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

Indispensable Men: George Washington

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

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

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

George Washington33

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Washington63

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Washington46

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another French observer wrote:

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

George Washington73

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Washington75

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another time, Washington observed:

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

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

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

George Washington by Tim Davis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Washington79

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

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

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

A few quotes show Washington’s apprehensions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Washington34

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Washington45

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

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

Zack Strong,

August 21, 2019.

You Do NOT Determine My Rights

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

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

majority2

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

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

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

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

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

guns27

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

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

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

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

guns3

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

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

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

guns15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

guns11

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

Zack Strong,

August 18, 2019.