You Do NOT Determine My Rights

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

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

majority2

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

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

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

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

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

guns27

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

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

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

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

guns3

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

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

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

guns15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

guns11

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

Zack Strong,

August 18, 2019.

Communist Party USA at 100

This year marks the one-hundred year anniversary of the existence of the Communist Party USA. The Communist Party is part of the international communist conspiratorial apparatus. It has traditionally been the main organ through which the Moscow-led communists have subverted America. Agents from, or who trained or directed by, the Communist Party – which in turn is controlled by the Kremlin – have fanned out into every part of our society, infiltrating and subverting and undermining everything. The Communist Party USA originated as and still remains a fifth column and a direct threat to our Republic.

communism382

In his brilliant book Men Without Faces: The Communist Conspiracy in the U.S.A., Louis Francis Budenz exposes the treachery of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). Budenz was once a high-ranking member of the CPUSA. After a decade of covert and overt work in the party, he realized his idealism had been misplaced and that the CPUSA was the most dangerous organization in America. Men Without Faces explains the inner workings of the Communist Party, its tactics, and its goals. Much of my information is taken from his revelations, though as the reader will note I draw from many sources to form my conclusions about the evil that is the Communist Party.

Budenz wrote that the goal of his book was “to demonstrate that the Soviet dictatorship and its fifth column in this country constitute a clear and present danger to the existence of the United States.

“I want to show beyond question that the Communist party is not a political party in the American or democratic sense, but solely a fifth column of the Kremlin” (Budenz, Men Without Faces, xii).

Right of the bat, Budenz warns us that the CPUSA is “not a political party.” It is not just another party like the Republican and Democratic Parties, Constitution Party, or Independent American Party. Sometimes the Communist Party teams up with the Democratic Party, as it recently declared it must do to “oust Trump and the Republican Senate majority, defend the Democratic House majority, and break the GOP domination of governorships and state legislatures,” but it not like them.

No, the Communist Party is radically different than these parties and must not be seen as a political party at all. As the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on UnAmerican Activities stated in 1949, the CPUSA is unlike other political parties “because it takes its order from Moscow” (100 Things You Should Know About Communism, 19).

The Communist Party is an enemy outpost. It is an enemy foothold on American soil. It is a stronghold for traitors, conspirators, and enemies. It is nothing more than a fifth column cell – a forward operating position from which the communists run their subversive operations against our Republic.

The CPUSA is so different and foreign and hostile to traditional American values that Budenz made this remark about showing up for his conspiratorial work each day at the Daily Worker magazine : “Every morning as I entered my office I stepped from American to alien soil” (Budenz, Men Without Faces, 2). The communist party is an alien infection injected into the American body politic.

communism191

Budenz scoffed at the idea that the CPUSA is a legitimate political party. Rather, he said it is a division of Moscow’s army:

“Garbing itself in the attire of a regular political party, the Communist organization raises on behalf of its own legality the cry of those “civil liberties” which it officially declares it intends to abolish. The matter would be less confusing if the Red missionaries in the guise of liberals, radio commentators and trade unionists were not so successful in preventing Americans from learning the truth about their conspiratorial setup. The whole fictitious character of this “political party” claim could be easily exposed if it were established (as it can be) from Red documents and acts that the so-called Communist party is and has always been nothing other than one division of a dictator’s army with which he hopes to conquer the world” (Budenz, Men Without Faces, 29-30).

Budenz further wrote of the goals of the CPUSA – that is, of the communist “fifth column” in our midst:

“The aim of this fifth column, and of the dictatorship manipulating it, is the violent destruction of the American Republic. It plans the conquest of the United States by setting up a world proletarian dictatorship guided and ruled by Joseph Stalin. As comfortable as it may have been in the past to evade that ugly reality, it can be evaded no longer. The fanatical hope, if you can call it that, which gives drive to these conspirators is the belief in “The World October.” This promised extension to the entire globe of the October Russian revolution which set up the Soviet dictatorship is the dynamo of the Communist movement. That whispered promise is on the lips of every obscure comrade; it is proudly proclaimed in every important speech and every fundamental book by ever leader of the Soviet state.

“In the first pamphlet on communism that I was given to study on entering the party, this pledge to wipe out the American government by fire and sword was stated in the most bloodthirsty terms. . . .

“It is disconcerting, then, to hear and read the extensive speculations of certain men in public life about what Soviet Russia means to do and what its fifth columns plan. The Reds have said so clearly what their reason for existence is, and have so scrupulously and relentlessly pursued the path set out for them, that such speculations would be absurd were they not so tragic.

“There is no greater tribute to the effectiveness of the Soviet fifth column in this country than the obvious fact that it has befogged the American mind regarding its ruthless resolves to wipe out American independence. Nothing is so clear-cut as its continual insistence within its own ranks that violent attack upon the government here is highly essential. But so skilled are its propagandists – disguised as non-Communists in the radio, newspaper and moving-picture world – that they have made Americans believe every revelation of Red espionage is the result of hysteria. They have done a fairly adequate job of making America ashamed of defending its own freedoms” (Budenz, Men Without Faces, 5, 7-8).

The goals of the Communist Party USA are the same as those of the Communist Party in Moscow and Beijing – the overthrow of all existing free governments and the establishment of a Marxist world order. It is a conspiracy – a Satanic criminal conspiracy to enslave the world and abolish families, Christianity, and Freedom. This conspiracy has been so effective because they conceal themselves and operate from the shadows and through deceptive front movements.

Budenz gave an analogy to describe how the party and its agents operate:

“The Soviet fifth column . . . can be likened in organizational form to a tree. Its roots are the men and women of the deep underground, the political tourists, as they are called, sent here by Moscow to direct the life of the Communist party . . . Such men are the direct mouthpieces of Moscow; they transmit instructions to the puppet party leaders of native origin. There are several scores of them.

“The trunk of the tree is the “open party,” which functions none too openly at that from its national headquarters . . . They of the trunk are the means of contact which the men of the roots have with those concealed in the branches. And these last are the men and women who swear that they are not Communists . . . and who operate as non-Communists on an extensive scale. They are frequently defended by the responsible press, treated as people of the highest integrity, and move in circles where they play hob with American opinion . . . A little research would reveal their constant Red associations and the wide range of their pro-Stalin acts.

“In religious literature the devil is said never to be so triumphant as when he persuades men that he does not exist. It is much the same here. The Soviet fifth columnists are never more effective in advancing Stalin’s objective of world conquest than when they get Americans to believe they are nonexistent” (Budenz, Men Without Faces, 9-10).

The Devil does exist and his minions are rampant in our society. They are working feverishly to undermine our society, corrupt our culture, abolish our families, subvert our Constitution, weaken our defenses, divide us and play us off against one another, and leave everything in a heap of confusion and bitter chaos.

The U.S. House Committee on UnAmerican Activities warned the public about the Communist Party in a question and answer format:

“Can you be a secret member? [of the Communist Party]

“All Communists are secret members until authorized by the Party to reveal their connection. Party membership records are kept in code. Communists have a real name and a “Party name.”

“Are meetings public like those of ordinary political parties?

“No, meetings are secret and at secret addresses. Records are all secret and in code. . . .

“After you join, what do you have to do?

“You have to obey the Party in all things. It may tell you to change your home, your job, your husband, or wife. It may order you to lie, steal, rob, or to go out into the street and fight.

“It claims the power to tell you what to think and what to do every day of your life. When you become a Communist, you become a revolutionary agent under a discipline more strict than the United States Army, Navy, Marines, or Air Force have ever known.

“Why do people become Communists then?

“Basically, because they seek power and recognize the opportunities that Communism offers the unscrupulous. But no matter why a particular person becomes a Communist, every member of the Party must be regarded the same way, as one seeking to overthrow the Government of the United States. . . .

“Can you quit being a Communist when you want to?

“The Communists regard themselves as being in a state of actual war against life as the majority of Americans want it. Therefore, Party members who quit or fail to obey orders are looked on as traitors to the “class war” and they may expect to suffer accordingly when and as the Party gets around to them. . . .

“. . . the immediate objective of the Communist Party is to confuse and divide the majority so that in a time of chaos they can seize control” (100 Things You Should Know About Communism, 14-15).

communism351

At times, people point to the relatively diminutive Communist Party and laugh at the thought that it could be a threat to anyone or that it is responsible for so much damage. The Committee on UnAmerican Activities addressed this issue:

“Do only Communists carry out Communist work?

“No. The Party uses what it calls “Fellow Travelers” and “Front Organizations” in some of its most effective work.

“What is a fellow traveler?

“One who sympathizes with the Party’s aims and serves the Party’s purposes in one of more respects without actually holding a Party card.

“Is he important in the Communist movement? Vital. The fellow traveler is the HOOK with which the Party reaches out for funds and respectability and the WEDGE that it drives between people who try to move against it.

“What is a Communist front?

“An organization created or captured by the Communists to do the Party’s work in special fields. The front organization is Communism’s greatest weapon in this country today and takes it places it could never go otherwise – among people who would never willingly act as Party agents. It is usually found hiding among groups devoted to idealistic activities” (100 Things You Should Know About Communism, 16-17).

Even today, communist fronts and unaware people are powerful tools to deceive people into working for the communists without knowing they do so. Whittaker Chambers, one of the most famous defectors from the Communist Party, called non-Communists who share the communist vision of an atheistic, science-based, me-centered world “part of Communism’s secret strength” (Chambers, Witness, xxxix). It would be well to remember that Chambers’ firsthand experience with the movement gave him license to declare: “I see in Communism the focus of the concentrated evil of our time” (Chambers, Witness, xxxvii).

Louis Budenz also spoke about the communists’ use of non-Party members to carry out their work. He explained that though the open membership of the CPUSA is somewhat small, there are a large number of communist agents who deliberately conceal their membership in the party or who are oblivious to how they are being used. These men and women either belong directly to it in a concealed role, coordinate their independently destructive efforts with its agents, or are unwittingly led by communists into subversive paths. From his inside knowledge, Budenz wrote:

“A long list of these loyal and concealed Communists, men and women who occupy distinguished positions in business, professional and public life, was given to me orally by Politburo members and committed to memory. Never was this list of names permitted to appear on paper. Today, now that I have left the Communist party, it gives me a distinctly queer feeling to see and hear these people, who I know have sworn fealty to Stalin, fervently defended by unsuspecting and patriotic Americans” (Budenz, Men Without Faces, 1-2).

communism279

My translation of the caption reads: “Under the banner of Lenin, under the leadership of Stalin, – forward to a new heyday of the Soviet peoples, to total victory of communism in our country!”

In other words, there is a large group of fellow travelers and dupes who do the bidding of the party, but whose names would never appear in party records. This is confirmed by another communist, Georgi Dimitrov, who boasted:

“As Soviet power grows, there will be greater aversion to Communist Parties everywhere. So we must practice the techniques of withdrawal. Never appear in the foreground; Let our friends do the work. We must always remember that one sympathizer is generally worth more than a dozen militant Communists. A university professor, who, without being a party member, lends himself to the interests of the Soviet Union, is worth more than 500 poor devils who don’t know any better than to get themselves beaten up by the police. Every man has his value, his merit. The writer without being a party member defends the Soviet Union, the union leader who is outside our ranks but defends Soviet international policy is worth more than one thousand party members” (Dimitrov, in Nevin Gussack, Red Dawn In Retrospect: Soviet-Chinese Intentions for Conquest of the United States, 14).

This same tactic of working behind a smokescreen was established by the first founder of the modern communist movement – Adam Weishaupt. As I have explained elsewhere, Weishaupt founded the Order of Illuminati on May 1, 1776. It was this diabolical order which can be traced from that first May Day to 1848 when it, under the name of League of the Just, hired Karl Marx to write a manifesto of belief and intent for the group. The Communist Manifesto was the result.

You need to understand that communism is Illuminism. They have the same goals and use the same tactics. When we understand this lineal relationship, we see how relevant Weishaupt instructions to his co-conspirators still are. He said:

“The great strength of our Order lies in its concealment; let it never appear in any place in its own name, but always covered by another name, and another occupation” (John Robison, Proofs of a Conspiracy, 112).

Weishaupt noted that Freemasonry would be one of the chief organs used to conceal his order in plain sight. I explained something of this history in my books, but here a single quote must suffice:

“[W]e shall have a masonic lodge of our own . . . we shall regard this as our nursery garden . . . to some of these Masons we shall not at once reveal that we have something more than the Masons have . . . at every opportunity we shall cover ourselves with this” (Nesta Webster, Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, 209-210).

Though the Illuminsts/communists use secretive groups like the Masons to do their bidding, they wanted something more. It became their aim to hoodwink and manipulate large swaths of the population and mobilize them to work for them without even realizing it. I have documented that feminism, among others, was and is a communist front movement. Here is the tactic outlined by Weishaupt regarding the Women’s Liberation movement:

“There is no way of influencing men so powerfully as by means of the women. These should therefore be our chief study; we should insinuate ourselves into their good opinion, give them hints of emancipation from the tyranny of public opinion, and of standing up for themselves; it will be an immense relief to their enslaved minds to be freed from any one bond of restraint, and it will fire them the more, and cause them to work for us with zeal, without knowing that they do so; for they will only be indulging their own desire of personal admiration” (John Robison, Proofs of a Conspiracy, 111).

Communists then and now are as J. Edgar Hoover called them “masters of deceit.” They lie as a bodily function. They are constantly running intricate deception campaigns on individuals, groups, and entire nations. Indeed, the entire world is suffering under Marxist deceptions, not least among which is the myth that the Soviet Union “collapsed” and that the West won the Cold War.

In order to sway people to their side, communists use egalitarian slogans and words like “equality,” “equal pay,” “equal rights,” “tolerance,” “my body, my choice,” and “peace” to promote slavery, war, conflict, division, and degeneracy. They pretend to champion the cause of the downtrodden and oppressed. They use the victim card to tell women, blacks, druggies, homosexuals, and whomever else, that they are “oppressed”  by “the patriarchy,” by “the racist white majority,” by “the Christian zealots,” etc. Of course, communists only seek the sympathies of these supposed “victims” so they can come to power over them and use them to cause division and pry apart the nation.

Communists also love to smear and discredit anyone who sees through their lies. Some of their favorite names for their opponents are “fascists,” “Nazis,” “white supremacists,” “racists,” “homophobes,” “bigots,” “right-wing extremists,” and “nationalists.” Ezra Taft Benson once observed:

“It is the current anti anti-communism drive and the branding as “super-patriots”, “fanatics” and “right-wing extremists”, those who defend the freedom, traditions and principles on which this great nation was founded. . . .

“No more should we condone name calling and castigating those who would defend American freedoms. This is what the communists want” (Benson, The Red Carpet: Socialism – the Royal Road to Communism, 197).

Clear back in 1949 our government was also warning of these smear tactics:

“What do Communists call those who criticize them?

““Red baiters,” “witch hunters,” “Fascists.” These are just three out of a tremendous stock of abusive labels Communists attempt to smear on anybody who challenges them” (100 Things You Should Know About Communism, 18).

We understood this tactic in 1949. Please don’t fall for it all these decades later! Instead, take it as a badge of honor when the leftist media, mindless dupes, or Antifa thugs smear you as some sort of fanatical “fascist” or “right-winger.”

communism321

Stand your ground against the Communist Party and the hellish ideology it promotes – an ideology responsible for more death, slavery, rapine, plundering, and abuse than any other ideology in world history. Realize that our Faith, Families, and Freedom hang in the balance of this struggle. “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” (Patrick Henry, “Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death,” speech, March 23, 1775). And better dead than Red.

Frequently, American patriots seem paralyzed into inaction in the face of the Bolshevik threat. They don’t know what to do or how to act. Indeed, they often think they shouldn’t say or do anything at all! Otherwise good folks often say, “Well, I don’t like what the communists say, but they have a right to say it.” But do they really? Do you have a right to threaten someone with bodily harm? Do you have a right to threaten someone’s property, family, and rights with destruction? J. Edgar Hoover made this observation:

“Under our constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech, all of us, including the Communists, may, within the limitations of the law, freely present our viewpoints. In the market place of public opinion, these viewpoints compete for acceptance. There, in the tradition of our free society, reason must compete with error and truth must compete with falsity.

“Knowing this, the Communists do not compete on fair or equal terms in the realm of ideas. They must resort to distortion and misrepresentation. Moreover, they must also, because of the very nature of communism, attempt to impose their views on everyone else. When those beliefs leave no freedom of choice for either their acceptance or their rejection, free men have no alternative but to oppose them firmly” (Hoover, A Study of Communism, 171).

When the avowed ideology and stated goal of a group – especially a group taking order and funding from foreign governments – is to crush our right of free speech, strip individuals of their right of self-defense, do away with their rights to due process and legal protections, and reduce the People to slavery under an admitted “dictatorship,” how can we allow it? To allow it is national suicide! Every nation that allows communism to be preached, and which protects it under the law, has eventually fallen. The United States will be no different.

Budenz encouraged Americans to stand firm against communist machinations. He said:

“A true defense of civil liberties recognizes that the Communists mean to destroy such liberties. To safeguard American freedom the fifth column which menaces that freedom will have to be dealt with as a fifth column and not as something else – a legitimate political party, for example, which is pure fiction. . . .

“God grant that America may have the alertness to distinguish fact from fancy, the wisdom to understand the true nature of her Soviet opponent, and the courage to stand firm for her own defense and that of all mankind” (Budenz, Men Without Faces, 297).

I believe we must act quickly to make membership in the Communist Party USA – and any organization of like principle regardless of its name – illegal. Not only should we outlaw the Communist Party and all similar organizations, but we should make the promotion of communist ideology under any guise a treasonable offense to which is attached the death penalty. It is nothing but treason to promote communism. It is treason to promote the ideology of a foreign government and, even more damningly, the ideology of a literal, avowed criminal conspiracy whose stated goal is the overthrow of all existing governments, the abolition of families, property, religion, and natural rights, and the conquest of the world. If we do not make communism treasonable, it will be our undoing.

I repeat, communism is treason! Communism must be outlawed. The Communist Party must be outlawed. The New Communist Movement must be outlawed. The Revolutionary Communist Party – which openly promotes violent revolution in America – must be outlawed. The Socialist Party USA must be outlawed. The Socialist Workers Party must be outlawed. The Democratic Socialists of America must be outlawed. The Progressive Labor Party must be outlawed. Antifa must be outlawed.

Communists of whatever name or affiliation who refuse to relinquish their avowed communist ideology and swear an oath to the U.S. Constitution must be arrested, tried, and, if they still refuse to recant their tyrannical aspirations and support the Liberty of their nation and its supreme law, executed. Yes, I seek the death penalty for communist traitors who will not recant their murderous, anti-Freedom philosophy and join with Liberty-loving American citizens in proclaiming allegiance to the Constitution!

If I sound radical, it is because these are radical times. When your family is sleeping in a burning house, you don’t calmly wake them – you shout! Unfortunately, few are listening to those of us shouting about the vicious communist conspiracy at work in our society. And our national house – this American Republic – will burn in the conflagration unless the blaze is contained and promptly extinguished.

We are at war, ladies and gentlemen. It is, at its core, a spiritual also war between the forces of Christ and the forces of Satan. It is also a literal war fought across many fields – politics, economics, religion, medicine, race, gender, families, etc. Though we have hitherto been fortunate enough to avoid much physical violence, that is about to change. Politically-motivated violence, assault, and murder are increasing, with the leftists leading the charge.

communism392

And why wouldn’t the communists lead the charge? In 1919, the year of the CPUSA’s founding, communists orchestrated dozens of bombing attempts in the United States. As W. Cleon Skousen recorded:

“Beginning April 28, 1919, a series of 36 bombs were discovered in the mails addressed to such persons as the Attorney General, Justice Holmes of the Supreme Court, J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller and similar persons of prominence. One of the bombs got through to the home of Senator Hardwick who had been trying to shut off the migration of Bolsheviks to the U.S. A servant opened the package and the bomb exploded, blowing off her hands” (Skousen, The Naked Communist, 137).

Skousen then described how by 1920, at least one other bombing matching the communist modus operandi took the lives of over 30 people and injured more than 300 in New York City. This bomb was aimed at Wall Street and is a tragedy all but forgotten today. Though we might forget, the record is clear: Political warfare is a well-established communist tradition.

In 1963, Ezra Taft Benson warned people of this fierce war. He said:

“We are now – this very day – at war with the Socialist-Communist Conspiracy. This is a point that a lot of people do not seem to realize. They think that just because we are not shooting at each other with bullets that it isn’t a real war. But, we are really at war and we must win this war if we expect to survive as a free people. . . .

“The Communists are winning the war and building their empire largely with the help of non-communists – fellow travelers, sympathizers, dupes, liberals, etc.

“Some people foolishly believe that the communists are changing, that they are “mellowing.” This is not true.”

Even earlier, in 1949, The U.S. House Committee on UnAmerican Activities warned of the Communist Party’s role in promoting communist warfare:

“How are they organized?

“Primarily around something they call a political party, behind which they operate a carefully trained force of spies, revolutionaries, and conspirators. The basic fact to remember is that Communism is a world revolutionary movement and Communists are disciplined agents, operating under a plan of war. . . .

“. . . every member of the Party must be regarded the same way, as one seeking to overthrow the Government of the United States” (100 Things You Should Know About Communism, 12, 15).

communism349

If doesn’t matter if your school teacher or professor tells you we’re not at war, we are. It doesn’t matter if the controlled media tells you we’re not at war, we are. It doesn’t matter if Google, YouTube, Twitter, or Facebook censor people who warn that we are in war, it doesn’t change the reality. We are at war.

Now that you know that we are at war and that every communist is one who, by default, is aiding a criminal movement to overthrow our government with its rights-protecting Constitution, what are you going to do about it? Whose side are you on? If you don’t fight against the communist conspiracy, you are with them. If you don’t denounce the communists, you are one of them. And make no mistake: Silence is complicity. Again I ask, whose side are you on?

If I died today and never had the opportunity to utter another truth, I would want my countrymen to know and understand that communism must die for America to survive.

Zack Strong,

August 12, 2019.

Get your “Communism is Treason” shirt here and help support my work:

 

See Amazon for my books A Century of Red and Red Gadiantons for more on the sordid history and aims of global communism.

Vaccine Tyranny

“Liberty is always dangerous, but it is the safest thing we have.” – Harry Emerson Fosdick, in Robert B. Fox, ed., Our Freedom – Our Liberty, 81.

Vaccination is one of the most contentious issues of our time. We could argue the efficacy – or demonstrable lack thereof – of vaccines all day long. However, that is not the key issue. In fact, it’s wholly irrelevant. The real issue is free will. Said differently, the question at hand is this: Does the government or the community have a right to force you to be vaccinated against your will? That is the paramount question our society must decide.

On the face of it, it seems obvious that no government or majority of citizens should ever be allowed to force you to let a needle pierce your skin and inject chemicals and viruses into your body. People don’t think about it in those terms, but that is the reality of what we’re discussing. We are talking about whether society has a right to force you to inject foreign substances into your body. It seems preposterous that any sane and just person would agree that the community has authority over your body to such a degree that they can force you, via the police power of the state, to inject yourself with viruses and chemicals. Yet that is precisely what the pro-vaccine lobby is proposing.

vaccines7

You must ask yourself what you support more – individual free will or state coercion. If the state, or the majority of citizens represented by the state, has the authority and power to force you to inject yourself with risky substances – or any substances at all no matter their benefit or efficacy – what can’t they do? Remember, the cry for mandatory vaccination has behind it the rationale that it is “for the public good” and for the “safety of the community.” Using this same rationale, what else can you be forced to do if the state, or your neighbors, deem it in the community’s best interests?

If the state can force you to inject a needle into your body in the name of “health” and “public safety,” then can they also force you to eat foods deemed “healthy”? After all, obesity is a major problem and a healthy society is surely better than an out-of-shape one. If society can force you to introduce polio and small pox into your body for the sake of “health,” can they likewise force you to be microchipped for the easier detection of criminals and the “safety” of society? If they can tell you that you must inject a flu virus into yourself of your children or else be denied public services, employment, and the rights of citizens, can they also require you to submit your DNA to a national database? Honestly, what can’t they do if they can legitimately force you to inject live viruses and man-made chemicals into your body via injection?

If you have never pondered the totalitarian implications of this train of thought, it’s high time to begin. The issue is not health. It is not public safety. It is not the well-being of society. It is not the efficacy of vaccines. The issue is Freedom, free will, individual Liberty, separation of powers, and constitutional authority. We are talking about the difference between majoritarian democracy and constitutional republicanism with its rule of law.

vaccines1

Arguments like “it’s for the public good” or “it’s for national security” don’t pass the scratch test for constitutionality and justice. For millennia, tyrants have used the cry “for the public good” to justify illegality, self-serving policies, war, oppression, persecution, and genocide. When people say that we must force people to be vaccinated against their will “for public safety,” it might be well to remember what Benjamin Franklin said. That wise Founding Father warned:

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety” (Franklin, January, 1775).

Those who would force you and your family to be vaccinated are not your friends. They are enemies to the Republic! They are enemies to the Constitution. They are enemies to the Declaration of Independence. They are enemies to the high-minded principles of the American Revolution. They are enemies to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. They are enemies to the basic concept of free will and personal Freedom.

America was founded on the Christian concept of individual free will and personal accountability. This noble thought was codified in our official documents and throughout our law code. The American People was made for Freedom. From our forefathers’ mouths gushed timeless declarations such as:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

We once understood that the People is the source of all political power and that the government is merely its agent to secure its God-given rights. Since government receives 100% of its power from individuals, and an individual cannot delegate power he does not inherently possess, the government, then, cannot assume such powers. When it does, it becomes tyrannical and has violated the very purpose of its creation.

government8

Let’s explore this principle further. If I, as an individual, do not have the right nor authority to go into your home and forcibly inject substances into your body, then I do not have the authority to empower government to do this on my behalf.

Do you understand this? This is the core concept of Americanism! If you do not understand and thoroughly believe this concept, I submit that you are not a true American and that you lack the spirit of our great People.

Again, I cannot give the government power I do not possess. This principle does not magically change if more people are involved. Extra rights and powers are not suddenly bestowed when a majority is involved. We are not a democracy. Our system is based on rule of law. The law protects the one just as it protects the majority. Neither a minority nor a majority – no matter how large and powerful – can justly strip a single soul of his rights.

If an individual does not have a right or power, the community does not either. And since I cannot justifiably force my neighbor to inject substances into his body against his will, then the neighborhood also does not have that right. Government gets all of its power from the People, and “the People” is nothing but an aggregate of individuals. Thus, government’s reach can only go so far as an individual’s. Thank Heaven that individuals, and therefore governments, do not have a right to reach into your life and force you to live as they see fit!

Taking a leaf from Hans Verlan Andersen, let’s discuss the nature of Freedom. Andersen explained that Freedom consists of the following elements: Life, Liberty, Property, and Knowledge. In order to properly enjoy Freedom, one must have power over his own life, including the power to make choices and stand accountable for them. He has a right to defend his body – that is, his life – against assault, injury, and destruction. Naturally, Liberty, or the “absence of coercion,” is indispensable. Furthermore, in order to be a truly free agent and a steward over his own life, he must have the right to control, possess, and manage private property. And, finally, having a knowledge of the law and one’s duties and rights is necessary to acting intelligently and independently (see Hans Verlan Andersen, Many Are Called But Few Are Chosen, chapter 2).

vaccines13

In the case of compulsory vaccination, three of the elements of Freedom are violated by default. First, the control over one’s own life and body is violated when we are forced to inject needles into our skin. If “my body, my choice” is a valid argument, then it must be a valid argument in the case of vaccination. No one but you has a right to control your body. Next, mandatory vaccination obviously violates Liberty because it is a coercive measure that violates your free will and choice. Third, if your body can be considered your property, then forced vaccination violates your property.

I must take an aside and say that in certain situations I believe that what a person puts into his body can and should be regulated for the legitimate safety of others. To wit, drunk drivers kill tens of thousands of innocent and unsuspecting people every year. Thousands more are killed by drunk people or because of alcohol poisoning or related incidents. Some 88,000 people die annually because of alcohol. This is to say nothing of the unseen damage done to marriages and families and the cycles of criminality, depression, therapy, divorce, and abuse that are caused. The damage done to society by alcohol – as well as drugs, both illicit and prescription – is incalculable. Because of the damage begin inflicted upon it by the choices of others, I believe society has a right to defend itself by banning harmful substances.

Thomas Jefferson defined “rightful liberty” thus:

“[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).

One’s Liberty is only rightful and, thus, protected, when it does violated the equal rights of others. The case can easily be made that a person high on drugs or drunk from alcohol is a danger to the right of life of innocent bystanders. I absolutely support this line of reasoning when it is demonstrably proven that a substance or action violates others’ rights or does perceivable damage to the community.

That being said, this reasoning does not easily extend to vaccines. Some have made a similar argument that because unvaccinated people get sick more often (or so they claim), they pose a threat to the health and well-being of the community. Let’s examine whether this is really the case. First of all, it is a myth that unvaccinated people carry more disease. I won’t dive into here, but suffice it to say that nearly all credible studies have conclusively proven that vaccinated people are more likely to contract the diseases they have ostensibly been vaccinated against and that unvaccinated people are healthier. Consistently some 90% of whooping cough victims, for instance, had previously been vaccinated for whooping cough, thus exploding the idea that vaccines are safe and effective.

What’s more, vaccine proponents seem to want it both ways. On the one hand, they claim that vaccines are safe and effective. Yet, on the other hand they act like they are totally helpless in the face of a scary unvaccinated individual. If vaccines truly work, why are vaccinated people so scared? If vaccines are so magically wonderful, then why do school districts persecute parents who choose to exercise their right to not vaccinate their children?

vaccines11

Much of this hysteria comes back to the ludicrous concept of herd immunity. The concept states that in order for vaccines to work, everyone must be vaccinated. Even one unvaccinated person, they claim, lowers the collective protection of vaccines. You don’t need a degree in medicine to realize how preposterous the logic of this thought is! The idea has been totally discredited, yet it lingers because of the mass brainwashing campaign carried out by the controlled media, Hollywood, and compromised medical establishment.

In addition, there is another concern – some of us do not like to play Russian roulette with our health. Health does not come in a needle. Health largely comes from diet and hygiene. Yet, the medical establishment wants us to believe needles, chemicals, and synthetic drugs give us health. They want us to believe that cocktails of live viruses, antibiotics, formaldehyde, aluminum, mercury, aborted fetal tissue, male foreskins, and other chemicals, is acceptable to inject into our bodies. If you are skeptical that the list of horrible things I just mentioned are found in vaccines, do yourself a favor and obliterate your ignorance by looking it up.

I tend to think “an apple a day keeps the doctor away” is a trustier philosophy than having doctors guess which strand of flu will be prevalent this year and inject that virus into me with their fingers crossed that its shady ingredients like thimerosal won’t give me a negative reaction. I tend to also agree with Thomas Jefferson who said: “Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now” (Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1787). But I guess I’m just old-fashioned!

In all seriousness, in a free society no one should have any objections to a person wanting to exercise his or her God-given right to care for their health in a manner pleasing to them. You might not like the Amish philosophy of living without modern technology, but you must allow them to live how they please. The same applies to every peaceable group or individual. No one should be forced to conform to the community’s health practices. That is tyranny in its vilest form.

We also need to disabuse ourselves of the notion that children belong to the community. They Do Not. Children belong exclusively to their parents. Parents, not the community or government or local school district, have the sole right to care for their children. If parents exercise their sacred parental rights to not vaccinate their children, for whatever reason they choose, who are we to deny them their rights? It is a symptom that we have been horribly indoctrinated when we believe that we, the collective community, have a right to dictate how parents raise their children. We do not have any such authority over our fellow citizens or their children.

vaccines4

I will note one final objection. In America, we have something called religious Freedom. Religious Freedom has been called the “First Freedom.” It was the foundation of all our other Liberties. If a person believes their religion or life’s philosophy does not permit them to engage in modern medial practices, who are we to force them to do that which violates their conscience? Or if a religion boasts a superior plan of natural medicine and faith, who are we to extinguish their beliefs?

There are numerous reasons why a person might choose not to vaccinate. In the end, their reason doesn’t matter. What matters is that they have a right – a constitutionally-protected, constitutionally-guaranteed right – to object to vaccines. Yes, you have a sacred right to reject the tyrannical concept of forced, mandatory vaccination. No one – no community, no government, no majority – has the authority to force you to inject yourself with anything, let alone chemicals and live viruses. Please let this concept sink in. It is vital to our Freedom.

To reiterate what I have said multiple times thus far: Conscientious objection to mandatory vaccination does not depend upon whether vaccines are “safe and effective.” We could cite vaccine experts like Dr. Sheri Tenpenny, Dr. Suzanne Humphries, and Neil Z. Miller, and even appeal to the CDC’s own numbers and charts, to prove the appalling truth about vaccines. However, that is fairly irrelevant. The only issue that matters is your individual right to object.

Thank God that in America we have a Constitution which guarantees our right to direct our own lives as we see fit! Thank God for our Freedom! Thank the Lord for the knowledge that the opinions and wishes of the majority do not supersede and cancel out our individual Liberties! I vehemently oppose mandatory vaccination because the very concept insults my conscience. It is an affront to the classic American concepts of Freedom, justice, and individualism. It is nothing by Soviet-style tyranny.

Every true American, every lover of Liberty, every just soul, must oppose mandatory vaccination at all costs. If we allow government to force us to inject viruses and chemicals into our bodies (“my body, my choice” be damned), then we open the door to totalitarianism like we’ve never seen before. If the government or community can force you to vaccinate yourself or your children, then there is literally nothing they can’t force you to do.

vaccines6

And if the tyrants in society can deny you public services for exercising your right not to vaccinate, then we are no better than Red China with their sinister “social credit” scheme. Think of the door we are kicking wide open when we demand, against all reason and justice, that people inject themselves with vaccines to make us feel “safe.” I close by repeating Benjamin Franklin’s warning. Ponder it and let it sink deep into your soul. And for the love of all that’s holy, oppose mandatory vaccination:

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Zack Strong,

August 9, 2019.

Minimum Wage Madness

“The economic folly of the living wage/minimum wage nonsense is as plain as day to anyone with eyes to see.” – Mark Hendrickson, “Is The Federal Minimum Wage Unconstitutional?” The Blaze, February 5, 2016.

As socialism tragically surges in popularity among the American People, calls for a mandatory minimum wage become louder and more fanatical. Proponents claim that setting a minimum wage helps workers and, thus, the general economy. In truth, a mandatory minimum wage is one of the most damaging economic policies ever devised. More importantly, a mandatory minimum wage is immoral and unconstitutional. This article explains why a mandatory minimum wage is not only economically hazardous, but unethical and unconstitutional.

communism299

Economics 101 dictates that the entire concept of a mandatory minimum wage is anathema to economic growth. A set minimum wage leads to economic ruin, not growth. This is common sense. One need only apply basic logic to the question to uncover why a minimum wage can only harm an economy.

A mandatory minimum wage establishes the minimum salary an employer may legally pay his workers. What happens when a business cannot afford to pay all of its workers the increased mandatory wage? Three basic things can happen in this scenario: 1) The business will fire some of its workers because it cannot pay them; 2) the business will close its doors because it cannot meet its obligations; or 3) the business will raise its prices to cope with the sudden mandatory increase in wages, thus shifting the burden to the consumer.

The first two scenarios result in more people being out of work. A person out of work earns $0 an hour. By my calculations, zero is less than $7.25 (the current federal minimum wage) or any other alternative amount. For those fired because their employers cannot afford to pay a mandatory minimum wage, the concept is nothing short of disastrous.

communism307

Some of the laid-off workers will of course find new jobs. However, others might be forced to move to another city or commute longer distances, thus burning up more resources for gas, car maintenance, etc., and wasting precious time. And still others might end up on government welfare living off of the tax dollars of other American workers, placing an unnecessary and unfair burden upon them.

At any rate, dictating a minimum wage turns upside-down the lives of numerous people and businesses – the exact opposite of what proponents claim will happen. And even in the best case scenario noted above, the customers suffer by paying more for their goods. The New American reported in 2016:

“Employment data now coming in from six U.S. cities that have mandated increases in the minimum wage are proving a basic economic law: When the price or cost of something increases, less of it will be demanded.”

Naturally, many customers will stop shopping at these establishments because they cannot afford it. This leaves the businesses in a bind and much more likely to close or downsize. As The New American stated, this is a basic economic cause-and-effect law. It is economics 101. No minimum wage decree can or will work (and, as will be discussed later, it is immoral to mandate one).

communism310

Sometimes people support a minimum wage hike because they have fallen for the propaganda that “the 1%” have plenty of money and just aren’t sharing it with workers who “deserve it.” It is a common fallacy to believe that businesses have lots of extra cash just lying around that they could give their employees if they weren’t so greedy. Not so. A 2015 report noted that “the majority of small businesses in the United States barely break even.  Out of 28 million small businesses in the United States, 22 million are breaking even. That’s right. Only 6 million of the small businesses in the United States are profitable.”

How are these small businesses – the backbone of our economy – going to pay their employees so much extra money if they are already barely breaking even? The reality is that they will not be able to. They will, as noted, close, downsize, or dramatically raise prices. It’s a no-win situation.

Restaurants Unlimited, a national restaurant chain based out of Seattle, filed for bankruptcy this July, citing as a major factor minimum wage laws. This development came on the heels of the company closing six of its restaurants. In its statement, the company blasted minimum wage laws: “Over the past three years, the company’s profitability has been significantly impacted by progressive wage laws along the Pacific coast that have increased the minimum wage.”

In Emeryville, California, a 2015 minimum wage mandate has similarly wreaked havoc on the local economy. A recent news report stated:

“The ‘Fight for $15’ campaign blazed through Emeryville in 2015. While even activists expressed contentment with the adoption of a regional minimum wage model that established a ‘path’ to $15, the then city council pursued its highest-in-the-nation ‘living wage’ model.

“They argued that this would reduce poverty levels by eliminating reliance on government programs, low-wage earners would be able to live closer to their jobs and an economic ‘multiplier effect’ where these earners would offset any loss in business by contributing back to the local economy.

“Supporters dismissed threats of job loss, impact on youth employment, reduced shifts and increased automation as ‘bluff’ by business owners. . . .”

communism301

The article cited a recent study from the Mills College Lokey School that “confirmed” the fears of those initially warning of the detrimental effects of the wage hike. While some new businesses have opened in Emeryville since the law went into effect, many have closed while those that remain have been forced to increase prices. Many consumers have altered their spending habits to offset the price increases brought on by the minimum wage laws. And of those new business that have been fortunate enough to open, the report stated:

“It’s notable that nearly all the new businesses that have opened have embraced the counter service model that requires fewer employees . . . Counter service models require fewer employees to offset higher labor costs.”

A final statement revealing what minimum wage increases do to the finances of a business is noteworthy:

“One of the most outspoken full-service restaurants has been Townhouse General Manager Jeffrey Kroeber. Kroeber has warned the council for years that the wage scale was unsustainable for his business and that every $1 increase led to a $200,000 increase in their payroll. A payroll increase that would have to be offset by a $650-$700K increase in sales to maintain margins. “If we don’t have a profit margin that makes it viable for us, we’ll leave,” he explained.”

communism300

A Forbes report from 2017 documented numerous businesses that have closed due to minimum wage increases. Some of these businesses include Almost Perfect Books in Roseville, California, Abbot’s Cellar in San Francisco, and Del Rio Diner in Brooklyn, New York. Other businesses mentioned were forced to flee high minimum wage states like Washington and California for states with low minimum wage. One wonders where they will flee if a federal minimum wage increase comes down the pipe.

The Forbes article also noted that the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the fastest-growing union in North America, had at that point spent $90 million on propaganda supporting a $15 minimum wage mandate. Isn’t it interesting that a union, a group supposedly created for the benefit of workers, supports an economically ruinous policy like a mandatory minimum wage, and that it is willing to spend $90 million to persuade people it is beneficial?

Isn’t it also interesting that the Communist Party USA was known to have infiltrated the 1199 New York branch of the SEIU? The CPUSA, of course, fully supports a federally mandated minimum wage. A news report from 2011 observed the connection between the SEIU and the Communist Party:

“Like two peas in a pod, unionists and Communists get along just find these days. Not just any union mind you, the union that President Obama so readily identifies with and was proud to have worked with. . . .

“Not only did the SEIU help to organize the [May Day] rally in conjunction with communists, they marched side-by-side with communists, while union members carried communist flags, communists carried union signs, and altogether there was no real way to tell the two apart.”

communism305

The connections between the SEIU, President Obama, and communist organizations of all types are well-established. It should raise major red flags when the communists support any proposal, policy, or organization. Those who back a mandatory minimum wage law and minimum wage hike might pause and reflect that they are in league with the communists, Barack Obama, and communist president FDR who ushered in the minimum wage.

Today, a host of Democratic Party presidential candidates advocate a federal minimum wage hike and greater government involvement in the economy. Bolshevik Bernie Sanders certainly endorses the idea. In his revolting book Our Revolution, Bernie spent several pages lying about the supposed benefits of a minimum wage. Here is a snippet:

“Millions of Americans work for totally inadequate wages. The current federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is a starvation wage. It must be raised. The minimum wage must become a living wage – which means raising it to $15 an hour by 2020 and indexing it into the future. . . .

“The truth is that states that raised the minimum wage in 2014 experienced faster job growth than those that did not. And a higher minimum wage boosts consumer spending” (Sanders, Our Revolution: A Future to Believe In, 218, 222).

Bernie Sanders, whose initials are appropriately BS, is a liar. As an old Soviet from long ago, Bernie knows that the minimum wage does not help businesses, does not promote economic growth, and absolutely hurts consumers. Yet, he and his allies in the Communist Party and Democratic Party want to jack the federal minimum wage up by nearly double to $15! This would destroy our national economy, putting thousands upon thousands of small businesses out of business.

communism304

Please keep in mind whenever you hear people advocate a minimum wage that the minimum wage scheme is part and parcel of the communist plan to take down the U.S. economy and has the hearty support of traitors like Bernie Sanders. As one article put it, the “leading Leftists seem to blindly follow the well-worn blueprints of internal destruction.” In pushing for a minimum wage – and an increased minimum wage at that – the “leftists” in our nation are taking us to the brink of economic catastrophe.

The above are only a few of thousands of real-life examples of businesses – even large business chains – which have gone out of business directly because of minimum wage laws. The website Facesof15 documents many more cases of businesses closing, moving, or downsizing because of the mandatory minimum wage drive – destroying the claims of the Bernie Sanderses among us. Yet despite the mass of evidence, the crowds continue their delirious chant for a mandatory minimum wage, apparently not thinking about or understanding the consequences. Their eyes see only dollar signs, yet they fail to realize that in the long run everyone will have less green in their wallets because of minimum wage laws.

When you see someone – a political candidate, a professor, a media personality, or whomever – advocate a mandatory minimum wage or a “living wage,” you know that that person either has zero economic sense or wishes harm to our Republic. Whether they promote a minimum wage hike because of ignorance of maliciousness makes no difference in the end – the consequences will be disastrously the same, especially for the poor. The U.S. economy literally cannot afford a federally mandated minimum wage hike.

communism306

As important as the fact that a mandatory minimum wage harms businesses and hurts the overall economy is, it is only is a secondary reason we should oppose the idea. Of far more importance are the moral and legal reasons why we cannot afford to institute a mandatory minimum wage.

Morally speaking, is it right to steal a person’s money? Is it just to steal a business’s wealth? It is correct to rob an employer of his profits and give them to his workers by the force of law? Is wealth redistribution an ethical or moral idea? The answer to each of these questions is the same: NO.

A mandatory minimum wage is nothing but theft. Perhaps indirect theft, like taxation, but theft nonetheless. This is so because the law forces one person to give his money to another or else suffer negative consequences. It is highway robbery to deprive a restaurant owner, for instance, of his livelihood by forcing him to give his money to his workers – workers, mind you, who willingly agreed to work for the wage they are currently receiving and who are not entitled to receive one cent more.

It is a dastardly thing to suggest we use the force of law to redistribute wealth from one segment of the population (employers) to another (employees). It is morally reprehensible to take from one person his property and give it to another without the consent of the person losing it. That is communism, folks. And just like communism, minimum wage laws should be abolished.

A minimum wage hike is also problematic in terms of legality. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land and all laws, federal, state, or local, must conform to it. Does the Constitution give authority to Congress – the body responsible for making laws – to take money from one segment of the population and give it to another? Is Congress empowered to fix the level of wages at a given point? Where, pray tell, does the Constitution say that the American People gave the government the right to take money from one person without his consent and give it to another? I fail to see where the Constitution authorizes our representatives to dictate how we run our businesses and how much we pay our employees.

I do not see it in the Constitution because it is not there! Such a provision does not exist. The right of private property was sacred to our Founding Fathers. They knew that there is no Liberty without the right to control private property (hence the reason the anti-Liberty communists seek to “abolish” private property). Property does not refer merely to land or structures. One’s assets, money, wealth, etc., are part of his “property.” Employers should be able to do with their property what they want, including pay their employees however much they choose. When we deprive businesses of their right to pay employees the wage they agree upon with the employee, we steal, in a measure, their Liberty, and infringe upon their property rights.

Isn’t it time we woke up to reality? Reality doesn’t care about your feelings – it hits you hard and fast whether you believe it in or not. And the reality is that mandating a minimum wage harms the economy (especially small businesses), violates the Constitution which defends our private property rights, and is inherently immoral.

communism297

Considering the economic infeasibility, unconstitutionality, and immorality of the mandatory minimum wage concept, isn’t it time we abandoned it? Will we abandon this failed idea or will we continue to play into the communists’ hands? They want nothing more than to wreck our economy and bring us to our knees. Will we allow them to do so simply because we see with our feelings and not with reason, logic, and evidence? While having a few extra bucks seems like a good thing, isn’t it a better thing to keep our economy afloat and let what’s left of our free enterprise system work?

As society has embraced socialist economics – a national bank, inflation, high taxes, high regulation, minimum wage laws, so-called anti-discrimination hiring laws, etc., – our economy has plummeted. By contrast, when we followed the Constitution, kept government out of our economic affairs, and possessed a truly free enterprise system, our economy boomed and helped produce the greatest, wealthiest, most powerful nation in the history of the world. So which future do we want – a Jacksonian era of prosperity and Liberty or a Stalinist nightmare of poverty and slavery? The choice is ours. And the mandatory minimum wage issue is a litmus test for where we stand on the broader question of individual Liberty.

Zack Strong,

August 2, 2019.

Please view the following PragerU videos for quick breakdowns on the minimum wage.

“How Does the Minimum Wage Work?”

 

“What’s the Right Minimum Wage?”

A Personal Sketch

In my years of public involvement in our nation’s political discourse, I have published hundreds of pages of material, including three books, over one hundred online articles, and about a decades’ worth of social media updates equaling hundreds of thousands of words of commentary on my public pages and groups. I’ve been very outspoken as I’ve shared my views on a wide range of topics. Recently, however, I realized that I have never taken the time to properly introduce myself as a person to my audience. Out of respect to those people who have faithfully supported me all these years, I take this opportunity to share a personal sketch of my life that I hope will not be too tedious and unexciting.

My full name is Zackary Adam Strong. I was born to wonderful parents on July 17, 1987 in Boise, Idaho. I was the first of five children to enter my parents’ humble home. I and my parents, three sisters, and brother moved a lot as my Dad, a phenomenal history teacher and first-rate coach, took new job opportunities as they arose in a myriad of states. In fact, in my thirty-two years of life on this planet, I have lived in thirty-five different houses located in seven U.S. states (including Alaska and Hawaii) and three countries (the United States, Russia, and Panama).

20180220_204451.jpg

My Dad holding little 6 lb. 13 oz. me in a baseball mitt

Many people would no doubt hate moving as frequently as I have. To be sure, packing, unpacking, and hauling your belongings around is not a fun activity. And answering the questions “Where are you from?” or “Where is your home town?” has also been challenging. The longest I have ever lived consecutively in one location is five years. About twelve of my years I’ve given to the great state of Idaho. If anywhere can be considered my home, it is Idaho.

Despite the sometimes topsy-turvy nature of relocating, I’m grateful for the experience of seeing so many varying parts of our beautiful country and world. I cannot imagine living an entire life in one house, one town, or even one state. There is so much more of God’s beautiful earth to experience.

The most wonderful and inspired move my family made occurred when I turned 14. We moved from Twin Falls, Idaho to Port Lions, Alaska. For a number of months, my parents had considered jobs in Alaska. On one occasion, my Dad was offered a job in a village near the Bering Sea. We held a family council and took a vote. Unanimously, we voted no. Later, when a job became available in Port Lions, we held another family council and the vote unanimously favored moving. It just felt right.

1931061_255713965000_2338_n

Alaska is, hands down, my favorite place I’ve lived and part of my heart will always beat for the Last Frontier. I grew to love the peace and quiet of our little Native fishing village more than I can express. As I recently said in my article “Our Majestic World,” you cannot purchase peace and quiet. You cannot find this peace in the cities. Our modern world does not offer it. Only when you leave behind the concrete jungles and approach nature and rural settings can you truly find peace and quiet and the beauty of nature.

Living in Alaska changed my life. In hindsight, I do not know if I would have survived high school in a big school with its toxic environment, herd mentality, and moral laxity. Thankfully, the Lord had different plans for me and my family. I like to tell people that I was the valedictorian of my 2005 graduating class – my graduating class of five people. Our little school in Port Lions had 42 students K-12. I enjoyed the 19-person high school. And I loved having my Dad as my history teacher. Without prejudice, I can honestly say that he was the best teacher I ever had. What sets him apart from most other teachers is that he cares about students on a personal level and gets to know them as individuals. He takes a sincere interest in their life and loves helping people and giving service. Port Lions, Alaska was certainly the right place to get to know people on an intimate level.

1909919_282015965000_4347_n

My family is very close-knit. We’ve always loved each other, but our relationships were solidified and fortified in Alaska in ways that would have likely been impossible elsewhere. Because of the smallness of our little village (we had five miles of unpaved road, no stores, no theaters, no banks, no hospitals, and no way in or out except by boat or plane), we spent a lot of time together. When my brother was old enough to attend school, my Mom began working as a school aide. From that time on, we all saw each other in the morning, at school, and at home in the evening.

As close as we became during the week, Sunday was our biggest bonding day. We are all active members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, we were the only members of the Church in our 200-person village. With permission from the leadership of our nearest congregation, we held Church meetings in our home for three hours every Sunday. We even had youth programs and devotionals. In my Church, small congregations are called branches. Yet, we were not even a branch; we were a twig! It was a unique learning experience that solidified our closeness as a family unit. I thank my Heavenly Father for the opportunity of living in Alaska!

1909919_282016085000_51_n

During my public school years, I played seven different sports. My favorite was basketball. In Alaska, I also had the opportunity to play mixed-six volleyball; that is, coed volleyball. I was one of our team captains. We were very successful each year, even winning the state championship in my junior year. I also managed to make it to the state cross-country meet in my senior year. Though getting sick and nearly collapsing during the muddy race, I finished about midway in the pack (helpful hint: Don’t eat an entire bag of beef jerky right before running, even if it is your favorite food on the planet).

I relished the Alaskan outdoors. The mountains, forests, and ocean were truly beyond belief. I never took it for granted, even if the frequent rain and months of snow at times grew tiresome. I loved seeing the bald eagles swoop through the air, the Kodiak Brown Bears lumber through the woods (even if they once stole my basket of berries), the sea otters, jellyfish, and killer whales swim in the ocean, the Northern Lights shimmer in the night sky, or the tide rise and recede underneath the wooden causeway spanning a small bay near the town. Picturesque is too weak a term.

The Sitka Blacktail Deer so prevalent on Kodiak Island also taught me how to hunt. Contrary to what many city dwellers think, hunters have a deep respect for animal life. More so, I believe, than environmentalists who repeat nice slogans but don’t know the first thing about nature – or about where their food comes from. Days spent alone with my Dad hiking and hunting in the mountains of Alaska and Idaho supply me with many fond memories and learning experiences. And I’m also not a bad shot with a rifle. Communists beware. You’ll only take my guns after I give you my bullets one at a time.

1914525_468081630000_1199577_n

After graduating high school in May of ‘05, I attended my first year of college at the University of Alaska – Anchorage. Nothing eventful happened there, but I did write a lot of songs and became much better on the guitar I had begun learning to play in high school. Since that time, I’ve written and demoed a host of songs. I hope one day to polish them off and release them, though my wife seems to think my voice would be considered a weapon of mass destruction to people’s ears.

As I said, nothing eventful happened in my first year of college. However, I did have one experience that foreshadowed one of the most incredible adventures of my life. Late one night, while contemplating which classes to register for during my second semester, I had an overwhelming spiritual impression to take the Russian language. Though I was familiar with Russian history – particularly the bloody history of communism – and was surrounded by Russian influences on Kodiak Island (the first location settled by Russian explorers in Alaska), it had never occurred to me to learn the language. Yet, in that moment of time, I was absolutely sure I needed to take Russian. So I did. Seven months later, I held a paper in my hand from my Church calling me to serve a two-year proselytizing mission to Moscow, Russia. Coincidence? No. Providence? Yes.

My 2006-2008 mission to Russia was a time of growth, challenge, trial, exploration, and learning. I cannot say that I was a very successful missionary (though a handful of people I helped locate or teach eventually joined The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), but I worked hard and I grew in numerous ways. Two years serving a mission for the Lord teaches you more than four years in any university. I not only learned to speak Russian proficiently, but I learned much about a very unique nation and culture and was also able to visit the Ukraine and Lithuania.

1937234_1108379226847_4164055_n

The knowledge I gained about Russia did not come from books and I did not spend my time living in international enclaves or visiting tourist centers. Rather, I spent every day on the streets and in people’s homes talking with average folks and learning about their families and beliefs. I also spent time in a jail and looking down the barrel of machine guns on more than one occasion because communist religious oppression is still alive in Putin’s Russia. Yet, all of these experiences, and others too personal to share here, confirmed my lifelong belief in the Lord Jesus Christ. I know without one shadow of doubt that God lives, that He hears and answers prayers (often in very immediate and palpable ways), and that He loves us.

After my mission, I briefly returned to Alaska before venturing down to Utah to work. While there, I applied to several universities and was accepted to Brigham Young University – Hawaii in 2010. Just before heading to Laie, Hawaii, I visited my parents in Alaska again. While there, I feverishly wrote a novel I had started writing the year previous. After three months of tireless effort and sleepless nights, I typed “The End,” did a terrible cartwheel upon exiting my room, and ate my Mom’s delicious homemade doughnut holes to celebrate. Sadly, nine years later, I have yet to publish this novel because I’m still tweaking and editing its contents. Tymorius, my main character, deserves to have his story told properly no matter how long it takes.

In 2010, I began studying at BYU-Hawaii. Almost immediately, I met and started dating a beautiful young lady. In 2011, we were married. I thoroughly enjoyed most of our time together. Tragically, the relationship ended in 2014 and we were divorced the following year, leaving my life in something of a shambles. Out of respect, I will not say anything more about her or our time together. Yet, throughout those years I grew a lot and had some interesting experiences.

During that time, for instance, I moved back to Utah and became formally involved with the Independent American Party – a political third party founded in the 1990s. I had joined the IAP via their website around the year 2002, but did not begin actively talking with other members until about 2009 or 2010. Sometime later, I was made a member of the IAP’s National Executive Committee and was appointed the party’s Issue’s Committee Coordinator. I spearheaded the writing of our “Freedom Declaration” and began routinely publishing articles through the IAP’s website. From approximately 2012-2015, I published 54 articles for the IAP on a host of topics. A few of them are still available, though most were lost when the party changed web hosts a couple years back.

11665549_10156006842545001_9112073626762390530_n

Visit independentamericanparty.org for more about the IAP

In 2014, the Independent American Party asked me to run for the U.S. House of Representatives out of Utah’s 3rd district. I accepted the offer. Unfortunately, at the height of the campaign, my marriage dissolved and I became depressed, quit my job, and moved to Idaho. Perhaps it did not affect the election outcome too drastically considering that the state of Utah, in violation of state law, barred all third party and independent candidates from participating in the debates that year. I have the official letter to prove it.

However, I did have the honor of speaking at a “meet the candidates” event in Heber City. Though it will sound highly immodest, I stole the show. I enjoy public speaking and consider myself a worthy teacher. That night, my comments received the loudest applause and the biggest crowd reactions. I spoke of the police state we live in, quoted from my pocket Constitution, appealed to the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, advocated for religion and morality in public policy, and diverged from the other candidates on nearly every issue. During the event, a Republican candidate sitting next to me began deferring to my answers. At one point, he leaned over and whispered, “I’m voting for you!” That November, I came in third in the election, with 3,192 people supporting me – and all this without a fair opportunity to attend the debates and with no funds to run a normal advertisement campaign.

Back in Idaho, I again lived with my parents and my brother who was then in high school. I had graduated and moved away to college when my brother was about six-years-old, so being back home – despite the awful circumstances – was a fantastic opportunity to become acquainted and become true brothers-in-arms. I also started working at my Dad’s school in various capacities. Over the past five years, I have worked as a substitute teacher, assistant coach, dishwasher and cafeteria worker, janitor, test proctor, chaperone, classroom aide, and bus aide. I even helped create a couple haunted houses for the school’s Halloween Harvest Carnival.

Though I have made it my work to speak out against occultism, Satanism, Wicca, paganism, and all forms of spiritual darkness, I confess that I love Halloween! I even run a Facebook page called “Samhain and Yule – Facts and Fun.” Sometimes people who follow my work are shocked when they learn about this hobby of mine. A few have even unfriended, blocked, or cussed me out on Facebook. After all, isn’t Halloween a pagan holiday? In the future, I intend to publish a book that I’m slowly compiling on the true origins and development of Samhain, or Halloween. Until then, we will just have to agree that if you can celebrate the pagan holidays of Christmas (Yule) and Easter, I can celebrate the pagan holiday Halloween.

14907036_10157959241025001_6604571085329224281_n

The Halloween mask I created and sewed together in 2016

Holidays are big in my family. Some of my best memories revolve around Christmas, Halloween, Independence Day, Easter, and Thanksgiving. I enjoy nothing more than carefree fun spent with my family – and holidays hand us that opportunity on a silver platter. Whether it is waking up at 5 A.M. to spy our presents under the Christmas tree, carving Jack-O-Lanterns, shooting off fireworks, hunting for clues to a hidden prize left by the Easter Bunny, or gorging on turkey, mashed potatoes, and stuffed mushrooms, holiday traditions are part and parcel of my life.

Storytelling and reading are also essential features of my life. Like my hero, Thomas Jefferson, “I cannot live without books.” I was weened as a child on my Dad’s intricate stories. On car trips, at nights, or whenever, my Dad invented characters and fun tales for me and my siblings to enjoy. I also read books on numerous topics ranging from the Titanic to World War II to the War for Independence to dinosaurs. I strongly loved checking out books about astronomy or dinosaurs on the bookmobile that serviced our neighborhood in Green River, Wyoming.

Later, as a teenager, I became enchanted with J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series. I have since read the books in Russian as well as numerous times in English. While some wrongly believe the story is little more than an occult initiation, I love the series’ central message – that good will always triumph over evil, that love is more powerful than hatred, and that qualities like sincerity and friendship are to be valued more than position and wealth.

I trace my love of writing directly to my love of Harry Potter. I consider Harry Potter the greatest book series ever produced and Albus Dumbledore is my favorite literary character (I’m also a certified Slytherin on Pottermore, if anyone is curious. And my patronus is a magpie). It was that magical tale which so thoroughly inspired me that characters, storylines, and worlds of my own creation began inhabiting my thoughts. These characters have become my friends and confidants. When the time is right, I will share some of them, and their unique adventures, with you.

DSC07007

The most important thing I learned to read in my parents’ home, however, was the Holy Scriptures. Each night, my Dad called our family together and we read a chapter from The Book of Mormon, the Bible, or another book of scripture and ended the day with a prayer. Each week we also had a Family Home Evening where we gathered, sang hymns or songs, read scriptures, had a spiritual lesson, played games, ate sugary treats, and enjoyed the time together. These habits of daily prayer, scripture study, and Christian worship so carefully cultivated by my Mom and Dad have likely shaped my life more than any others. It is these very habits that I plan to pass on to my future children.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the guiding light of my life. I love the Lord and the teachings of the holy prophets, both past and present. I have attempted to share my testimony of the truth as a missionary, on social media, in my writings, and with my friends. I encourage people to come to Christ, to learn of Him, and to have faith in His redemptive power. I also encourage all who have not done so to investigate The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Read The Book of Mormon, which is another witness for Christ that supports the Bible’s declaration of His divinity. Pray to the Father and ask Him, in the name of the Lord, whether The Book of Mormon is from Him. I testify that it is and that it confirms that Jesus is the Christ. Have the courage to follow the promptings you receive from the Holy Spirit and come to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and add even more knowledge about the Savior to that knowledge which you already have. I promise that it will bless your life and strengthen your understanding of life, your dedication to goodness, and your family.

Among other things, the Gospel of Jesus Christ has informed my political views more than any other source. Part of my religious creed is that the U.S. Constitution was inspired by God. He worked through the Founding Fathers, who were wise and honorable men, to create that document and establish America as the first free nation in modern times. His hand was directly and powerfully involved in the founding of this Republic. His eternal law was the source from which our Founding Fathers drew their inspiration. His principles are enshrined in the supreme law of our land. America is His base of operations in these last days before His return.

Some of the men that God used to establish this nation were my descendants. Among others, I am distantly related to Caleb Strong. Caleb Strong was an associate of John Adams, served in important positions during the Revolution, was a member of the Constitutional Convention, was elected as one of Massachusetts’ first senators, and served as the governor of that great state for 12 years. All throughout my family history are individuals of piety and purpose who left their mark on this and other nations. I seek to honor them by doing my best to carry forward their heritage of patriotism and devotion to God.

The doctrine of my Church also forewarns of a global Satanic conspiracy that “seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries” (Ether 8:25). We are commanded by the Lord to “awake to a sense of [our] awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among [us]” (Ether 8:24). Modern prophets have identified this “secret combination,” or conspiracy, as the communist conspiracy with its goal of world revolution. Those same prophet-leaders have identified this conspiracy as the “greatest satanical threat” to the Church and to mankind. It was not mere coincidence that I chose to write my first two books, A Century of Red and Red Gadiantons, on the communist conspiracy. I did so because I have sworn to fight this archenemy of humanity wherever it raises its ugly head.

The communist conspiracy is feverishly working to subvert our society. You can see it everywhere you look. Communism has never been more powerful and prevalent than it is today. The main reason people do not grasp this fact, however, is that the cabal rarely uses the name “communist.” Instead, it works through front movements like feminism, environmentalism, LGBT, “Islamic” terrorism, democracy and democratic movements, and progressivism. The communists have our culture pinned in a corner and are closing in for the kill. In order to defeat their cultural assaults, we must reenthrone our Faith, Families, and Freedom. We must adopt the Christian constitutionalism of our forefathers. And we must repent, turn to Christ, and become an upright and moral People.

CG6A5894

Perhaps I will close on a more optimistic note. About three years ago, I began dating again. In 2017, I met a happy, faithful, and gorgeous girl named Emma. After two years of interesting courtship, we were married in Panama City, Panama on April 12, 2019. I’m thrilled to be married once more and I’m excited for the day when I will be a father. After God, family means everything to me. My three loyalties are to my Faith, my Family, and my Freedom. I have given much of my short life to teaching the principles of Liberty and to countering and exposing their enemies. I am committed to spending the rest of my life in God’s service, in my family’s service, and in the service of my blessed country.

I am so grateful to have been born in the greatest nation on God’s earth, in one of the best states in that nation, and in a truly wonderful family with parents who taught me the true Gospel of my Savior Jesus Christ. I love the Lord, I love my family and my wife, and I love the Freedom I enjoy in such abundance here in the United States. I trust that for years to come I will be able to fight the battles that need to be fought and help provide you with sufficient information and inspiration along the way so that you can assist in this colossal struggle. May we stand shoulder to shoulder through the dark days ahead and faithfully do our duty until the Lord returns to formally end the war that He has already won. We’re on the victorious side, ladies and gentlemen. We merely need to hold on until the buzzer sounds. That is the sure testimony and personal witness I leave with you. The ultimate victory is ours.

Zack Strong,

July 16, 2019.

Oppose a Convention of States!

“We live under the only government that ever existed which was framed by the unrestrained and deliberate consultations of the people. Miracles do not cluster. That which has happened but once in six thousand years cannot be expected to happen often. Such a government, once gone, might leave a void, to be filled, for ages, with revolution and tumult, riot and despotism.” – Daniel Webster

The patriot’s mind can scarcely dream up something as risky and more potentially damning to our Republic as the so-called “Convention of States” being proposed primarily by mainstream Republicans and conservatives. Perhaps you have not heard of the well-organized and well-funded push for a Convention of States. This article will explain the scheme for calling a deceptively-named Convention of States while pointing out the terrible risks we run in indulging this nearsighted idea.

ConCon2

First thing’s first: What is a Convention of States? A Convention of States is a formal meeting of all the states in the Union to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution. This Convention would be called pursuant to Article V of the Constitution, which will be discussed shortly. The term “Convention of States” is actually nowhere to be found in the Constitution. Article V uses a simpler term for the same concept: “Convention.”

Though the mainstream “conservatives” pushing this idea protest the fact, the hard reality is that a “Convention of States” is nothing other than a constitutional convention. The relevant section of Article V of the Constitution states:

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.”

Please note that Article V of the Constitution authorizes two-thirds of the states to petition for a “Convention” – that is, a constitutional convention. It does not authorize some fictitious “Convention of States.” Any formal meeting called forth by two-thirds of the states would be, by default, a constitutional convention because its purpose is to offer amendments to the Constitution. As just cited, the convention would “propose Amendments to this Constitution.” And what of these amendments? Are they binding upon the Union? Article V affirms that all amendments proposed by said convention “shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution” when approved by the states.

Let’s restate this in different terms. If two-thirds – that is, thirty-four – of our states formally call for an Article V “Convention,” a meeting of delegates from each state would convene with power to propose amendments to the existing Constitution. These amendments, upon approval by three-fourths – or thirty-eight – of the states, would become part of the supreme law of the land. This, my friends, is a constitutional convention! It is not a “Convention of States.” There is no such thing as a “Convention of States.” That very modern term is at best inaccurate, and at worst deliberately deceptive. What we are discussing is the instigation of a formal constitutional convention.

Literally anything could be proposed in such a convention. The mainstream conservatives backing this convention have deceived themselves into thinking that only good, beneficial, and wise amendments would be produced – amendments calling or a balanced budget, setting term limits, ending our endless foreign wars, and so forth. Most supporters believe that a convention of this sort can be limited, by prearranged agreement, to only one topic.

ConCon7

But what guarantee can they give that an Article V convention can be limited to one single issue? They cannot promise this. Article V certainly does not make that clear that a limited convention can be called. In fact, is speaks of a convention proposing “amendments” in the plural. Once convention delegates get behind closed doors, who knows what prerogatives they will claim! We simply cannot predict what a convention might attempt to do.

If a convention decides that Article V in fact allows them to propose multiple amendments, who is to say that they won’t attempt to push forward a socialistic agenda? What guarantee do we have that an amendment stripping Americans of their right to keep and bear arms would not be proposed? What guarantee can they offer that tax-payer funded healthcare would not be formally added to the Constitution? What guarantee can they give that our children won’t be forced to study in government public schools, that we won’t be required to be vaccinated against our will, that our businesses won’t be forced to accept LGBT standards, that the internet will not be regulated “for our protection,” and so forth?

No matter how anti-American, communistic, or unsound an amendment proposed by such a convention is, it becomes part of the supreme law of the land if subsequently ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures. Recall that Article V states that all amendments proposed by a convention are law “when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.” Do you trust Congress, or even the states, to keep an Article V convention in check? This issue of trusting Congress becomes paramount when we ponder the question: Who sets the rules for an Article V convention?

The Constitution tells us exactly who sets the rules governing an Article V convention – and it is not the states as “Convention of States” supporters claim. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution declares that one of the duties of Congress is: “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States.” The U.S. Congress, therefore, is in charge of establishing rules and regulations for any convention called forth under Article V. And Article V makes it clear in two places that the Congress is the entity empowered to inaugurate a convention once enough states have submitted petitions.

What may Congress decide relative to an Article V convention? It appears that Congress can dictate where a convention is held, how convention delegates are chosen, how many delegates are sent from each state, and virtually anything else it wants to. It is Congress, not the states, who have final authority over the proceedings of an Article V convention. Once two-thirds of the states petition for a convention, Congress is empowered to take the lead in governing the convention.

Real dyed-in-the-wool American patriots are terrified at the thought of our current Congress dictating the rules for a 21st-Century constitutional convention. Can you imagine Nancy Pelosi presiding over a meeting to define the parameters of a new constitutional convention? The Democratic Party holds a majority in the House of Representatives. Do you trust them? By the same token, do you trust the Republicans to do the right thing? If you do not trust Congress, you simply cannot trust an Article V convention.

And what if Congress decided that states will send delegates proportional to their populations? In that scenario, communist-controlled states like California and New York would have a disproportionate sway over the convention despite the fact that it was primarily “Republican” states who called for a convention. Any way you slice it, an Article V convention is, given our present political climate, an unacceptable risk.

The key takeaway from this portion of the article is that there is no limit to the scope and tenor of amendments an Article V convention may propose, except the provision that no state may be deprived of its voting power. A convention can literally propose anything it wants to – and Congress can likewise set forth any procedural regulations it chooses. Additionally, a convention may itself propose a new ratification method other than the three-fourths of states called for in Article V! This is precisely what our Founding Fathers did in Philadelphia in 1787, thus setting an ominous precedent for future conventions.

In 1787, our Founding Fathers discarded the rules set forth in the Articles of Confederation requiring a unanimous approval by all thirteen states of any new amendments. Instead of abiding by this rule, our Founders determined that only three-fourths of the states needed to approve the newly-written Constitution for it to become operative. If the 1787 Convention did it, why can’t a convention in 2019 or 2020 or 2025? The precedent is there and you are fooling yourself if you believe for one second that delegates to a modern convention wouldn’t consider following it.

Speaking of precedents, the 1787 Constitutional Convention was conducted in deliberate secrecy. It proceedings were completely off-record. No one knew what the delegates were discussing, what was being proposed, or what progress, if any, was being made. All that the American People knew was that some of its finest men were huddled together behind closed doors hashing out their future course. Again, do you trust today’s gaggle of politicians to deliberate behind closed doors and emerge with changes to our Constitution that will be beneficial, wise, and sound?

Founding Fathers12

The real issue here is not whether there is constitutional authority to call a convention – the authority clearly exists. No, the real question is whether we have enough capable and worthy representatives to keep such a convention in harmony with America’s founding vision. In 1787, the country had a deep pool of hearty patriots to choose representatives from. These were men of honor, integrity, experience, faith, and wisdom. Among them were George Washington, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, James Wilson, and Gouverneur Morris. But who do we have to represent us today? Where are the Washingtons and Madisons of modern America? Do you honestly believe we can round up a group whose wisdom, fidelity, and reliability equals that of our 1787 Convention?

President Gordon B. Hinckley, one of the most powerful and eloquent religious leaders of our modern age, spoke reverently of our Founding Fathers and lamented that we cannot now produce a group as talented as they. He observed:

“What a singular and remarkable group they were. As I look across the world today, I search in vain for such a group as walked together across the stage of history when this nation was born. . . .

“Just think of a moment of George Washington, of Franklin, of Madison, of the Adams’s, of Thomas Jefferson, and their associates who signed the Declaration of Independence, or participated in the Constitutional Convention. Where in all the world today can even one or two such men be found, let alone the great aggregation that participated in the birth of America?

“Can anyone deny that they were raised up unto this very purpose, that working together, they brought forth on this continent an independent nation at the risk of their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor? It is my conviction that while we have had a few great leaders since then, there has not been before or since so large a group of talented, able, dedicated, and inherently wise and good men as those whom we call the Founding Fathers of this nation. For as long as they lived they acknowledged the hand of the Almighty in the affairs of this republic.”

I endorse President Hinckley’s remarks. Our Founding Fathers were a unique group. They were talented beyond measure. They were endowed with wisdom – wisdom field-tested over generations of struggle. They were men of God. Their patriotism and devotion to America is beyond dispute. And the supreme work of their hands, the Constitution, has withstood the test of time and helped produced the greatest, freest, most prosperous and powerful nation in world history.

Founding Fathers11

Do we honestly believe that our wisdom is superior to that of our Founding Fathers? What arrogance to believe that we are smarter than they; that we know better how to formulate beneficial laws; that the principles and functions of our current Constitution are outdated and need fixed; and that we have somehow outgrown the vision for America’s destiny foreseen by our forefathers! Speaking to a group of Nobel Prize winners in 1962, President John F. Kennedy remarked: “I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.” And so it is.

Our Founding Fathers’ brilliance eclipses in every conceivable way our present wisdom, if indeed it can be called wisdom at all. We have sunken to such a state of mindless confusion, infectious bias, and distressing ignorance that I have zero faith that our nation of 330 million people could produce fifty-six men as capable and faithful as those who gave us our Constitution. Unless we sincerely believe that we can assemble a group of men that rivals George Washington, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, and their partners, in intelligence and honesty, we are risking our entire nation by calling for an inherently unpredictable Article V convention.

While many who support a “Convention of States” are well-meaning and merely lack a correct understanding of the risks involved, there are other supporters who are sworn adversaries of our Republic. These individuals are certainly not friends of the Constitution because they would use their influence to call a convention whose proposals could quite potentially eviscerate that inspired document.

I have noted that Republicans and conservatives are the primary people pushing for an Article V convention. It is true that they are the most vocal. Author and radio host Mark Levin, for instance, is the de facto spokesman for the movement. Sean Hannity, David Barton, and other “conservatives” likewise support a convention because they think it will help us rein in government.

Yet, notwithstanding the support of mainstream conservatism, there are numerous communist groups also chomping at the bit for a constitutional convention. I have seen it reported that arch-communist George Soros is opposing a Convention of States. The truth, however, is that Soros-funded groups like Wolf PAC and Code Pink are in fact actively campaigning for a “Convention of States,” with Wolf PAC successfully prodding some six Democratic states to apply for an Article V convention. Soros and numerous other Marxists also have a hand in the Constitution 2020 movement.

ConCon6

It is a socialist dream to have a constitutional convention which can be hijacked and used as the vehicle for doing away with the U.S. Constitution that stands as an obstacle for their conquest of America. Every dirty trick, including using the media to bias and deceive the American People, would be employed to sabotage the proceedings. Blackmail, special interest lobbying, and bribery would all be used to ramrod radical changes through an Article V convention. In all likelihood, a “Convention of States” would mean the formal death of our Republic.

But, conservatives claim, the states still have the final say in whether to approve or reject amendments proposed in a convention. This is true. However, if thirty-four states take the risk of petitioning for a convention, it does not seem a tall order to persuade four more to go along with the crowd in ratifying the proposals. After all, every four years the media persuades a similar number of states to vote against their best interests as they select Establishment-approved presidential candidates. The risks are just too great to call a convention at present.

In a 2015 article written by an attorney using the name Publius Huldah, we find this blunt warning:

“If there is an Article V convention, we will lose the Constitution we have, and another Constitution will be imposed.

“You are not getting both sides of this issue. Throughout the country, those of us who are warning of the dangers of an Article V convention are marginalized, ridiculed, smeared, shut out of meetings, and barred from speaking in public forums. . . .

“The reason convention proponents forbid dissenting voices is that we can prove, by means of facts and original source documents, that the claims and promises of the convention proponents are false. . . .

“We are in the final stage of a takeover. Leftists of every variety want a new Constitution to legalize our transformation from the constitutional Republic created by our existing Constitution to a dictatorship.

“To get a new Constitution, they need a convention. So they are telling conservatives that our Constitution is causing our problems and we need to amend the Constitution. And they say we can only make the amendments they say we need at a convention.”

Please read the rest of the very astute warning here.

The New American also warned of an Article V convention in a 2018 article:

“Nearly all conservatives agree that the federal government — under both Democrats and Republicans — continues to grow beyond the limitations set for it in the U.S. Constitution. As part of that overreach, the federal government has been swelling the national debt into the multiple trillions and treading on the rights of the states and of the people for more than a hundred years. The Insider/Internationalist/Big Government/Deep State/Globalist types — having created the problem in the first place — are now busily forming and funding organizations that offer a “solution” in the form of a modern-day constitutional convention that would have the power to rewrite the U.S. Constitution.

“They are guilty of what 19th-century French economist Frédéric Bastiat called “concocting the antidote and the poison in the same laboratory.” Having administered a near fatal dose of the poison, they are now pushing slick, well-funded campaigns to sell the antidote. But here is the rub: Administering poison was never the real goal; its purpose was to make the antidote appear attractive.”

Problem-reaction-solution. This is the tactic commonly used by the Elites. They artificially create a problem. Then they nudge the public’s reaction in the direction they want it to go. And, finally, when public outcry reaches a boiling point, they rush in with a “solution.” They always ride in as white knights to save the day. If people only understand the hero is really the villain wearing a mask, they would be less likely to take his outstretched hand.

ConCon5

The Center of Budget and Policy Priorities also published a piece with many warnings. I extract this portion for your consideration:

“A convention likely would be extremely contentious and highly politicized, and its results impossible to predict.

“A number of prominent jurists and legal scholars have warned that a constitutional convention could open up the Constitution to radical and harmful changes. For instance, the late Justice Antonin Scalia said in 2014, “I certainly would not want a constitutional convention. Whoa! Who knows what would come out of it?” Similarly, former Chief Justice of the United States Warren Burger wrote in 1988:

““[T]here is no way to effectively limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda.” . . .

“In sum, there is no way to predict what constitutional amendments the delegates to a convention might adopt.”

If even our Supreme Court justices admit that an Article V convention is “unpredictable” and not easy to limit, shouldn’t we step back and really think about what we are asking for?

Finally, Common Cause issued this warning:

“A well-funded, highly coordinated national effort is underway to call a constitutional convention, under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, for the first time in history. The result of such a convention could be a complete overhaul of the Constitution and supporters of the convention are dangerously close to succeeding. With special interest groups gaining more momentum, conservative advocates are just six states short of reaching the constitutionally-required 34-state goal. They are targeting Republican-controlled legislatures in 2018 and are within striking distance.

“The unknowns surrounding a constitutional convention pose an unacceptable risk, particularly in the current polarized political climate. Given how close calling a new convention is, it’s time to spotlight that risk and sound an alarm for the preservation of our Constitution.

“Too few Americans are even aware that a constitutional convention can be called, let alone that there would be no checks on its scope and further that the process to call one is well underway and being underwritten by some of the nation’s richest individuals. . . .

“Simply put, an Article V constitutional convention is a dangerous and uncontrollable process that would put Americans’ constitutional rights up for grabs.

“At a time when extreme gerrymandering has created unprecedented polarization and big money buys access and influence for a few very wealthy special interests, a new constitutional convention would lead to chaos; the interests of everyday Americans would be shut out of the ultimate closed-door meeting. There would be no way to limit the scope of a constitutional convention and no way to guarantee that our civil liberties and constitutional process would be protected.”

Read Common Cause’s article for a long list of quotations from legal experts on the unpredictability and danger of an Article V convention.

Where do we stand today in the process of initiating a constitutional convention? We are dangerously close. It is generally accepted that twenty-eight of the necessary thirty-four states have applied for an Article V convention. These have applied, specifically, to propose a balanced budget amendment. Several other states have also applied for a general, or plenary, convention. If the two tallies are added together, as some interpretations demand, thirty-three of the requisite thirty-four states have applied for an Article V convention! Detailed breakdowns of the numbers can be found through The John Birch Society here and The Federalist Society here.

ConCon1

Whatever the number your interpretation causes you to cite, one thing is certain: The movement to call a national convention that would propose amendments to our precious Constitution is gaining momentum. We are potentially very close to the day when Congress will be required to call forth a convention which, depending on numerous variables, could permanently alter America’s governmental structure and future. To Constitution-loving patriots, the “Convention of States” crusade poses a massive threat.

The reality is that we do not need an Article V convention of any sort. The Constitution possesses numerous other avenues for self-correction that are much less risky. For instance, Article VI, Clause 2 declares that the Constitution is “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.” Clause 3 follows this up by ensuring that all governmental representatives in either federal or state positions “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.” Article VI, then, provides a sure remedy to the mismanagement of our national affairs: Enforcement of the law!

We do not need to amend the Constitution; we need to enforce it. We do not need to change it; we need to apply it. We do not need a novel system; we need accountability under our present one. If we cannot enforce our current Constitution, what makes us think we can enforce a new constitution or that a new amendment will be obeyed when the others are not? An Article V convention is a pipedream indulged by those who have not taken the time to think it through to its logical conclusion. It is a desperate gamble by those who have lost faith in the Constitution, including its much simpler self-correct formulas.

In addition to Article VI, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments reserve to the states all governmental powers not specifically listed in the Constitution. The states once understood this reality and exercised their power. Take action in your home state and start to change things from the inside out. The anti-state rulings of renegade courts do not matter – the Constitution trumps the opinions of activist judges. No court in the land can justly curtail states’ rights. If your state representatives had the nerve, they could assert their rights today and thwart the Washington-based socialist agenda.

We see that the Constitution contains numerous self-correct remedies. We do not need to choose the riskiest and vaguest of them all in order to fix our broken nation. We do not need a convention to balance the budget – Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 already requires Congress to appropriate funds and give an accounting of its actions. We do not need a new convention with its new opportunities for experimentation and failure. We simply need to apply and enforce the time-tested Constitution as written. We merely need to hold our representatives accountable for the oaths they take to defend the Constitution. And we can use the normal amendment process to appeal hostile amendments such as the sixteenth and seventeenth.

Even our Founding Fathers were worried about calling a new convention. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, opposed a call by New York for a second constitutional convention in 1788. He listed numerous reasons for his opposition to a new convention and then explained:

“Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumeable that the deliberations of the [second convention] could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned” (James Madison to George Lee Turberville, November 2, 1788).

James Madison1

If the political climate had already shifted and become unfavorable for a new convention by 1788, only one year after the first convention ended, no one can believe the situation is more favorable now. Among the propitious circumstances of the first Constitutional Convention was the unifying presence of George Washington. Who would unify a convention today? Which figure of any political stripe could unify a body of delegates from around the nation? You know in your heart that a modern convention would be rife with partisan bickering and special interest influence.

Whatever course others may choose, I cannot support a constitutional convention. I also could not, because of my religious views, accept the proposals of a new convention. It is my heartfelt belief that the U.S. Constitution was inspired by Almighty God and that anything beyond its plain principles of Liberty is not merely misguided, but evil. For my part, I will never swear allegiance to a new constitution. My allegiance runs to my God and the Constitution which He inspired and caused to be established in America.

If, Heaven forbid, a new convention is initiated, it will require a literal miracle to prevent it from transforming our nation into a communist utopia. Yet, perhaps America is out of miracles. Perhaps the hand of the Lord is no longer guiding us and shielding us from our own choices. We surely do not worship the God of this land, who is Jesus Christ. We have officially banned Him from our schools and made it abundantly clear that He is not welcome in our national deliberations. We have forsaken our cultural institutions and traditions of our honorable forefathers. We are ripening for severe chastisement. And few of our sins are as serious as tampering with our sacred Constitution.

Please, dear friend, oppose a deceptively-named “Convention of States.” Oppose this convention because of its unpredictability and its high level of risk to our God-given Liberty. Trust in the Constitution established by our Founders and use its ordinary mechanisms, such as Article VI, to right the wrongs being perpetrated by unscrupulous individuals. Oppose a Convention of States as if our Republic depended on it, for it likely does.

I close with a quotation from Daniel Webster. Read it. Ponder it. Take it to heart. Cherish the blessings you enjoy under our current Constitution and never trust your Liberties to the care of 21st-Century politicians. Beware a Convention of States. BEWARE!

“Americans, you are the most privileged people that the sun shines on. The salutary influences of your climate are inferior to the salutary influence of your laws. Your soil, rich to a proverb, is less rich than our Constitution. Your rivers, large as the oceans of the old world, are less copious than the streams of social happiness which flow around you. Your air is not purer than your civil liberty, and your hills, though high as heaven and deep as the foundations of the earth, are less exalted and less firmly founded than that benign and everlasting religion which blesses you and shall bless your offspring. Amidst these profuse blessings of nature and of Providence, BEWARE! . . . you have everything to lose; you have nothing to gain. We live under the only government that ever existed which was framed by the unrestrained and deliberate consultations of the people. Miracles do not cluster. That which has happened but once in six thousand years cannot be expected to happen often. Such a government, once gone, might leave a void, to be filled, for ages, with revolution and tumult, riot and despotism.” – Daniel Webster, Independence Day oration, July 4, 1802.

Zack Strong,

June 3, 2019

For more, watch the following:

 

 

National State of Emergency

President Donald Trump has declared a national state of emergency in relation to the conflagration at our Southern border. Many past presidents have declared states of emergency, yet the media – and pundits on both sides of the so-called “aisle” – have turned out in droves to denounce the move as “unconstitutional,” an “overreach,” “authoritarian,” and so forth. This article is intended to set the record straight on the legality and constitutionality of President Trump’s decision.

invasion1

As my readers know, I love the U.S. Constitution and consider it an inspired, sacred document. I consider it a very serious thing to violate its straightforward instructions and injunctions. However, President Trump’s decision to declare a state of emergency in order to once and for all secure our nation’s borders is not a violation of the Constitution or any moral law with which I am familiar. Indeed, President Trump’s decision to secure the border is actually a fulfillment of one of the most important of the Constitution’s promises to the states.

Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution promises: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.”

The phrase “The United States” here refers to the federal government, of which the president is the chief officer – particularly in times of crisis and war. It is therefore a part of the president’s duty to defend the states against invasion, as well as insurrection, rebellion, and so forth, such as when President George Washington sent the military to put down the Whiskey Rebellion during his presidency. And please note that the Constitution does not specify what type of invasion is to be defended against.

invasion16

Invasion is defined by Google as “an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity.” The trusty Webster’s 1828 dictionary gives us this more complete conception: “A hostile entrance into the possessions of another; particularly, the entrance of a hostile army into a country for the purpose of conquest or plunder, or the attack of a military force. . . . An attack on the rights of another; infringement of violation.”

Under either of these definitions, the crisis at our Southern border absolutely qualifies as an invasion. The influx of tens of millions of foreigners who do not speak our language, who are not here to assimilate, and whose first act in our country is a violation of our laws, cannot be considered anything other than an invasion. It is certainly “an incursion by a large number of people” into our territory. It is also a “hostile entrance” by foreigners and strangers “into the possessions” of American citizens. This hostile foreign element is invading both the private and public property of Americans and the states. And in far too many cases, American blood is spilled, American tears are shed, American property is stolen, and American citizens suffer.

Placing military forces on the border with either non-lethal deterrents or shoot-to-kill orders would halt the problem over night, making a wall unnecessary. But a wall is the order of the day. While I do not like the idea of living in a walled-in country, I would prefer to have a secured border with a wall than an unsecured border without one. In order to consider ourselves a truly independent, sovereign, and free nation, we must secure our borders and defend our People against the tidal wave of invaders flooding in from around the world. These invaders are changing the ideological, political, social, religious, and racial makeup of this nation – and not for the better.

invasion3

It almost goes without saying that the president cannot willy-nilly declare anything an “emergency” and then assume the power to “fix” it.  That would be a violation of the concept of enumerated and limited powers. It would be the very epitome of tyranny. However, what we are talking about in the present situation is not an arbitrary case. We are discussing the very security of the Republic.

As noted, the U.S. Constitution – the supreme law of the land and that sacred document which our elected representatives have sworn oaths to defend, uphold, and enforce – authorizes and directs the federal government to defend each of the fifty states in the Union against invasion from without. Since our Constitution directs the government to “protect each of [the states] from invasion,” and the influx of millions of foreigners which includes many criminals, rapists, human traffickers, and drug dealers meets every criteria to be called an invasion, the discussion should end there.

There is a faction in our society, however, that is anti-American and wishes ill to our country. They want to bring about the disintegration of our Republic, the corruption of our culture, and the destabilization of our unique system – the only system that poses a threat to their bid for global domination. This hostile group is a fifth column of Marxist traitors that are supported by Russia, China, and an international cabal of bankers, businessmen, and intellectuals. The domestic wing of this faction is aided in their attempt to weaken America by legions of dupes and brainwashed citizens.

invasion5

For the record, the Republican Party has sold out the United States regarding illegal immigration, too.

This dangerous group disregards the U.S. Constitution either because it stands in their way of converting America fully into a socialist state or because they have fallen for the carefully-concocted lie that the Founding Fathers were racist, bigoted, and primitive. When they consider the Constitution at all, they think of it as outdated and not applicable to today’s situation. So, for those who disregard the Constitution’s plain mandate to the federal government to defend the states against invasions such as those being launched from south of the border, as well as for those who misunderstand the Constitution, I cite one additional argument in favor of President Trump’s actions.

The great Thomas Jefferson, the most brilliant political mind in history, gave us an ideological gem when he wrote the following to John B. Colvin in 1810:

“The question you propose, whether circumstances do not sometimes occur, which make it a duty in officers of high trust, to assume authorities beyond the law, is easy of solution in principle, but sometimes embarrassing in practice. A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”

According to Thomas Jefferson, situations sometimes arise which demand a solution not strictly covered by law, or, indeed, in which no man-made law is sufficient. These include crisis situations – situations that threaten the fabric and stability of a nation. During these climactic events, a “scrupulous adherence to written law” would be suicide. Rather, the “laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger” are the laws which must govern us. Indeed, obeying these unwritten laws is a “higher obligation” than obeying written laws, no matter how well-crafted, well-established, or popular.

invasion11

To reiterate yet again, I love the U.S. Constitution and witness that the God of Heaven inspired the Founding Fathers to write it. It is the greatest political document in the world. And, thankfully, it covers situations such as that which faces us; namely, the dangerous blaze of chaos that is scorching America because the federal government has refused to uphold its end of the constitutional pact to protect the states from invasion. Yet, for argument’s sake, we also have the “laws of necessity” on our side.

Let me be clear, immigration is a great thing. But when a person immigrates, he must leave his former allegiances behind. When someone comes to America, he must do so with the intention to become an American and only an American. President Teddy Roosevelt once said:

“There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts “native” before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance. But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else.

“The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic. The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American. There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else” (Roosevelt, 1915, in David M. Kennedy and Thomas A. Bailey, The American Spirit: United States History as Seen by Contemporaries, Vol. 2, 268).

invasion6

In this case, we are not even talking about citizens – but subjects of foreign lands who have no right nor legal permission to be here. And it is clear by the actions of illegal aliens that their allegiance does not run to the U.S. flag. Rather, they come here in droves hoisting aloft the Honduran, Guatemalan, or Mexican flag. They speak their own language and huddle together in groups rather than assimilate. They trespass and break our laws as a matter of course. And why wouldn’t they? After all, they have no allegiance to our nation, our People, or our Republic. We must sympathize with those who desire to come here to escape the unrivaled plague of violence, drugs, and poverty that afflicts Latin America, yet, nonetheless, their actions prove that they are illegal, and often hostile, invaders who care nothing for our laws. And if they do not respect our laws, how can we allow them to come here? To do so is national suicide.

Furthermore, how can a nation respect itself and maintain its honor when it cannot defend its own people and protect its homeland? The American People are falling victim to savage drug cartels, human traffickers, and violent criminals for no other reason than that the Marxist clique in Washington, D.C. has deliberately prevented the enforcement of Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution. We are suffering because we have also disobeyed the basic laws of necessity and self-preservation, higher laws even than those codified in the Constitution.

One of the things our founding generation understood was that owning property is a sacred right. Personal private property is absolutely essential to Liberty. Without property there is no Liberty. But a nation’s home territory is also a special thing. If a people’s land is being invaded and taken over by foreigners who have not been welcomed in, who have not paid for the land, who have not made agreements to be there, whose ideology and worldview is contrary to the native population’s, and, whose intentions, in many cases, are hostile, then that people may take extreme action to defend itself and property.

invasion4

By any honest metric, illegal immigration is a massive crisis – a true national emergency. It is de facto setter colonialism aided and abetted by American traitors and foreign governments like the communist regime in Mexico. Let’s cite some basic facts to convey in a small degree the problem facing us.

According to many sources, Illegal aliens are three times more likely to commit crimes than American citizens. These invaders commit literally hundreds of thousands of crimes annually and at a higher rate than the native population. The number of illegal immigrants as well as Americans who are kidnapped, sold into slavery, and trafficked across the border is also staggering. Nearly 1/3 of immigrant women who attempt to enter the United States illegally are sexually abused, and thousands of American women are raped by illegals. For instance, in Oregon – which is certainly not a state bearing the brunt of the violent crime flooding across the Southern border – some two hundred immigrants (nearly 90% from Latin America) are currently incarcerated for rape. Multiply this across fifty states and you begin to see the problem.

From stealing $4 billion in tax refunds they are not entitled to, to facilitating the drug scourge that afflicts our nation, to bolstering the ranks of criminal gangs, to being the carriers of infectious diseases, to committing violent and non-violent crime by the hundreds of thousands, illegal immigrants are assaulting and deteriorating our nation. The crisis is so terrible that we are seeing anarchy and lawlessness in numerous locations. And though money is the least of our worries, illegal immigration costs hundreds of billions of dollars each year.

In light of these few facts, we must ask ourselves some hard questions: When is enough enough? When will we enforce the Constitution? When will we mobilize against the horde of foreigners invading our nation? When we will obey the laws of necessity and self-preservation? When is enough enough?

invasion12

Thankfully, President Donald Trump is trying to stop the flow of chaos across our borders. It is an already uphill battle further hampered by false allegations of Russian collusion, sabotage by members of his own government and cabinet, and a lack of comprehension of the problem by the American People. If we are serious about honoring our Constitution and protecting the states, we must enforce Article 4, Section 4. We must defend each state from invasion, including the invasion of tens of millions of illegal aliens who spit on our laws, dishonor our traditions, bring drugs and diseases into our land, abuse our People, and, all too often, act like parasites that drain the lifeblood out of our Republic.

Whether we bury our heads in the sand or open our eyes, a state of emergency in reality exists. It is not going away. That is, it is not going away unless we demand that it be fixed immediately. Whether we cite Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution and demand that the federal government protect the American People and the states they inhabit, or whether we cite the laws of necessity and self-preservation Thomas Jefferson spoke of, the border must be secured or we will lose our nation. And we will lose it to those who do not care enough about our laws and heritage to come in the front door. Instead, like criminals they sneak through the back door, lie to get free goodies, and team up with cartels and coyotes to swindle us out of our birthright. This dangerous group of invaders must be stopped.

I applaud President Trump’s attempt to secure our border. He has blundered his way into it and has allowed what he calls “the swamp” to nearly engulf him, yet his intention is correct. And he stands on “solid legal ground” in terms of his ability to move to defend the nation. Whether out of legal obligations or the dictates of necessity caused by legitimate crisis, the border must be secured one way or another. If feelings must be hurt and foreign blood must be shed to save American lives, property, and wealth, and the integrity of our nation, so be it. God grant us the fortitude to do what must be done to plug the open sieve that is our Southern border that we may defend our People from foreign invaders. Secure the border. Stop the invasion. Save America.

Zack Strong

February 21, 2019

invasion8

Importance of the First Amendment

It has happened yet again. Yours truly has been banned from Facebook for the next 30 days. This is the fifth time I’ve been blocked for a set period of time. Why, you may ask, has Facebook targeted my pages? Answer: Because I use my God-given right of free speech and expression to voice views that are contrary to the Marxist perspective held by the Establishment and the media moguls who dominate Facebook, Google, YouTube, Twitter, and the other mass conditioning systems in our world.

censorship2

Of all the times I have been blocked, had my pages and groups deleted, and had my content removed, this time was the lamest. Facebook is not allowing me to see which post it blocked me for, but I could see the commentary on the post in question. I wrote: “This made me chuckle. I thought it might make some of you laugh, too. Enjoy.” While I do not recall the precise post, I do remember it was a joke post. I believe I posted it several months ago on my Feminism is a Disease page – a fast-growing page with 3,412 likes and 3,559 followers as of this writing. Heaven forbid someone post an anti-feminist joke on Facebook!

Some people might immediately say: “Well, that’s tough luck. But Facebook is a private company, so they can do what they want to.” False. Facebook is absolutely not a private company. Facebook receives hundreds of millions of dollars in tax subsidies. In other words, Facebook receives hundreds of millions of dollars of tax payer money! And on top of this, they don’t even pay taxes. For proof of these facts, see this article, and this one, and this one.

censorship9

Comrade Zuckerberg

To my sense of justice, the fact that Facebook (and Google, Apple, and other major companies) takes our money makes them a de facto public entity accountable to laws governing public speech. Yet, despite being funded by the American People – that is, by your tax dollars – Facebook believes they are above the law, and your opinions be damned.

Whether you choose to believe Facebook’s massive intake of public funds requires them to obey public laws is up to you. However, at stake is a bigger issue – the First Amendment. What is the First Amendment? What does it mean? What is its purpose? Why is it so tremendously important? And what is at stake when we allow publicly-funded entities like Facebook to censor legitimate speech that they simply don’t agree with?

first amendment9

The First Amendment was created to protect and defend the rights of speech and press, among other things. People were supposed to be able to say what they wanted to, within, of course, the reasonable limits of decency and decorum (for instance, you cannot yell “Fire!” in a theater, use sexual or profane language in public, or threaten someone’s life without consequence). But having the right to voice personal opinions on random topics is only one part – the less important part – of the First Amendment.

More than anything else, the First Amendment was a guarantee that the American People could always speak out against tyrannical government and hold their public representatives accountable. It was intended as a check on usurpation, lies, institutionalized corruption, injustice, and evil in high places. The First Amendment was not created so you could whisper your thoughts behind closed doors, but so that you could make your voice heard in the public arena. The First Amendment was designed, in short, to enable patriots to defend their nation.

first amendment8

The Sage of Monticello held such a high opinion of the rights of free speech and the press that he wrote:

“The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter” (Thomas Jefferson, letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Jan. 16, 1787).

Our government is based on, among other things, the sentiments and principles of the American People. The People is the source of political power. If they are to retain that power, they must safeguard their right to speak out. And elected representatives are duty-bound to defend that paramount right.

Another time, Jefferson asserted:

“The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure” (Thomas Jefferson to Marquis de Lafayette, 1823).

And if those quotes were not blunt enough, Jefferson accurately declared:

“[O]ur liberty . . . cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it” (Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, January 25, 1786).

James Madison was of equal mind. From America’s revolutionary experience, he knew the importance of the right of the People to speak out against the abuses of their government, to publish and voice their thoughts, and to be included in the public dialogue. He said:

“[T]o the press alone, chequered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression” (James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions, January, 1800).

first amendment11

This famous quote might have more force when seen in context. The context was the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts instituted under the John Adams administration. The Sedition Act criminalized speech perceived as condemning the government at a time when national security was seen as precarious. Indeed it was precarious because of Jacobin agitation in the Union, but nevertheless it was an affront to the U.S. Constitution and to the rights of free speech, press, and conscience. Madison explained:

“In every State, probably, in the Union, the press has exerted a freedom in canvassing the merits and measures of public men of every description which has not been confined to the strict limits of the common law. On this footing the freedom of the press has stood; on this footing it yet stands. And it will not be a breach either of truth or of candour to say, that no persons or presses are in the habit of more unrestrained animadversions [criticisms] on the proceedings and functionaries of the State governments than the persons and presses most zealous in vindicating the act of Congress for punishing similar animadversions on the Government of the United States.

“The last remark will not be understood as claiming for the State governments an immunity greater than they have heretofore enjoyed. Some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of every thing, and in no instance is this more true than in that of the press. It has accordingly been decided by the practice of the States, that it is better to leave a few of its noxious branches to their luxuriant growth, than, by pruning them away, to injure the vigour of those yielding the proper fruits. And can the wisdom of this policy be doubted by any who reflect that to the press alone, chequered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression; who reflect that to the same beneficent source the United States owe much of the lights which conducted them to the ranks of a free and independent nation, and which have improved their political system into a shape so auspicious to their happiness? Had “Sedition Acts,” forbidding every publication that might bring the constituted agents into contempt or disrepute, or that might excite the hatred of the people against the authors of unjust or pernicious measures, been uniformly enforced against the press, might not the United States have been languishing at this day under the infirmities of a sickly Confederation? Might they not, possibly, be miserable colonies, groaning under a foreign yoke?” (James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions, January, 1800).

In short, without the protection of what we sometimes call “First Amendment rights,” America might never have won her Freedom from British despots and the American People would have groaned under the yoke of foreign tyranny. Similarly, today we are beginning to groan under the yoke of Marxist-inspired political correctness and bureaucratic tyranny spewing forth from enemy-controlled D.C. We cannot afford to allow this to happen. This road leads inevitably to slavery and oppression.

People sometimes say, “Well, what if people are saying things that are wrong or offensive? How can we allow that? It is dangerous!” It is not our place to “allow” or “disallow” speech we disagree with, even if it is wrong (excepting, as noted, the reasonable restrictions). Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others” (Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803).

If you go down the road of blacklisting, banning, blocking, persecuting, and bullying people for speech that is not legitimately harmful but with which you simply disagree, the precedent will reach to you.

The great patriot Thomas Paine once made a statement which applies to today’s politically-correct culture where communist “hate speech” laws are proliferating and wreaking havoc on the First Amendment:

“An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. 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, 1795).

If you value your right to voice your opinions, justice dictates that you must defend the right of others – even those you disagree with – to do the same. If you do not, you bear at least partial blame for the destruction of the First Amendment.

first amendment16

We are not a democracy; we are a Republic. But otherwise, great image.

To understand more about what is at stake when the Freedom of speech is restricted, we quote from another of our illustrious Founding Fathers. In a November 1737 article in The Pennsylvania Gazette, Benjamin Franklin wrote:

“Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins. . . .

“. . . An evil magistrate intrusted with power to punish for words, would be armed with a weapon the most destructive and terrible. Under pretence of pruning off the exuberant branches, he would be apt to destroy the tree. . . .

“. . . The construction of words being arbitrary, and left to the decision of the judges, no man could write or open his mouth without being in danger of forfeiting his head. . . .

“Upon the whole, to suppress inquiries into the administration is good policy in an arbitrary government; but a free constitution and freedom of speech have such a reciprocal dependence on each other, that they cannot subsist without consisting together.”

Will we defend free speech and, thus, support our free governmental system? Or we allow the arbitrary system of social control that is being constructed around us to shackle us? We jeopardize all of our rights when we allow the government, activist groups, biased judges, the lying Marxist media, or vicious segments of our population to limit, curtail, or restrict our God-given rights of speech, press, and conscience.

Don’t think that Freedom of speech is limited to speech and the press alone. Rather, our most sacred rights of conscience and religion are wrapped up in the right of speech. James Madison put it this way:

“The freedom of conscience and of religion are found in the same instruments which assert the freedom of the press” (James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions, January, 1800).

If the Freedom of speech is limited, our most precious right to worship God as we see fit will be in peril. Our right of free conscience will also be in danger of overthrow if we’re not allowed to vocalize the thoughts and desires of our soul. If you value either the right to worship your God freely or to express the feelings of your conscience, it is your duty to fight tooth and nail to defend the First Amendment.

first amendment6

John Adams once said: “Let us dare to read, think, speak and write” (John Adams, “A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law,” 1765). In 2019, perhaps his statement should be amended to say: “Let us dare to read, think, speak and write – unless Facebook/Twitter/YouTube doesn’t agree with you” or “Let us dare to read, think, speak and write – unless the LGBT movement, radical feminists, or Black Lives Matter disagree with you.”

Our First Amendment is under serious assault. At least, the right of traditionalists, conservatives, and constitutionalists to speak out and defend or promote Christian values, moral principles, constitutionalism, Americanism, and truth is being curtailed in a major way. Our right to denounce the communist menace, publicize the truth about conspiracy, and point out the abuses of our government is also waning. Leading the charge in this politically-correct assault on logic, sanity, and tradition are the social media networks like Facebook and Twitter.

In the face of this tidal wave of peer pressure, Establishment oppression, and Marxist machinations against the sacred rights vouchsafed by the First Amendment, we must stand strong. We must defend the rights of others to speak if we value that right for ourselves. We must hold public institutions accountable for their violations of the sacred right of conscience and the right to vocalize our innermost feelings. If we are to survive as a free Republic, it is imperative that we push back the assault on our Liberty.

“Let us dare to read, think, speak and write.”

Zack Strong,

January 26, 2019.

A Tribute to Caleb Strong

Caleb Strong is not a name familiar to most Americans today. Yet, this great man was one of America’s brightest Founding Fathers. He was a true luminary who played a huge, albeit forgotten, part in the early days of our Republic. For his birthday this January 9th, I want to pay tribute to this man by reminding people of the tremendous work he did for our nation and by sharing a few gems of wisdom from his brilliant mind.

Like many of our Founders, Caleb Strong began his professional life as a lawyer. He was a born-and-bred Massachusetts patriot who became intimately involved in political affairs as Massachusetts led the drive toward conflict with Great Britain and toward Independence. Strong came from Northampton, a town where his influential ancestor Elder John Strong once resided. I am proudly related to Caleb Strong through our common ancestor Elder John Strong – the first of the Strongs to settle in the New World. Caleb was faithful to his heritage and made a name for himself in his own day.

caleb strong3

In 1774, Strong was selected as a member of the Northampton Committee of Safety. Committees of safety, along with committees of correspondence, were extralegal political units that assumed governmental duties in the colonies during the immediate pre-war years and throughout the Revolution. In a real sense, then, Strong was part of the first free government of Massachusetts state.

Caleb Strong wore many hats. Not only did he belong to the Northampton Committee of Safety, but he belonged to the Massachusetts Assembly. There he was appointed – along with fellow patriot John Adams – to the committee that helped craft the Massachusetts Constitution. During this same formative period, Strong also belonged to the state house of representatives, the state senate, and took a position as a county attorney, holding it for 24 years while simultaneously filling many other public positions to be noted.

The achievement I am most proud of Caleb Strong for was his participation in the Constitutional Convention that framed the U.S. Constitution. I consider the Constitution a sacred, inspired document that bears the seal of approval of Almighty God. It is part of my religious creed every bit as much as the holy scriptures. I revere the men who crafted it under the inspiration of Heaven, which includes Caleb Strong.

Strong’s two most notable contributions to the Constitution included his support of the Connecticut Compromise and his motion to have all money bills originate in the U.S. House of Representatives. The Connecticut Compromise, in case you did not pay attention in history class, was the deal between representatives of big states and small states which ensured an equal representation in the Senate and a proportional representation in the House of Representatives. This “Great Compromise” was so important that Strong observed, “If no accommodation takes place, the Union itself must soon be dissolved” (in W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America, 275). But with the efforts of men like Strong, a deal was struck that has become one of the hallmarks of our Constitution. Finally, the Origination Clause, or Revenue Clause, successfully promoted by Strong was an important feature that deepened the checks and balances built into our republican system.

Unfortunately for Strong, his signature is nowhere to be found on the Constitution because he was called home early due to sickness in his family. However, his participation in the historic Constitutional Convention should never be forgotten. And if his contribution in the cloistered Convention was not enough, then his outspoken support of the Constitution in the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention surely marks him as a fervent devotee of the document.

Constitution4

Under the new form of government, the states each elected two senators. Caleb Strong, respectfully called the “first citizen” by his associates, was one of the first two senators elected in Massachusetts in 1789. He was an enthusiastic supporter of President George Washington and counted himself a lifelong Federalist.

Later, in 1800, Caleb Strong was elected as governor of his state. In all, he served eleven terms as governor, demonstrating his popularity among the People. During his tenure as governor, Strong delivered many speeches and memoranda to the public and to the state legislature. I wish to quote a few lines from a powerful speech that epitomizes the wisdom of this man. This excerpt is taken from pages 136-138 of the book Patriotism and Piety, which is a collection of Strong’s speeches from 1800-1807.

On January 17, 1806, Governor Strong spoke to the state legislature and shared some sage thoughts on government, laws, the public, how tyrants come to power, and what it takes to maintain Freedom. He foreshadowed the lying promises of modern communists – their pipedream of “hope and change” – and the attempts of traitors to hoodwink the public in order to centralize political power in their own hands. He explained that the American People must be left in peace and not hampered by a multitude of laws and bureaucratic red tape. He spoke of the folly of giving up the tried-and-true institutions and policies of our ancestors in favor of so-called “new,” or what we would call “progressive,” programs. And he spoke of the absolute necessity for virtue in a free state. I would to God that every American could internalize these principles!

Thus, to the Massachusetts state legislature, Governor Caleb Strong declared:

“The unnecessary interference of government with the private concerns of the people, will always be a source of mischiefs; their understanding is competent to the direction of their own affairs, and, when left to itself, will generally lead to measures the most beneficial, both to themselves and the publick.

“Frequent alterations of the law are likewise attended with inconvenience, as they sometimes produce effects which were not foreseen, and occasion greater evils than they were designed to remedy. They tend to weaken the government by diminishing the confidence of the people in the stability of its councils: for uniform measures alone can preserve its reputation, or procure durable advantages to the State. It is of importance to, that the laws should be understood by the citizens; but, if they are often changed, they will not be understood, nor indeed will their real tendency always be known . . . It would, therefore, be unwise to substitute new and opposite system, until experience has proved, that those which are already in use are manifestly inconvenient. . . .

“Almost every nation, at some period of their existence, have enjoyed the privileges of a free State; but how few have preserved them! – they have been lost by the inconstancy of the citizens, or forfeited by their vices. In many republicks, repeated variations in the modes of government have taken place, as different parties happen to predominate, until the people became weary of changes, and preferred the quiet of absolute power, to the tumults of perpetual revolution. In the minds of some men, there seems to be a restlessness which renders them dissatisfied with any uniform course of things, and makes them eager in the pursuit of novelty; they abound in projects, and are ever meditating some fanciful change in the plan of government, which their imaginations represent as useful. But men of great ambition are still more dangerous; they commonly make the fairest pretences to principle, though they are actuated only by self-interest. If the constitution or laws of their country present obstacles to the accomplishment of their wishes, they employ every artifice to alter or abolish them; and, if individuals oppose their attempts, they are equally artful and solicitous to destroy their influence, and render them odious to their fellow-citizens.

“Few men, even in a prosperous community, are fully satisfied with their condition; a great part are easily induced to believe, that there is something wrong in the government or laws, which might be rectified to their advantage; they therefore readily embrace any specious proposal to effect an alteration. The crafty and ambitious know how to avail themselves of this disposition to change, and encourage their followers to expect, that the amendments they propose will perfectly suit their case, and produce the very blessings they wish; in this way, they not only effect their immediate object, but acquire an influence which enables them afterwards to accomplish the most destructive innovations. Such persons encourage hopes, that can never be realized, and excite complaints, which the most wise and benevolent administration is unable to remove.

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

“Our forms of government, are, doubtless, like all other institutions, imperfect; but they will secure the blessings of freedom to the citizens, and preserve their tranquility, as long as they are virtuous; and no constitution, that has been, or can be formed, will secure those blessings to a depraved and vicious people.”

What wisdom and foresight! My heart beats proudly to know that I am related, however distantly, to such a man as Caleb Strong. He was a true patriot and the epitome of a Son of Liberty. If Americans today internalized the principles contained in this short excerpt, our nation would experience a revival and we could save our Republic.

I give my own political witness that Caleb Strong’s words are accurate. Indeed, they are timeless. Unless we want to barter away the rest of our Freedoms, as we have done now for over a century, we must cling to the right institutions of our ancestors, never trust or follow traitors who offer false promises when in reality they merely seek power, and reform our habits and morals and manners. If we do these things, we can save our Republic. Strong knew whereof he spoke – he lived through the American Revolution. He understood what it takes to found a mighty nation. And the same principles that founded America can save her.

Along with his fellow Founding Fathers, Caleb Strong helped craft a blueprint for national success – the U.S. Constitution. We must learn it, cling to it, and defend it. We must become a virtuous People. We must develop discernment so that we might see through the lies of communists in sheep’s clothing who offer us the world in exchange for our sovereignty, our rights, and our power. We must be vigilant even when life is tumultuous. Nothing good ever happens without sacrifice. We must be willing to stand up and be counted, and to sacrifice anything we need to, in Liberty’s cause.

caleb strong2

I proudly stand with Caleb Strong, this wonderful Founding Father. I pray that his name will no longer be forgotten, but that it will be remembered alongside the noble names of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Franklin, and Henry. I honor him and his legacy.

May we come to echo Caleb Strong’s wish “that we may unitedly pay our grateful and affectionate homage to the Author of all good, for His distinguishing kindness to our forefathers, and to us; in providing them a refuge from oppression, and protecting them when surrounded with innumerable dangers; in blessing them with civil liberty and the light and influence of the gospel, and disposing them to nurture their posterity in the love of learning, virtue and rational freedom” (Patriotism and Piety, 23). If we turn our hearts to the Lord and follow in the footsteps of our honorable forebears, men like Caleb Strong, our nation will once again become a refuge of law and Liberty, a haven of peace and stability, and a beacon of light to the darkened world.

Zack Strong,

January 8, 2019.

 

 

Homage to the Constitution

The Constitution of the United States of America is the greatest political document ever written. It is not only my firm belief, but a codified tenet of my faith, that the U.S. Constitution was literally inspired by Almighty God and that the Founding Fathers were inspired, honest, wise, and honorable men raised up by the Lord for the purpose of establishing the first free nation in modern times. This short article is written in homage of that sacred document – that wise political charter which has guaranteed our God-given rights for 229 years.

On September 17, 1787, the Constitutional Convention finished crafting the Constitution. As the convention separated, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what type of government that esteemed body had given to the federated States then in existence. Famously, the old sage is said to have replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” Under the Constitution, the States were unified under a common government – a limited government that protected individual rights and States’ rights. Or, as Article Four of the document says, the Constitution guaranteed “to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”

Constitution6

The British statesman William Gladstone famously remarked that the Constitution was “the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.” Truly, the U.S. Constitution is the greatest political document ever given to the world. The American Founding Fathers constituted the most incredible, eminent, and powerfully wise group of statesmen ever to exist together at one period in earth’s history.

Of Thomas Jefferson, my personal favorite Founding Father, President John F. Kennedy said the following, which demonstrates the wisdom of these men. At a 1962 dinner for Nobel Prize winners, President Kennedy mused:

“I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.”

Jefferson2

My heart feels full when I reflect on the wisdom and nobility, the virtue and majesty, the power and honor of the Founding Fathers. In my Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a passage of sacred revelation from our Lord and Master Jesus Christ informs us:

“Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.

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

It is my testimony that the Lord in fact did raise up the Founding Fathers, that they were in truth wise and honorable men, and that the work of their hands – the Constitution of the United States – is an inspired work. Furthermore, another modern revelation from the Lord declares:

“And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.

“Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

“And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil” (Doctrine and Covenants 98:5-7).

Constitution7

“One Nation Under God” by Jon McNaughton

Perhaps these verses help you understand how seriously regard the U.S. Constitution and the glorious principles it contains. To my mind, anything not in harmony with the Constitution’s principles is not only wrong or mistaken, but evil. I take very seriously the oath that our representatives in government swear. I believe they should be held accountable to the People for that oath. Severe punishment – not mere impeachment – is due for those who violate their oaths of office and trample the principles of our Heaven-inspired Constitution.

It is one thing, however, to love the Constitution; but how well do we know it? In an address titled “The Constitution – A Heavenly Banner,” President Ezra Taft Benson once asked an audience these pointed questions:

“It is now two hundred years since the Constitution was written. Have we been wise beneficiaries of the gift entrusted to us? Have we valued and protected the principles laid down by this great document? . . . .

“We must learn the principles of the Constitution and then abide by its precepts. Have we read the Constitution and pondered it? Are we aware of its principles? Could we defend it? Can we recognize when a law is constitutionally unsound?”

Have you read the Constitution lately? Do you understand its principles? Can you recognize when our presidents, representatives, judges, and others violate its principles? Are the candidates for political office in harmony with constitutional principles? If you do not know the Constitution, how can you claim to love and defend it? If you do not comprehend the purpose of the Constitution, the republican form of government it guarantees, and the God-given natural rights it protects, how can you claim to love our Republic and fight for our Freedom?

Constitution5

James Wilson, one of the greatest legal minds amongst our Founding Fathers, made this true statement:

“Were I called upon for my reasons why I deem so highly of the American character, I would assign them in a very few words—That character has been eminently distinguished by the love of liberty, and the love of law. . . .

“But law and liberty cannot rationally become the objects of our love, unless they first become the objects of our knowledge. The same course of study, properly directed, will lead us to the knowledge of both. Indeed, neither of them can be known, because neither of them can exist, without the other. Without liberty, law loses its nature and its name, and becomes oppression. Without law, liberty also loses its nature and its name, and becomes licentiousness. In denominating, therefore, that science, by which the knowledge of both is acquired, it is unnecessary to preserve, in terms, the distinction between them. That science may be named, as it has been named, the science of law.

“The science of law should, in some measure, and in some degree, be the study of every free citizen, and of every free man. Every free citizen and every free man has duties to perform and rights to claim. Unless, in some measure, and in some degree, he knows those duties and those rights, he can never act a just and an independent part.”

I defy any American to claim he is a true patriot and a true friend to Liberty if he does not understand the principles of the U.S. Constitution and defend them. You cannot love what you do not know or comprehend. You cannot protect that which is not planted firmly in your heart, soul, and mind.

Constitution4

I urge you to read the Constitution – or reread it if you have not lately – and internalize its principles. Learn to love it. Gain a witness of its truth. Express gratitude to the Almighty for establishing the Constitution and to your forefathers who spilled their blood to give you the Liberty – severely curtailed today as it may be – that you enjoy on a daily basis.

That same James Wilson quoted earlier gave a speech in on October 6, 1787, when the question of the newly proposed Constitution was being debated. He made this statement:

“After all, my fellow-citizens, it is neither extraordinary or unexpected that the constitution offered to your consideration should meet with opposition. It is the nature of man to pursue his own interest in preference to the public good, and I do not mean to make any personal reflection when I add that it is the interest of a very numerous, powerful and respectable body to counteract and destroy the excellent work produced by the late convention. All the officers of government and all the appointments for the administration of justice and the collection of the public revenue which are transferred from the individual to the aggregate sovereignty of the States, will necessarily turn the stream of influence and emolument into a new channel. Every person, therefore, who enjoys or expects to enjoy a place of profit under the present establishment, will object to the proposed innovation; not, in truth, because it is injurious to the liberties of his country, but because it affects his schemes of wealth and consequence. I will confess, indeed, that I am not a blind admirer of this plan of government, and that there are some parts of it which, if my wish had prevailed, would certainly have been altered. But when I reflect how widely men differ in their opinions, and that every man (and the observation applies likewise to every State) has an equal pretension to assert his own, I am satisfied that anything nearer to perfection could not have been accomplished. If there are errors, it should be remembered that the seeds of reformation are sown in the work itself and the concurrence of two-thirds of the Congress may at any time introduce alterations and amendments. Regarding it, then, in every point of view, with a candid and disinterested mind, I am bold to assert that it is the best form of government which has ever been offered to the world.”

While a group of self-serving men opposed the Constitution, noble minds – Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Wilson, and others – understood that it was the best document that could be given to People of the United States. No other system has surpassed it in wisdom. No other governmental system has offered so many people so many opportunities nor protected so many rights and reserved so much power to the individual. Truly, only a body of men inspired by the Spirit of God and Light of Christ could have produced the U.S. Constitution.

With James Wilson, “I am bold to assert” that the Constitution “is the best form of government which has ever been offered to the world.” I urge you to learn about and to teach the precepts of the Constitution to your family. Only by a revival of true constitutionalism – not libertine-style libertarianism or socialism or any other system of thinking – can we restore our Republic and preserve our rights.

If you do not know where to turn to understand the Constitution, look no further. I will give not several sources that will give you everything you need to comprehend the majesty of the Constitution and the wisdom of the men who wrote it.

Constitution8

I do not hesitate for an instant to say that the greatest book ever written on the meaning of the U.S. Constitution is The Making of America by the great W. Cleon Skousen. You can find this book, and supplementary material, at the National Center for Constitutional Studies website. You will find numerous materials published by the NCCS which will enlighten your mind, teach you the true character of some of the eminent Founding Fathers, and give you the tools to teach your family about constitutional government.

Furthermore, I recommend W. Cleon Skousen’s book The Majesty of God’s Law to discover the Biblical origins of the Constitution’s principles. William J. Federer and David Barton have also done tremendous work in showing, through primary sources, the religious foundation upon which the American political system was built. Such books include: The Ten Commandments and their Influence on American Law by Federer and Original Intent by Barton.

Whatever sources you choose to study, make sure they are rooted in the words and teachings of the Founding Fathers. It was they who, under the inspiration of God, crafted the Constitution and put its revolutionary principles into motion. It was they who earned Freedom for America and gave to world the most glorious example yet known of what a free nation looks like. I honor them and revere their name. I revere, cherish, and love the fruit of their hands; namely, The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

Let us be true patriots and true constitutionalists. Let us follow in the mode of Jefferson, Wilson, Adams, Washington, Madison, and others as we labor to reestablish constitutional government here in the United States of America which, even with her serious flaws, is still unquestionably the greatest nation on earth. The American People have the greatest potential of any People. But we cannot do it alone – we must have God’s help. We must, like our forefathers, turn to Christ for help. If we do so, we will be forgiven as a People, our land will be healed, and our constitutional government fully restored (Isaiah 1:4-20; 2 Chronicles 7:14). If we do not turn back to the Lord and obey the laws of His Gospel, John Adams’ statement will continue to come to pass year after year. Said he:

“Statesmen my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. . . . The only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People, in a greater Measure, than they have it now, They may change their Rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty.—They will only exchange Tyrants and Tyrannies” (John Adams to Zabdiel Adams, June 21, 1776).

Founding Fathers7

I pray that we will each turn our hearts to the Lord and the Constitution He inspired and caused to be established by the hands of truly good men, and to initiate a new American Revival in our own families so that, eventually, America might be restored. Always keep the Constitution and its sacred principles in mind. The Constitution with its rule of law, its guarantee of a republican form of government, its limited scope and powers, its preservation of the People’s power, and its emphasis on rights, is the key feature of what is sometimes referred to as the American Gospel of Liberty.

Let us be zealous disciples of the Gospel of Liberty now and forever. Let us remember the Constitution and defend it. Let us, like our forefathers, swear to never relinquish our rights, and to fight to regain those which have been lost through apathy and carelessness. As Patrick Henry trumpeted all those years ago:

“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”(Patrick Henry, speech, March 23, 1775).

Zack Strong,

September 17, 2018.