/art/v/valentin/driving.jpg

Yes, there is something massively wrong in Christendom! But we should not be surprised – the Lord’s apostles prophesied of an impending apostasy that would engulf the world. Paul said there would be a “falling away” (2 Thessalonians 2:1-5). Peter foretold of “false prophets” and “false teachers” that would come among the Christians and “bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord” (2 Peter 2:1-3). John revealed that the Dragon (Satan) would make war with the Saints and would drive the Church into the wilderness of apostasy (Revelation 12).

The Great Apostasy of the Christian Church was an event of such far-reaching magnitude that it was foreseen even in ancient times. Isaiah declared that “darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people” (Isaiah 60:2). Amos prophesied that: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord: And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it” (Amos 8:11-12). And so forth.

Yes, being a real Christian today puts you in the minority, even among Christians. Even more isolating is the fact that I’m a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. No Christian denomination has been so hated as ours. No other church has had an extermination order issued against it by a state in the Union. The founder of our Church, Joseph Smith, and his brother Hyrum, were illegally arrested and then murdered in Carthage Jail by a Masonic mob as the governor of Illinois sat idly by. And lest we forget, Presidents Buchanan and Lincoln besieged the Church in Utah, putting our people under martial law for no reason other than blind religious bigotry. The bigotry has continued, however, as Baptists, Methodists, Catholic, Evangelicals, Orthodox, Jews, Muslims, atheists, and pretty much everyone, despises the Church and its unique declarations about Restoration and prophets in the land again. Truly, to belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints puts me in the minority like nothing else!

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter to me that I’m in the minority or that my allies – ideological, political, religious, ethnic, or otherwise – are few in number. Did not our Lord say of His true path that “few there be that find it” (Matthew 7:13-14)? Did not an ancient prophet, having seen a vision of our day, record that because of the evil of “the church of the devil” there “were few” who belonged to “the church of the Lamb of God” (1 Nephi 14:9-12)? But didn’t this same inspired servant of the Lord also say that though we are few in number, we who enter into the Lord’s covenants will be “armed with righteousness and with the power of God in great glory” (1 Nephi 14:14)? Though very small in number, we are on the winning side. Of that there is no doubt. The Lord is with us. “If God be for us, who can be against us?” (Romans 8:31)

The purpose of this article was simply to demonstrate that far from being “privileged” because I’m a white man, these distinctions make me a pariah in our modern Marxist society. I wanted to drive home the point that being white, men, Christians, conspiracy theorists, country bumpkins, or Constitutionalists is seen as bad by the Elite and by those who have been hoodwinked by them. I wanted to underscore the essential fact that we are in an all-out war for our survival as a civilization and that everything we’ve traditionally stood for is being chipped away and erased. Those of us in the real minority – that is, those of us who love our Faith, Families, and Freedom, who understand the Satanic conspiracy opposing us, and who fight to promote goodness and uphold moral values – are one small step away from being labeled “domestic extremists,” persecuted, denied our rights, rounded up and thrown in camps, or hunted down.

Wait, I spoke too soon. On May 30, 2019, the FBI declared:

The FBI assesses anti-government, identity based, and fringe political conspiracy theories very likely motivate some domestic extremists, wholly or in part, to commit criminal and sometimes violent activity. . . .

One key assumption driving these assessments is that certain conspiracy theory narratives tacitly support or legitimize violent action.”

The FBI further clarified that if you believe there are people trying to create a New World Order, that the United Nations is detrimental, that false flag attacks are a reality, that Zionists have infiltrated our government, or that high level people are involved in child sex trafficking, you are a “fringe” and “anti-government” “conspiracy theorist,” and, therefore, a “domestic extremist.”

America115

You heard that right, fellow conspiracy theorist – the government considers you a “domestic extremist” whose beliefs “support or legitimate violent action.” And if you are an anti-government extremist – essentially a terrorist or guerrilla insurgent – then what’s to stop the government from “defending” itself against you and denying you “privileges” (rights) and throwing you in a reeducation GULAG for the “good of society”? We are in real trouble, ladies and gentlemen. Those of us who are in the real minority – the ideological minority – have arrayed against us the greatest tyranny that has ever tormented mankind – the worldwide communist conspiracy. You need to know that they hate you and that you’re on their radar. You can’t melt into the background or escape the coming torrent of persecution. Your only recourse is to stand tall, be proud that you are white, male, American, independent, Constitutionalist, and, above all, Christian. Speak out. Stand your ground. Never compromise. Don’t go along with the crowd. And rely on the Lord Jesus Christ whom I testify is coming quickly to abolish “the rulers of the darkness of this world” (Ephesians 6:12).

Zack Strong,

December 13, 2019

Bloomberg Vows to Destroy Your Right of Self-Defense

Yesterday, the rabid socialist Michael Bloomberg, who is currently running for the Democratic Party’s nomination for president, stood up in Aurora, Colorado to unveil his proposals for ending so-called “gun violence” in America. In reality, the only thing he wants to end is your God-given, Constitutionally-guaranteed right of self-defense. This quick article is a rebuttal to Bloomberg’s atrocious distortions, anti-American propaganda, and threats against our Liberty.

guns88

The former socialist mayor of New York City, the Jew Mike Bloomberg, started off his outlandish remarks by citing the “disgraceful” number of annual gun deaths in the United States. He alleged that America suffers from “gun violence” far more than any other “developed” nation. In his words: “No other developed country experiences losses of gun violence like we do here in America. They’re not even close.” Notice how he surreptitiously slipped the qualifier “developed” in there. This is how he gets away with pushing his lies about the alleged “national emergency” the United States has with “gun violence.”

It is a blatant lie to suggest that the United States has a unique or unparalleled problem – a “national emergency” – with “gun violence.” It’s simply not true. Anyone who takes the time to research the subject knows this is completely false. Even mainstream media outlets hostile to the 2nd Amendment are frequently forced to admit that the verifiable numbers smash this propaganda talking point into a million pieces.

Three short years ago, the far left propaganda outlet NPR admitted that far from ranking first in the world for gun violence, the United States actually ranked 31st! NPR stated: “[T]he U.S. has the 31st highest rate in the world: 3.85 deaths due to gun violence per 100,000 people in 2016.” In 2016, tiny El Salvador actually ranked first in gun violence. The top five nations for gun violence that year were El Salvador, Venezuela, Guatemala, Colombia, and Honduras. Latin America was then, and is now, the most violent region of the world.

In a recent article titled “400 murders a day: 10 reasons why Latin America is the world’s most violent place,” Business Insider reported:

Outside of active war zones, Latin America is the world’s most violent region. . . .

Latin America is home to about 8% of the world’s population but has about one-third of its homicides. . . .

In Mexico, the region’s second most populous country, 33,753 homicide victims in 2018 set a record for the second year in a row; 17,142 victims in the first half of this year likely means 2019 will set a new mark.

In Brazil, the most populated country in the region, homicides fell 13% between 2017 and 2018, but that still means 51,589 people were killed. . . .

Chile’s 2.7 homicides per 100,000 people in 2018 were about half the US’s 5.3 — Mexico and Brazil’s 25 per 100,000 and Venezuela’s 80 were many times more. . . .

On average across the region, some 75% of homicides in Latin America are gun-related — that proportion may seem obvious, [Robert] Muggah said, “but actually global average is closer to 40%. In Europe it’s down . . . in the low 20s and teens.””

Gang members who are also inmates pose for a photograph at a prison in Quezaltepeque

They proceeded to cite additional statistics and theorize about causes for gun violence, such as drug cartels, urbanization, mass unemployment, social unrest, and a severely broken justice system. However, I want to hone in on the numbers and compare them to U.S. statistics.

Various organizations inflate the numbers or skew the context to give you a false picture of reality. Consequently, I’ve taken the numbers from the annual FBI crime statistics. For 2018, the FBI noted a 6.2 percent decrease from the previous year’s murders. They set the overall number of murders in 2018 at 14,123. Isn’t it curious that Bloomberg and all the other liars talk about how unspeakably violent America is, yet we rank behind a host of nations in gun violence and homicides and our murder rates actually dropped last year even as gun ownership continued to increase?

But let’s focus on “developed” countries, since that’s the ruse Bloomberg is using. While the list is necessarily subjective and depends on your measuring criteria, there are, according to the IMF, approximately 39 “advanced economies” in the world out of a possible 195 nations. Isn’t it a little disingenuous for socialist Mayor Bloomberg to ignore murder rates and gun violence in a full 80% of the world just so he can maintain his claim that the United States has a “unique” gun problem? Some of us might call this sleight of hand a deliberate distortion. After all, don’t the other 156 countries matter? Don’t the gun violence victims, for whom he claims to have so much sympathy, matter even though they’re in third-world countries? Of course, when you compare U.S. statistics against the entire world, we are not even in the top 25 for “gun violence.” This is precisely the reason why the liar from New York uses qualifiers like “developed countries” to peddle his propaganda.

Let’s continue to dissect the numbers. Of those “developed countries” that have lower gun violence than the United States, there are some factors that cannot be ignored when making a judgment about rates of violence. First, population. The population of the United States is 340 million, with some 30 million illegal aliens who commit a massive amount of crime not reflected in that number. The population of the entirety of Europe is 741 million. Germany, the most populated nation in Europe, has almost 83 million people, whereas “developed” nations like Britain and Sweden have only 66 and 10 million respectively. The U.S. state of California alone has 40 million. If you add Texas’s and California’s populations together – only two of our fifty states – you get a population several million higher than the United Kingdom’s. Three of our states, California, Texas, and Florida, have a combined population of 90 million – seven million higher than Germany.

My point with these statistics is that you cannot simply compare our numbers across the board with European nations (which constitute most of the “developed” nations in the world) because our population is so much higher. Simple reason would dictate that you would expect there to be higher numbers of crime in the United States. When you factor in the reality that 340 million Americans own 423 million guns, this assumption of higher-thanusual violence would seem logical. Yet, in reality, considering our extremely large population – third only behind China’s and India’s – and our unprecedented ownership of firearms, the fact that only 10,000 Americans were killed by guns of all types in 2018 is stunning and puts to rest the notion that America is so uniquely violent.

guns49

I want to reiterate that I’m taking my numbers directly from the FBI’s official crime statistics. According to the FBI, in 2018 there were 14,123 murder victims in the United States out of our population of 340 million. There were 14,123 murder victims, of which 10,265 were killed with firearms of all types. 6,603 of these were killed with handguns and a mere 297 were killed with rifles of all types, which includes the oh-so-scary “assault rifles” that Bloomberg and the lying media rant and rave about.

For comparison, consider that every year 88,000 Americans die from alcohol, 40,000 Americans died in car crashes in 2018, and bicycles kill over 2,000 (1/5 of the total deaths from guns) U.S. children each year. In all seriousness, where is this supposedly unprecedented and egregious “gun violence” Bloomberg speaks of? It’s certainly not in my town in Idaho. It’s nowhere to be found in states like Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Nebraska, or the Dakotas. If Bloomberg really cares about saving lives, he would convert his absurd “end gun violence” campaign into an “end alcohol violence,” or “end automobile violence,” or “end bicycle violence” campaign.

Another statistic to be aware of is that 2/3 of gun deaths in the United States are suicides. The number of suicides are not reflected in the FBI crime numbers. Sometimes you see anti-gunners lump all the numbers together and call them “gun incidents.” Don’t fall for it. In other words, the majority of gun-related deaths are self-inflicted as opposed to maliciously inflicted upon us by criminals. Once again, this belies the claim that America is so violent. Also, I would point out that 17-20 military veterans every day commit suicide, making up a large percentage of the thousands who commit suicide every year. This is unacceptable. If Bloomberg truly cared about saving victims of gun violence, perhaps he should focus on saving military veterans who have been treated so horribly bad and been put through so much while fighting our illegal wars that they feel the only escape is death.

This is just a smattering of facts and statistics. The overall point is this: The numbers prove that Bloomberg was either deliberately lying or was woefully uninformed (and therefore unreliable) when he falsely claimed that the United States tops the world in gun violence. It’s simply not true, ladies and gentlemen. Yet, this is the type of lying garbage being peddled by Democrats desperate to destroy your Liberty so they might rule over you.

guns17

Before moving to the next point, let me state that actual human beings, not mere statistics, refute Bloomberg’s lying narrative about the safety in other “developed” countries. I have nearly 10,000 followers on Facebook and over the years I’ve had individuals from Australia, the United Kingdom, and other foreign countries beg Americans not to give up their guns and to be careful not to give away our Freedom like they have foolishly done. I once had a British fellow tell about the horrible violence in his neighborhood and the fact that he has no way to defend himself because it’s nearly impossible to own a gun there. Back in 2010, I worked in Hawaii with an Australian who said he would never move back to Australia because of the totalitarian gun control laws. He now lives in the United States. And earlier this week, a man from Bulgaria commented on my article “Red Flags Over America” which details three American cities that hoisted the Chinese communist flag back in October to celebrate the murderous Maoist state. He wrote:

Red flags in USA!? Don’t tell me that it’s true! I was born and bred in Communist Bulgaria under Russian domination, for me USA and GB were the symbols of freedom! Root out the traitors.”

I couldn’t agree more. If we want to restore our Republic, we must root out traitors and tyrants like the socialist Michael Bloomberg. And we can start by boldly calling them what they are – traitors. It doesn’t help to play their political correctness game and to be nice to people who want to enslave us. These are anti-American traitors and they should be treated as enemies to the Republic. Those who would do you violence don’t deserve to escape infamy.

To preface the next portion of this article, I draw a quote from Bloomberg. He alleged: “This year in the United States 12,000 people will be murdered with illegal handguns and 19,000 people will commit suicide with illegal guns.” Illegal guns? What illegal guns? He’s citing what is perhaps (no one knows the precise statistics yet for 2019) the overall firearm death toll. Yet, in his contempt for guns, he refers to all of them as “illegal.” In Bloomberg’s mind, any gun you own is illegal and he will do his utmost to deprive you of them and leave you completely defenseless.

Also, I find it amusing that Bloomberg’s use of the word “illegal” actually deflates his entire argument about needing stricter gun control. As his words acknowledge, making firearms “illegal” does NOTHING to prevent murderers from murdering. He clearly doesn’t expect his emotion-driven audience to be smart enough to put two and two together, but those of us who haven’t taken leave of our senses can see right through his lies. After all, murder has been outlawed in every culture on earth and yet it has always happened regardless of the weapons available. Curtailing what is clearly a “shall not be infringed” right has zero chance of helping the situation because people so evil that they’re willing to murder are evil enough to disregard any law you pass to “end gun violence.”

Bloomberg blamed several factors for the alleged “gun violence” he falsely claims grips America. He blamed the NRA, of course. But he also blamed racism! (remember what I said about his audience being emotion-driven) He had the audacity to allege that pointing out the fact that blacks and Latinos commit most of the gun violence in America misses the point and fuels racism and violence. Actually, that is one of the most important points!

The lion’s share of violent crime in this country occurs in major cities in neighborhoods dominated by blacks and Latinos. 52% of violent crime for a thirty year period of recent history, for instance, was committed by blacks even though only 13% of the population is black (and most of the perpetrators are black males, which make up only 6% of the population). If you eliminated this rampant colored-on-colored and colored-on-white violence, there would be minimal violent crime in the United States. For instance, black-on-black murder accounts for 93% of all murdered blacks! If there’s an epidemic in the United States, it is violence in black and Latino neighborhoods and certainly not in white America!

Yet, spin-master Michael Bloomberg wants those of us who are white to feel “white guilt” and blame ourselves for being “racist” when we tell the truth that blacks and Latinos commit, by far, more crime than us despite being far fewer in number than we are. He wants us to consult our emotions instead of our reason. He wants us to feel so bad and guilty that we will acquiesce as tyrants like him steal our God-given right of self-defense. You can kill me or haul me off to the GULAG, but I refuse to tolerate the lies any longer. I refuse to be called a racist because of my skin color (which is the very definition of racism!) I refuse to stand by as my rights are stolen away by traitors.

guns22

Now we arrive at perhaps the most important portion of the article. Yesterday, Bloomberg made several proposals on how he plans to combat “gun violence” (i.e. how he plans to destroy your right of self-defense). Above all, he wants to increase the hoops we have to jump through to purchase a gun, including more extensive background checks. He stated:

To begin with, if I’m lucky enough to get elected, we’re going to overhaul the background check system to make it much more effective. No one should be able to buy a gun without passing a complete background check. And we’re going to get that done. But we’ll also close loopholes and gaps in system like the one allowing unmarried domestic abusers to possess guns and the one allowing sales to go through a background check takes longer than three business days and the one preventing law enforcement from identifying felons and others who own guns illegally. But we’ll also be smarter about who can buy guns. For instance, 18 to 20 year olds are four times as likely to commit a homicide compared to older Americans. The suicide rate among teens has increased exponentially over the past decade. And in most states the legal age for purchasing a handgun from a private seller is still only 18. Think about it, if you have to be 21 to buy a beer, you ought to be 21 at least to buy a handgun or any form of semi-automatic firearm. We’ll also work to adopt a 48-hour waiting period for every purchase. That is really important for preventing suicide. And we’ll adopt a red flag law at the federal level.”

He then lamented that “most” of the information in a background check “can’t be used to actually deny a purchase” of a firearm. He continued:

And we’re going to change that by requiring buyers to obtain a permit before they purchase a gun. Because just having a background check isn’t enough. The question is, no matter what the background check says, can you stop them from getting a gun when they’re minors, when they have a criminal record, or when they have psychiatric problems. This permit will allow authorities to screen applicants for dangerous behavior.”

What constitutes “dangerous behavior” that could allow “authorities” to deny you a firearm? On the list are “arrests for violence, like assault and domestic violence incidents, and arrests for reckless behavior like driving while intoxicated.”

guns29

Bloomberg thinks the “authorities” should be able to screen people for mental health problems before selling them guns in order to keep them out of the hands of “dangerous” people. Who will be the judge of who is dangerous or mentally incompetent? Obviously the “authorities.” But who are the “authorities”? The federal government? Local police? Unelected bureaucrats in some alphabet agency? The Supreme Court? A county judge with no medical training? A state-appointed councilor, British-style? Psychiatrists?

Will the “authorities” be the same gaggle of psychiatrists who have come together to declare President Donald Trump insane? Will it be the same psychiatrists who declare you mentally ill if you believe that Jesus Christ rose from the tomb? Will it be the same psychiatrists who declare perfectly stable military veterans “mentally defective” as a pretext to take their firearms? Will “conspiracy theorists,” “Nazis,” “Holocaust deniers,” “climate change deniers,” and “homophobes,” like I’m routinely called, be denied firearms because their views are deemed abnormal or delusional by the “authorities”? You can be sure they will with the extremist Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in the process of indoctrinating the “authorities” everywhere in the Union.

My rebuttal to Bloomberg’s threat to force Americans to be screened before they can enjoy their God-given rights is simple. I was under the impression that in America the People were the ultimate authority. I was under the impression that the People ratified the Constitution as the supreme law of the land to which all other laws, state or federal, must submit. And I was also under the impression that our supreme law states in no uncertain terms that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Period. Unless the American People have changed the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights without my knowing it, it is still the supreme law of the land and any law short of a full-blown amendment ratified by the People in their individual states is inherently, automatically, and emphatically unconstitutional and void, the whims of Congress, the Supreme Court, and the president be damned.

If you thought Bloomberg was finished with his suggestions for shredding the 2nd Amendment, think again. He continued his baseless diatribe with these additional threats against our Liberty:

As president, I will attack gun violence from every angle. I will work with Congress to reinstate the ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines, to ban 3D printing of guns, and to require firearms to be safely secured. I’ll work to give the Consumer Products Safety Commission the authority to adopt minimum gun safety standards. And I’ll declare gun violence to be a national public health emergency which will increase the funding available for research. I’ll also increase funding for the ATF to conduct enforcement and for community based violence intervention programs. I’ll ban guns at all schools and colleges. I’ll work with business leaders to encourage responsible sales practices and pressure the gun industry to change . . . this is part of my life’s work and I’m just telling you I will get this done whether I get elected or not.”

Threats, threats, and more threats. Here you have a plain example of a would-be king telling the peasants that when he’s in charge their Liberty will be abolished. And if you don’t like living under feudalism, it doesn’t matter because the “authorities” will enforce the king’s whims whether you like it or not. Bloomberg might as well rewrite his campaign slogan to read: “Vote for me and get rid of your pesky Freedom.”

guns21

As noted, Bloomberg thinks his audience is dumber than a bag of rocks (and they probably are). Anyone who wants to ban so-called assault weapons has to be at least partially out of their mind. As cited earlier, a mere 297 people were killed with rifles of all types in 2018. This very low number includes all victims of “assault weapons” as well as other types of rifles. It’s a pitifully low number, yet it’s what we hear about the most in the controlled media. The real reason we are inundated with anti-assault weapon propaganda is because “assault weapons” make the American People a formidable enemy to tyrants. Tyrants like Michael Bloomberg know that in order to fully dominate and micromanage your life you must first be stripped of your means of self-defense – and the best means of self-defense at the current time is a so-called “assault weapon.”

I want to touch upon two more points briefly before wrapping up. Bloomberg made the claim that the gun industry has “blanket immunity” regarding “gun violence” and that no other industry has such an immunity. But is this actually true?

First off, I would ask why an entire industry should be blamed for how individuals improperly use their products. Should Toyota be blamed if I decide to drive a Toyota into a crowd of people? Should Estwing be blamed if I use one of their hammers to crack someone’s skull open? Should Nike be blamed if I kicked someone while wearing a pair of their shoes? Of course not! The very idea is absurd and anti-American. Yet, that’s the very thing Bloomberg is proposing with the gun industry which, please recall, he threatened to use his post as president to “pressure” into submission – as if we live in the Soviet Union and business was forced to bow to government!

Second, it’s not true that the gun industry has immunity – people blame them for everything and there are constantly lawsuits aimed at gun manufactures. In 2015, when Hillary Clinton made the same claim about immunity, she was fact-checked by numerous liberal sources such as NPR. I cite the following from The Blaze:

PolitiFact deemed Clinton’s two assertions about the law false: the law does not shield the gun industry from “any kind of liability,” and the gun industry is also not the “only” industry to get such liability protection. . . .

PolitiFact stated, “The gun industry is susceptible to some lawsuits, and there are federal laws restricting liability for a number of other types of businesses.””

Bloomberg’s claim about immunity, which is identical with Clinton’s, is as equally false in 2019 as it was in 2015.

Bloomberg1

Third, apparently Bloomberg doesn’t know much about the vaccine industry and the fact that the law gives them immunity and that manufacturers cannot be sued by the thousands of families which suffer from vaccine-related injuries and deaths. The law states: “No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine.” Again, as with almost everything he says, Michael Bloomberg is either deliberately lying or is a tremendous dolt.

I tend to believe the first option – that Michael Bloomberg is a malicious liar. He continuously sacrifices facts to appeal to emotion. He uses words like “national emergency” to rile people up and spur them to blind “action” – even when that “action” is not in their best interest. How can “gun violence” be considered a “national emergency” when less than 1/8 the number of people die from guns as die from alcohol or when 1/7 the number of people die from guns than opioids or when one in sixty-eight American children have autism and Yale and Harvard confirm the links between vaccines and autism? There are much more pressing issues than guns and “gun violence,” ladies and gentlemen. But Blooomberg is a demagogue who wants control over your life and he’ll tell you any lie and distort any fact to make it happen. Remember, destroying the 2nd Amendment and erasing your right to self-defense is his “life’s work.”

Finally, Bloomberg ended his tirade with a revealing statement. He said that to stop gun violence “the number 1 priority is . . . to make sure Donald Trump is not reelected.” He also called President Trump’s administration “four years of cruelty and incompetence.” Interesting, is it not, that the Communist Party USA also said their #1 priority right now is to ensure that Donald Trump is not reelected? Earlier this year, Communist Party USA chairman John Bachtell announced:

The aim is to oust Trump and the Republican Senate majority, defend the Democratic House majority, and break the GOP domination of governorships and state legislatures, which includes supporting candidates from their ranks, including communists.”

Bloomberg and Bachtell must be getting their talking points and inspiration from the same source!

Let’s make no bones about it, Michael Bloomberg is a tyrant. He’s a traitor to American Freedom. And he’s a blatant liar. In a nation of 340 million, 10,000 gun deaths is not an epidemic, though of course it is tragic. But even if it was an epidemic, no government on earth has the authority to destroy your right to self-defense. This is especially true in the United States where our Constitution strictly forbids government from infringing on our right to keep and bear arms. We the People are the authority in this matter – not Bloomberg and whatever so-called “authorities” he has in mind to screen us and decide whether we can enjoy our rights.

guns18

Folks, if you haven’t realized it yet, it’s time to wake up to the fact that our God-given rights are under assault from every side. We’re in an awful situation brought about by a cabal of Satanic communists and their fellow travelers who want to set themselves up as our lords and masters. Our Republic teeters on the brink of total ruin. The Constitution is being used as fire starter in Washington. And our right to defend our Faith, Families, and Freedom is one major election away from annihilation. It is time, like never before, to educate yourself and your families, determine to vote on principle regardless of party, and to humble yourself before God and rely upon Him to bring us through this crisis. God help us weather the storm that is only just starting to blow!

Zack Strong,

December 6, 2019

The Constitution

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

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

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

America13

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JeffersonHengistandHorsa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Republic

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

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

Alexander Hamilton said:

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

Thomas Jefferson strongly favored republicanism and stated:

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

Jefferson also told the nation during his First Inaugural Address:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Washington1

Another time he observed:

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

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

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

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

A third witness, John Witherspoon affirmed:

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

Finally, George Washington told the nation:

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

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

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

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

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

America14

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

Zack Strong,

September 18, 2019

The Anti-Gun Agenda

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

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

gun control7

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

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

O’Rourke responded:

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

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

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

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

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

guns5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

guns21

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

guns9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

guns12

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

guns18

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sic Semper Tyrannis! Long Live Liberty!

Zack Strong,

September 14, 2019