The Constitution Now and Forever!

Never has there been a time in our nation’s history when the values and principles our great Republic was founded upon have been more neglected, assaulted, and on verge of overthrow as today. Communists openly parade in our streets and call for the ousting of the president. Marxist terror organizations like Antifa and Black Lives Matter rampage in the cities, looting, destroying, and burning everything to ash. Worse still, our culture had been perverted and de-Christianized beyond recognition. The very idea of America as a shining city on a hill – a refuge for those seeking to protect and enjoy their Faith, Families, and Freedom – is under withering attack. And the compact that holds together the American People as a united force, the U.S. Constitution, is dangling by a single thread.

I have not been shy about stating my unshakable belief that the Constitution of the United States was and is inspired by Almighty God. Nothing matching its brilliance has ever been devised by the minds of men because the Constitution did not originate in mortal minds, but in the mind of the Creator. The American Founding Fathers acknowledged their reliance upon, and faith in, the Lord in The Declaration of Independence. They staked everything on the idea that rights come from God, that Freedom is our birthright, and that the purpose of civil society was to defend and secure individual rights while punishing those who would violate them.

After nominally securing their Independence from tyrannical Great Britain after the Revolution, the American states existed in a loose confederacy. Their governing charter, the Articles of Confederation, was weak and inefficient. It was not strong or wise enough to keep thirteen free and independent states united together under one umbrella of principles and purpose. Just a few short years into Independence, the confederacy was about to collapse into economic ruin, anarchy, and civil war.

Take the time to read the correspondence between America’s early leaders in the period between 1783 and 1787 and you discover that they felt their country tottered on the precipice of cataclysm. The currency was worthless. Congress was powerless to enforce its laws or to extract funds to operate. States began taxing one another and their peoples were on the verge of civil war. Mobs gathered and rioted. And Europe sat licking its lips, waiting to pounce and gobble up the divided fragments of America. The confederated states needed a miracle to survive.

Heaven knew the situation and sent a miracle. The People’s representatives, led by George Washington, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, George Wythe, Roger Sherman, Alexander Hamilton, my own relative Caleb Strong, and other illustrious statesmen, met in Philadelphia to revise the defunct Articles of Confederation. At one point during their deliberations, Benjamin Franklin delivered a stiring plea. He remarked:

“[H]ow has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection.–Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance?

“I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth–that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that “except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human Wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

“I therefore beg leave to move–that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.”

Due to a lack of funds, a chaplain’s services were never employed. But the spirit of these humble sentiments rested upon the Convention the remainder of the summer as the Constitution gradually fell into place.

The Constitution was signed on September 17, 1787. On that day, George Washington penned a letter to the president of Congress, in which he observed:

“In all our deliberations on this subject we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence. This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on our minds, led each State in the Convention to be less rigid on points of inferior magnitude, than might have been otherwise expected; and thus the Constitution, which we now present, is the result of a spirit of amity, and of that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensible.”

The creation of a strong and free Union was one of the crowning achievements of the Constitution. Before the Constitution, the people of America were Virginians, New Yorkers, South Carolinians, and so forth. After the Constitution, they became Americans first and above all else. The authority of the Constitution is in fact embodied in the Presmble’s phrase: “We the People.”

The Preamble beautifully spelled out the purpose of the Constitution; indeed, the purpose of the American People:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

James Madison called the Constitution the “cement of the Union” (James Madison, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1809). More than any other thing, this ingenious charter of Freedom pulled Americans of all persuasions together and set them on the course to greatness.

As one united People, and under the guidance of the Constitution, Americans did just what they set out to do – they estsblished a Republic that became the freest, most powerful, most prosperous state in the world. Peace prevailed, law and order were upheld, happiness was general, goodness was common, and the blessings of Liberty were enjoyed more widely and by a larger group of people than ever before in recorded history. And it was all due to the People’s native virtue and their careful obedience to the enlightened precepts of the Constitution.

Every American owes a debt to the Constitution and to the men who sacrificed to institute and maintain it. The core idea of America – the revolutionary idea that men can and should govern themselves and that they have rights and a stewardship for which they are accountable to God alone – still exists today, albeit in a bloodied and battered state, because of the Constitution. The Constitution had been attacked on every side since its inception, yet, because of its genius and its sacred origin, it still stands. Millions of Americans would still fight and die to maintain our beloved Constitution.

In his Farewell Address of 1796, President George Washington warned of the very problems facing us in 2020. He warned of factional strife, changes to sound principles, the danger of foreign influence, the scourge of foreign war, and the machinations of a minority combined against the Liberty enshrined in the Constitution. He stated:

“To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable . . . 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.

“All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

“However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

“Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts.”

The old General may as well have been speaking of the Progressive Congressional Caucus whose members infest Congress, governors who defy the Constitution and oppress their peoples, Black Lives Matter, the ADL, and SPLC, which sow racial division and hate, Antifa and the Communist Party which stir up violence and rebellion, the “defund the police” movement which is paving the way for increased thuggery, the destruction of lives and property, and full-scale insurrection, and any number of acts of presidents, the courts, and legislatures which have divided our People, weakened the rule of law, and made us less free. The remedy prescribed by the Father of our Country is obedience to the Constitution, adherence to its pristine principles, and resistance to the “organized factions” trying to “subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government.”

America’s #1 enemy, apart from her own unrighteousness, apathy, and ignorance, is the communist conspiracy. Most were fooled into complacency when the Soviets faked their “collapse,” believing that the communists’ threat to our society had ended. In truth, the cabal has worked at breakneck speed the past thirty years to bring America to a tipping point. The current crisis engulfing our nation is their doing. Those of us who warned of this conspiracy are gratified to see people waking up in droves, but lament that it took a national crisis, the loss of so much Liberty, and the shattering of peace to shake them from their slumber.

By returning to the original principles of the Constitution, enforcing them in every state and community for the protection of our inalienable rights, harshly punishing oath-breakers and criminals, and forcefully crushing the illegal and treasonous communist movement and all of its front groups – Black Lives Matter, Antifa, Open Society Foundations, ActBlue, Code Pink, Socialist Party USA, etc. – we can save our special nation from a horrific crisis. The enemy is so entrenched that it will almost certainly require blood to restore our Republic. Blood is always the price of Freedom. By acting swiftly now, however, we can mitigate the quantity of blood and ensure that it is communist, not patriot blood, that refreshes the tree of Liberty.

The American People, united behind the correct set of principles, rallied by the memory of their God, families, and country, and roused by their burning love of Freedom, are unstoppable! We may slip and lose ground temporarily in the coming clash, but don’t lose hope and don’t be afraid; our side will triumph. Freedom will prevail. Americanism will defeat communism. And the Constitution will stand supreme once again.

Long ago, our beloved George Washington affirmed: “The Constitution is the guide which I never can abandon” (George Washington to Boston Selectmen, July 28, 1795). Let that be our pledge as American Sons of Liberty. Let’s follow our General’s lead once more as we surge into battle against our ravenous enemies. Let our bright banner read: “The Constitution Now and Forever!”

Zack Strong,

September 17, 2020

The Sad Death of the Electoral College

On July 6, 2020, the Electoral College suffered a potentially lethal blow. It is not dead yet, but it’s on its knees, gasping for air. In a damning opinion, the Supreme Court went rogue, yet again, taking a swipe at our Constitution by telling states they can force their electors, under threat of punishment, to side with their people’s popular vote. As will be clear by the end of this article, this move neuters and nullifies the Electoral College and is a blatant usurpation of authority by the Supreme Court.

332cc35a4dd03626920eeb504fcad25c96b6ad85c77bd55c8425cbb11f9aebdc

On Monday, the Court gave their opinion that states have the authority to punish what is referred to as “faithless electors.” That is, according to the Court, states may punish and fine electors who cast their vote for someone other than the winner of the popular vote in their state. CNN gave a surprisingly accurate rendition of what the Supreme Court’s opinion did. They explained:

In an effort to avoid [election chaos], the Supreme Court set out to determine whether presidential electors — a slate of individuals in each state, whose number is determined by Congressional representation, designated to cast their state’s electoral votes for president and vice president — are free agents or not. On Monday, justices unanimously decided in Chiafalo v. Washington that states have the power to bind electors — meaning we could see the end of so-called “faithless electors,” or electors who choose to vote for someone other than their party’s nominees.”

That’s where CNN’s objectivity ended, however. The article went on to advocate even more restrictive measures to formally bind electors to the popular vote and thus scrap the constitutionally-appointed method of electing the president:

With this decision, states should move quickly to adopt the Uniform Faithful Presidential Electors Act to categorically end the prospect of faithless electors.

I have long argued that we should eliminate elector discretion. . . .

In delivering the opinion Monday, Justice Elena Kagan indicated that the Constitution is “bare bones about electors.” While true, when the architects of various amendments dealing with the Electoral College had a chance, they never chose to eliminate the discretion of electors. . . .

. . . We can expect that states may put additional conditions on the appointment of electors to try to exert greater control. For instance, a state could require an elector to only vote for a candidate who has visited their state in the past 60 days or only for a candidate who has released their tax returns.”

It is actually not true that the Constitution gives states authority to bind electors, as Justice Kagan claims (we’ll get to that a little later). This was unthinkable to the Founders who created the system precisely to give electors the maximum discretion and free agency. As a line just quoted states, the “architects” of the Constitution “never chose to eliminate discretion of electors” – a fact which invalidates Justice Kagan’s and the Supreme Court’s entire argument.

At first glance, it may appear that the Supreme Court’s opinion is a win for “states’ rights” and the American People. After all, didn’t they decide that states could control their electors and punish “rogue” ones? Isn’t this a clear win for the Tenth Amendment? No, it’s not. It’s a win for whoever is able to swing the majority of the population. It’s a win for those who favor pure democracy – a system our Founding Fathers despised and which our Constitution explicitly rejects by guaranteeing to the states a “Republican Form of Government” (Article 4, Section 4) and only trusting the People with the direct election of members of the House of Representatives.

What exactly does the Constitution say about the Electoral College? The most relevant portion regarding the Electoral College, Article 2, Section1, Clause 2, mandates:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.”

Justice Kagan and her comrades on the Court interpreted “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof my direct” as carte blanche state control over electors – including over the candidate electors vote for. Said differently, they interpret this wording as implying state control over electors’ votes. As we see, the “implied powers” strike again.

Activists Protest Supreme Court Decision On Corporate Political Spending

The notion of “implied powers” has haunted this nation for generations. Power-hungry bureaucrats love to read between the lines and imply authority that is not explicitly contained in the Constitution. In our present case, for example, the Constitution does not say that states have carte blanche over electors’ votes. Nowhere does it say that they may force electors to vote for a specific candidate, punish them if they vote their conscience, or otherwise limit their free will in the matter. It simply says that state legislatures may determine how electors are appointed.

A federal government website gives readers a basic understanding of the Electoral College that the members of the Supreme Court seem to not have. It explains the process and obligations simply:

Each state gets as many electors as it has members of Congress (House and Senate). Including Washington, D.C.’s three electors, there are currently 538 electors in all. . . .

Each state’s political parties choose their own slate of potential electors. Who is chosen to be an elector, how, and when varies by state.

After you cast your ballot for president, your vote goes to a statewide tally. In 48 states and Washington, D.C., the winner gets all the electoral votes for that state. Maine and Nebraska assign their electors using a proportional system.

A candidate needs the vote of at least 270 electors—more than half of all electors—to win the presidential election.

In most cases, a projected winner is announced on election night in November after you vote. But the actual Electoral College vote takes place in mid-December when the electors meet in their states.

The Constitution doesn’t require electors to follow their state’s popular vote, but it’s rare for one not to.”

Finally, a graphic accompanying the text reads: “When people cast their vote, they are actually voting for a group of people called electors.”

president-poster_2

This information is simple and straightforward. We learn that the People do not vote for the president directly, but for the electors who select the president. And there’s no confusion about whether the Constitution requires these electors to choose their winner of their state’s popular vote. Yet, the Supreme Court apparently thinks states have authority to penalize electors for voting their conscience even though there is no constitutional requirement for them to do so!

Some claim that the Founding Fathers themselves were divided on the issue and therefore varying interpretations of how the system should work are valid. I fail to see how anyone conversant with the literature of the times can draw this conclusion. Far from being divided on the issue of an Electoral College, the Founders were united in approving the system. During the Constitutional Convention, they debated numerous other modes of electing the president. They discarded them all and finally agreed upon the Electoral College as the best possible way of electing the highest officer in the land. In Federalist No. 68, Alexander Hamilton noted:

The mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system, of any consequence, which has escaped without severe censure, or which has received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents. The most plausible of these, who has appeared in print, has even deigned to admit that the election of the President is pretty well guarded. I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm, that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent. It unites in an eminent degree all the advantages, the union of which was to be wished for.”

Contrary to what political commentators today say, the Founders heartily approved the Electoral College – and none more so than Alexander Hamilton. He went out of his way to say that the Electoral College is “the only part” of the novel governmental plan that had “escaped without severe censure” by critics. Pay careful attention to some of Hamilton’s reasons for supporting the Electoral College so vociferously:

It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.”

the-federalist-papers

Interesting, is it not, that the Founding Fathers sought to prevent chaos by empowering the Electoral College, whereas the Supreme Court Monday decided to prevent chaos by neutering the Electoral College. Who was right – the Founding Fathers or today’s Supreme Court? Who understood the system better, Alexander Hamilton who helped create it or Elena Kagan who has helped dismantle it through her activism? Anyone with a shred of honesty and common sense knows the answer to those two questions.

According to Hamilton, the Electoral College system would prevent secret “combinations” of corruption, negate the influence of foreign powers in our national elections, and thwart attempts to steal elections through bribery or conspiracy. As much as the Democrats falsely allege that Russia interfered in the 2016 election on behalf of Donald Trump, you’d think that they would be the biggest supporters of the Electoral College. Instead, they’re the greatest enemies of the system, for reasons we will discuss later.

Founding Father John Jay, who was also present at the Constitutional Convention, gave his support to the Electoral College and explained how it could prevent the People from being duped by charlatans promising “hope and change.” He said:

The convention . . . have directed the President to be chosen by select bodies of electors, to be deputed by the people for that express purpose; and they have committed the appointment of senators to the State legislatures. This mode has, in such cases, vastly the advantage of elections by the people in their collective capacity, where the activity of party zeal, taking the advantage of the supineness, the ignorance, and the hopes and fears of the unwary and interested, often places men in office by the votes of a small proportion of the electors.

As the select assemblies for choosing the President, as well as the State legislatures who appoint the senators, will in general be composed of the most enlightened and respectable citizens, there is reason to presume that their attention and their votes will be directed to those men only who have become the most distinguished by their abilities and virtue, and in whom the people perceive just grounds for confidence. The Constitution manifests very particular attention to this object. By excluding men under thirty-five from the first office [i.e. the presidency], and those under thirty from the second [i.e. the Senate], it confines the electors to men of whom the people have had time to form a judgment, and with respect to whom they will not be liable to be deceived by those brilliant appearances of genius and patriotism, which, like transient meteors, sometimes mislead as well as dazzle. If the observation be well founded, that wise kings will always be served by able ministers, it is fair to argue, that as an assembly of select electors possess, in a greater degree than kings, the means of extensive and accurate information relative to men and characters, so will their appointments bear at least equal marks of discretion and discernment. The inference which naturally results from these considerations is this, that the President and senators so chosen will always be of the number of those who best understand our national interests, whether considered in relation to the several States or to foreign nations, who are best able to promote those interests, and whose reputation for integrity inspires and merits confidence.”

Jay believed that electors would epitomize the wisdom of the People – that they would be the cream of the crop. They would convene once every four years, pool their wisdom, and, with the trust of the People, select the president. Generally, of course, the electors would choose the person the People wanted. But more importantly, they were left free as to their “discretion and discernment” to select the person who would “best understand our national interests.”

electing-president-by-people-swscan06869

During the Constitutional Convention, George Mason similarly argued against a popular vote to elect the president in these colorful terms:

[I]t would be as unnatural to refer the choice of a proper character for chief Magistrate to the people, as it would, to refer the trial of colours to a blind man. The extent of the Country renders it impossible that the people can have the requisite capacity to judge of the representative pretentions of the Candidates” (Electing the President, Committee of the Judiciary, Ninety-First Congress, 456).

Like Mason, Elbridge Gerry argued that the People should not be given the opportunity to directly select the president because of their chance of being deceived. During the Founders’ debates, he said:

A popular election in this case is radically vicious. The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the Union, and acting in concert, to delude them into any appointment” (W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution, 524).

Electors were to be brought in for one purpose – to ratify the People’s selection if they had shown good judgment and to rebuff them by selecting an alternative candidate if they had shown poor judgment. If the People had allowed themselves to be deceived, the electors, who would usually be people routinely involved in politics and presumably more knowledgeable than the average person, would override the popular vote.

James Madison liked this system in part because “as the electors would be chosen for the occasion, would meet at once, & proceed immediately to an appointment, there would be very little opportunity for cabal, or corruption” (Gaillard Hunt, ed., The Writings of James Madison, Vol. 4, 62). It’s easy to hoodwink large groups with emotional speeches and promises, especially in our day of mass media manipulation, but it’s theoretically more difficult to fool a small group of dedicated individuals whose sole purpose is to put the best person into the White House. Hence the creation of the Electoral College.

Some have made the argument that the Electoral College perhaps served a valuable function in a time when people did not have widespread access to information or education, but that today when nearly all people receive formal schooling and have access to a vast array of information, the system is archaic and unfair. This is easily refuted when we realize how poorly educated the average person is today compared to his ancestors in early America!

In early America, the average person might not have had much formal schooling, but he thoroughly understood the Constitution, actively participated in self-government, belonged to a militia, was involved in his community, participated on juries, knew his representatives in person, and so forth. Today, the average American probably doesn’t even know who the vice-president is, let alone who his local community representatives are. Then, Americans learned multiple languages in grade school and had a rigorous curriculum that baffles most people in our generation. Today, we stumble through remedial English and have horrendous school curricula that focus on feelings rather than facts. Simply, we are intellectually inferior in nearly every way to our ancestors – especially in the divine science of government.

election-president-compromise-swscan06869

Apart from preventing a conspiratorial takeover of our nation and guarding against mass ignorance, the Founding Fathers had other benefits in mind when they crafted the Electoral College system. In an excellent article written in the aftermath of the 2016 election, the reader is given a long list of benefits accrued from the Electoral College, including the following:

The system forces candidates to address people across the country. If polling were nationwide a candidate could theoretically sweep regions with large populations and win the nation-wide vote. This would basically leave rural America at risk of being ignored.

The marginal balance shifts to smaller states. In a national wide system a candidate could win heavily in a few heavily populated states and in the process ignore voters in less populated states. . . .

The College Provides A Safety Valve. There are 21 states at the moment where Electors can break from the popular will. Almost never do Electors vote as anything other than a proxy for the results of the electorate. But maybe, there will be a day when we will thank ourselves that possibility of Electors overriding the electorate exists.”

The article then opined about the third benefit on our list – the fact that the Electoral College serves as a safety valve to save the Republic if the People become deceived by a charlatan:

Make no mistake here the possibility of national elections being hijacked is just as real if not more in the 21st century as it was in the 18th century. We live in an age where sound bytes matter far more than serious reflection. We live in an age where masses of people can be swayed by an increasingly powerful media able to propagate ideas and spin them virally in a few clicks.

The crowd has a life of its own and the crowd is far more connected to each other than ever before. One day the crowd will turn into a stampede. When this happens, it will be really comforting to know there exists the possibility for one last bastion of sanity, a few souls, a few Electors in a few states who are brave enough and courageous enough to put forward their conscience and change the balance before it is too late.”

076b96_6515b4da829f4496a7a4ee8912ca37a9_mv2

The Founding Fathers were legitimately worried that the American People could be deceived and a smooth-talking tyrant could come to power. The Electoral College was the ultimate check on the passions of the crowd. If it functioned as designed, the Electoral College would nullify the public’s vote if the public selected a wolf in sheep’s clothing to lead them. In other words, the Electoral College would figuratively slap the poisoned chalice out of the king’s hand before he could drink it.

A couple examples might be helpful. If the Electoral College had functioned as designed, the nation would have been spared the dreadful presidencies of socialists FDR and Woodrow Wilson. Instead of allowing FDR to take the reins and foist his horrid New Deal socialism on the nation, the Electoral College could have selected someone with fiscally sound policies who could have pulled our nation out of the Great Depression. Instead, the Electoral College overwhelmingly supported FDR, leading to four terms of de facto communism, the New Deal, Japanese Internment Camps, the theft of the nation’s gold, America’s unnecessary entrance into World War II, and the rescue of the Soviet Union from the jaws of defeat.

Similarly, if the Electoral College had done their job, they would have prevented Woodrow Wilson from ascending to the presidency. This would have saved America from entering World War I and, perhaps even more importantly, would have derailed, or at least delayed, the Federal Reserve scheme. Without Wilson in the Oval Office, a different president may have vetoed the egregious Federal Reserve Act, saving our People from bondage to a largely foreign-controlled private banking cartel, preventing the decline of the U.S. economy, and staving off the Great Depression that later brought FDR to power.

Unfortunately, the Electoral College has not worked exactly as designed. Yet, it has remained largely intact and has facilitated the peaceful transfer of power from one group to the next for over two centuries. It’s very existence, however, is now being challenged. A coordinated effort – not unlike those it was designed to thwart – is underway to eliminate the Electoral College completely.

In a New York Times op-ed on Monday’s opinion, Jesse Wegman said that “the Supreme Court clearly got it right,” but complained: “The justices did not address the much bigger problem, which is the existence of the Electoral College itself.” Wegman called the electoral system “bizarre” and “anti-democratic.” He alleged that the people in the “battleground” states have their voices heard while people elsewhere do not. He advocated, without using this term, for the total abolition of the Electoral College.

Wegman was absolutely correct – the Electoral College is “anti-democratic” by design. Whether you like it or not, it is part of our republican Constitution. In his Farewell Address, George Washington said:

Respect for [government’s] 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.”

America271

Until the Constitution is formally changed by the People, via the amendment process, it is “sacredly obligatory” upon us. This means that until we amend the Constitution to change or get rid of the Electoral College, it is our system and we must sustain it. Yet, in what can only be considered a usurpation of authority, the Supreme court took it upon themselves to grant states power to punish electors who do the job appointed to them by the Constitution! By issuing their bogus opinion and putting the matter in to the states’ hands instead of upholding the Constitution’s plain commitment to elector free agency, the Supreme Court opened the door to rendering the Electoral college totally irrelevant.

What the Court’s opinion really does is make the Electoral College a rubber stamp for the popular vote. In other words, it converts the Electoral College into a rubber stamp for pure democracy – that very thing our Founding Fathers feared. This allows the Elite social engineers who manipulate public opinion through the mass media to almost ensure that their preferred candidates come to power each election. If this system had been in place in 2016, Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote, would very likely have become president because it’s doubtful that electors would have risked official punishment to vote their conscience.

The agenda behind this is obvious. By dismantling the Constitution’s elaborate system of checks and balances and placing things directly in the hands of the People, whom they manipulate through indoctrination, the Establishment is setting itself up to bypass the hated Constitution and claim total power. The system our Founding Fathers set in place allowed Donald Trump to become president, against the wishes of the Establishment. They never want that to happen again, so they must once and for all destroy the Electoral College and put the ball in the People’s court – a move which historically leads to civil war and the rise of totalitarian regimes.

In his article “Destruction of the Electoral College Remains a Leftist Goal,” Charles Phipps explained a little about the fiendish agenda to sideswipe the Electoral College:

It is either ignorance of or contempt for the Constitution that fuels the anti-Electoral College movement. Whether it is ignorance or contempt depends on which leftist we’re talking about. I’ve never met a Democrat yet who didn’t believe the Electoral College should be eliminated. Not surprising since two of the last five presidential elections had the Republican losing the popular vote but winning the Electoral College, making Democrats absolutely apoplectic. If the roles were reversed and it was the Democrat who won the Electoral College, you can be sure that they would be staunch defenders of it. But, they hate it. . . .

The contempt that leftists have for the Electoral College is elevated by their losses when winning the popular vote, but the core of their disdain lies in their love of a huge, powerful, central government. That states have rights is irrelevant to them. The Electoral College was designed to rest the power to elect the president in the States, not the people. Under federalism, states have a sovereign role in our political system and it is that role that leftists seek to eliminate.”

A 2016 article featured on the Tenth Amendment Center’s website also warned of the impending danger to the Electoral College:

A campaign to eliminate the Electoral College and “let the people elect the president,” is gaining steam. A group called “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact,” started in 2006, has won commitments from eleven states to award their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. . . .

As usual, it’s easy to get people to join this cause – yet another sound bite based on emotion rather than knowledge or logic. “Let the people decide.” “It’s the American way.” “It’s Democracy at work.” Yep, that’s why America was never set up as a democracy. Here’s another sound bite for you – “Democracy is a lynch mob.” Here’s another one – “Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.” Majority rule violates the rights of minorities. It’s not a good thing. Get the picture?

Our Founding Fathers went to a lot of trouble to give us a government that was fair, representing all the people in every state – to protect a minority of one against the will of a mob which isn’t too concerned about the rights of someone standing in their way. Hence the Electoral College.

The abolishment of the Electoral College would, in fact, establish an election tyranny giving control of the government to the massive population centers of the nation’s Northeastern sector, along with the area around Los Angeles. If these sections of the nation were to control the election of our nation’s leaders, the voice of the ranchers and farmers of the Mid and Far West would be lost, along with the values and virtues of the South. It would also mean the end of the Tenth Amendment and state sovereignty.”

2016-12-00-Electoral-College-1

Did you know that doing away with the Electoral College would not only cancel out part of the Constitution, as explained earlier, but would silence the voices of the majority of Americans in the majority of states? This is not fear-mongering – it’s reality. Let’s give a stark example of how the Electoral College actually preserves the voice of the People and makes elections more fair.

In the 2016 election between rabid socialist Hillary Clinton and blundering Donald Trump, Clinton won the national popular vote by 2.8 million votes, but Trump became president because the Electoral College favored him 304 to 227. To someone with a kindergartner’s IQ in constitutionalism, this may seem like a grave injustice. How can the candidate with 48.18% of the national vote lose to the contender with 46.09% of the vote, they moan? To put these raw numbers into perspective, consider a few other facts.

There are 3,141 counties in the United States. Though Hillary Clinton did in fact win the popular vote, Donald Trump won 2,654 counties! In case you thought that was a typo, let’s clarify: Donald Trump won 2,654 of 3,141 counties – 84.5% of all counties in the nation. Hillary Clinton won a measly 487. That’s no small margin of victory for the man who allegedly “stole” the election!

One study showed that far from barely winning in these 2,654 counties, Donald Trump often won by a large percentage. In addition to winning 85% of counties, Donald Trump won 30 states whereas Hillary Clinton only won 20. The voice of the overwhelming majority of American communities, therefore, wanted Donald Trump as their president. Yet the Democrats complain about how “unfair” the Electoral College system is!

In truth, a system that elected the president based on the popular vote alone would be unmistakably unfair because it would allow a clear minority – only 15% of counties and only 20 of 50 states – to select the president while disenfranchising the overwhelming majority of communities in America. Yet, the Democrats want the 85% to bow to them. Because they control several large population centers – Los Angeles, New York City, Chicago, and a few others – they can almost force the rest of us in non-Democrat occupied America under their yoke. They will accomplish their ghastly goal if we allow the Electoral College to be destroyed. A national popular vote would drown out the voices of those of us in the smaller states – the states where some sanity still resides.

If you look at a red and blue county map of the 2016 presidential election, you find most of the red concentrated in five basic areas – southern California and a strip along the Californian coast, New Mexico, southern Texas, Seattle, and New York. Of course there are a handful of others, but these are the largest concentrations. Do we want these few areas speaking for the rest of the nation and determining our leaders for the foreseeable future? Do those of us in heartland America want to be controlled by a few elitist cities on the coasts? This is exactly what will have if we allow the Electoral College to be terminated.

2016counties-blue-for-trump-600

World Net Daily has reported:

The Electoral College was set up to assure that a handful of population centers across the country cannot in perpetuity control the presidency. That’s well illustrated by the 2016 results, where Trump won vast swaths of America, but still came up short in the popular vote because of the results, essentially, in one state, California. . . .

The 2016 results really reveal that America has become two different nations: far left metropolitan and urban areas and much more conservative regions of small cities, towns and rural areas.”

Two Americas indeed! We are a nation divided between two ideologies – Americanism and communism. The Electoral College helps preserve Americanism whereas the popular vote will inevitably drag us toward communism.

The title of an article in The Hill tells us the whole story: “The 10 counties that will decide the 2020 election.” Though the piece perpetuates the lie that the last presidential election was decided by a slim 77,000 votes, and though it’s clearly wrong in which ten counties it thinks will determine the outcome of the election, it nevertheless shows the imbalance that would exist if we nullified the Electoral College and allowed the popular vote to determine national elections. We cannot allow it to happen.

In his sound article “No, Don’t Abolish the Electoral College,” Zachary Yost explained how doing away with the system would actually disenfranchise large swaths of the public rather than empowering them as anti-Electoral College elements claim:

While our states aren’t as natural as the family, they serve a similar purpose in defending their citizens from abuse and protecting their interests. This was the logic behind the establishment of our decentralized federalist system of government, where seats of power are balanced against each other in an attempt to limit potential abuses of power.

If states are important (as a “mediating institution” of sorts) for protecting their citizens from abuse by the central government, then the Electoral College is vital to ensure that every state maintains some relevance and the ability to influence the federal government. When necessary, the Electoral College might even serve as a useful tool the states could use to rein in the federal government by directly appointing electors to ensure the president is answerable to them and doesn’t ignore their interests. If presidential candidates were forced to kowtow to state governments, rather than trying to bribe the shortsighted masses, we’d see a very different incentive structure driving the national debate in which decentralization would be sure to follow.

It’s understandable why some people think eliminating institutions like the Electoral College will result in more freedom and direct control for the average person. But further centralizing our political system by eliminating federalist institutions like the Electoral College will inevitably lead to a more powerful federal government and leave individuals with fewer options if that power is abused.”

f31e1023c6315bc4348edb59b99019f1b72ace0c292fcbfa84c9ee21d0d597d8

Another writer painted a bleak scenario of what it would be like to live in middle America without the Electoral College:

Without either [the Senate or the Electoral College], or with a Senate converted into a proportional representation body, as some have suggested, rural states are effectively political serfs for the larger urban centers.

The Electoral College and the Senate allow rural states to have a voice in how the country is run, rather than being totally ruled over by people in urban centers who don’t own guns, can’t grow food, and have never met their neighbors.

It’s not a coincidence that Electoral College abolition is a particular ax ground by the left. The abolition of the Electoral College would allow for sweeping changes in American public policy championed by those currently on the leftward edge of the political spectrum. Do you want to live in a country where, for example, the voters of smaller states like Nevada, New Hampshire and Montana are drowned out by a handful of cities on the coasts? What of medium-sized states with a number of post-industrial cities with their own concerns, just as valid as those of rural America, but entirely separate from the centers of financial, cultural and academic power?”

In a similar, though more foreboding vein, a third writer presented this thought:

[A]bsent the electoral college system, presidential elections would be almost entirely determined by a handful of cities including New York City, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco. And while the left would prefer to ignore the opinions of those in the “fly-over” states, we would suggest that their representation in the electoral college is a vital underpinning of American democracy . . . without such representation we’re not sure why the fly-over states would choose to remain a part of a union where they had no say.”

Despite warnings from well-informed patriots like these, a withering barrage has been initiated against the Constitution – a barrage which was aided by the Supreme Court’s democracy-promoting false opinion this past Monday. When you realize who has been advocating for the destruction of the Electoral College, the issue comes into brighter focus. For generations, radical socialists of all stripes have advocated to abolish this ingenious instrument – an instrument, as we’ve seen, that the Founders put in place to prevent the type of corruption and conspiracy that characterizes socialism. We now showcase a few of the notable figures who are actively fighting to kill the Electoral College.

Elizabeth Warren, the fake Indian lunatic, is on record calling for the abolition of the Electoral College. Before she was forced to bow out of the presidential race, she had vowed to be the last person elected by the Electoral College. By 2024, she claimed, it would be a relic of history. Among other comments, Chief Warren said:

I want to get rid of [the Electoral College]. So here’s my goal: my goal is to get elected and then to be the last American president elected by the Electoral College. I want the second term to be that I got elected by direct vote. I just think this is how a democracy should work. Call me old-fashioned, but I think the person who gets the most votes should win.”

If we were a democracy, she’s be right. But we’re not a democracy. For 233 years, the United States has rejected the democratic system and voted in the unique republican format described earlier. Of course, Warren, who doesn’t even know her own lineage, thinks she knows more than the Founding Fathers and the combined experience of the American People.

xee5r18drpj21

Taking a leaf from Warren’s “we’re a democracy” book, Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley opined on CNN that the Electoral College “diminishes the legitimacy of our president.” He suggested that we “embrace the notion that whoever wins an election with the most support or the most citizens, should be the person who takes the office. That’s the fundamental nature of democracy.” While it’s certainly true that in a democracy 51% of the people can dominate and utterly control the 49%, that’s never been the case in the United States. Our republican Constitution provides as system that allows the most number of people, in the greatest number of locations throughout the Union, to have their voices heard by selecting the upstanding men who select the president on their behalf.

Democrat Stacey Abrams, who claims she lost her election in Georgia due to “racism” rather than because of her own idiocy and unsound principles, has unsurprisingly screeched: “The Electoral College is racist and classist . . . Both of those things should be flung to the far reaches of history and the Electoral College needs to go.”

The failed, homosexual Democratic presidential candidate, Pete Buttigieg, has also advocated for the abolition of the Electoral College: “We can’t say it’s much of a democracy when twice in my lifetime the Electoral College has overruled the American people. Why should our vote in Indiana only count once or twice in a century? Or your vote in Wyoming or New York?” No, we can’t say it’s a democracy since it’s not. To say that we are a democracy is the height of ignorance.

I’m also unsure how Indiana’s vote supposedly only counted “once or twice” in a century, but I do know that smaller states would have dramatically less of a voice if the Electoral College was eliminated and larger states were allowed to dominate the voting process. Yet, Buttigieg says: “The electoral college needs to go because it’s made our society less and less democratic.” Either he’s totally ignorant or totally malicious. Either way, he’s a danger to the Republic.

Democrat Beto O’Rourke, who, similar to Warren’s Indian schizophrenia, can’t decide whether he’s white or Latino, said flatly: “Let’s abolish the Electoral college.” Why should we abolish this system that has worked for more than two centuries? Racism and democracy, of course:

This is one of those bad compromises we made at day one in this country. There are many others we can think of and they are all connected, including the value of some people based on the color of their skin. . . .

In this conversation about how we repair the damage, how we make things right, and how we keep from committing the same injustice going forward is squarely connected to the reason that we are all convened here today and that is fixing our democracy. So yes, if we get rid of the Electoral College, we get a little bit closer to one person, one vote in the United States of America.”

Echoing many of the same flawed arguments, Eric Holder, Obama’s scandal-ridden attorney general, complained:

We’ve got to do away with the Electoral College. We’ve got a system now that was—it’s a defect in our democracy. We have had in the last five elections two presidents who were not—win the popular vote.”

He has also Tweeted:

Time to make Electoral College a vestige of the past. It’s undemocratic, forces candidates to ignore majority of the voters and campaign in a small number of states. The presidency is our one national office and should be decided – directly – by the voters.”

Surely Holder and the others aren’t so intellectually stunted that they can’t see how getting rid of the Electoral College would do precisely what they claim to decry; namely, having a small number of states dominate all the others. Anyone who takes five minutes to honestly understand the Electoral College understands that it gives a larger number of people in a larger number of areas a voice whereas a popular vote would allow large states like California to totally control the election process – the small states be damned.

One Democrat who does appear to be intellectually stunted, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has absurdly claimed:

The Electoral College has a racial injustice breakdown. Due to severe racial disparities in certain states, the electoral college effectively weighs white voters over voters of color.”

ElectoralCollege_TwitterFB

Tom Perez, head of the Democratic National Committee is also either ignorant of the Constitution or a pathological liar. He has actually said: “The Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution.” Because he doesn’t believe that the Electoral College isn’t in the Constitution, even though it plainly sits right there in Article 2, Section 1, he doesn’t believe Donald Trump won the 2016 election, but that Hillary Clinton rightfully should be president. It goes without saying that Hillary Clinton also detests the Electoral College and has alternatively blamed it as well as Russia, Trump, sexism, and a long list of other things, for her pathetic defeat.

Other leftists including Michael Moore, Jay Inslee, Cory Booker and Steve Cohen also hate the Electoral College and have called for its abolition. The Democratic Party in general supports doing away with the system. An Associated Press article aptly titled “2020 Democrats’ new litmus test: Abolish Electoral College” noted:

It’s the latest push by White House hopefuls to embrace a procedural tactic to rally the Democratic base, following similar calls to scrap the filibuster and increase the size of the Supreme Court. The 2020 candidates are tapping into Democratic anger after Donald Trump became the second Republican in five presidential elections to win the presidency through the Electoral College while losing the popular vote. . . .

Several Democratic-controlled states are pushing for a national popular vote. But rather than pass a constitutional amendment, these legislatures are joining the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, a group of states that pledge to give their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.

The compact only goes into effect when it includes states representing 270 electoral votes, the majority needed to win the White House.”

Yes, Democrats are pushing hard to ditch the Electoral College. But let’s not forget about other radicals such as those in the Communist Party USA. What would a list of anti-Constitution agitators be without them? In an article from just two months ago, the Communist Party railed:

Take a look at how we “elect” the president of the United States. The people don’t elect the president. Rather, the Electoral College selects the president—using the total number of representatives and senators from each state and at times the perverted legal logic of the U.S. Supreme Court. Clinton received 3 million more votes than Trump in 2016, but Trump is “elected” under a system designed to give slaveholders more power when the Constitution was ratified in 1789.”

There’s no need to point out how closely the earlier Democrats echoed their Red brothers in the Communist Party USA. In a second piece from, the CPUSA stated more candidly why they want to tear down the Electoral College:

Here in the United States, our two-party electoral system is dominated by two corporate parties, the Democrats and Republicans, and the presidential results are often unfairly determined by the Electoral College. In other words, the candidate with the most votes is not necessarily the winner. No matter how flawed this system is, it is the system we must work within if we are to dismantle it, expand democracy, and lay the foundations for socialism.”

By derailing the Electoral College and promoting democracy (i.e. mobocracy), the communists know socialism can be easily established. Establishing democracy is essential to the communist plan to dupe societies and overthrow free nations. It was Karl Marx, after all, who wrote in The Communist Manifesto that “the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.” In other words, in order for communism to dominate, democracy must exist; and in the United States, democracy can only truly exist when the Electoral College is destroyed.

In the end, you have to make a choice which side you will stand on and with whom you will side. Will you support the system that has sustained our election process for over two centuries or will you throw it under the bus and allow America to become like other democratic nations with all their turbulence and factional strife? Will you side with the Founding Fathers who crafted the Constitution which gave birth to the United States or with the communists, socialists, and traitors in the Democratic Party who want to overthrow the Constitution? Will you stand with George Washington, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, James Wilson, Alexander Hamilton, and other Founders or with the inglorious cast of detractors that includes Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Eric Holder, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, and Beto O’Rourke?

America253

For me, the Constitutionin full and in total – is a clear line in the sand that must not be crossed. I will fight to defend that Heaven-sent document if need be. It is the glue that binds our People together as one. With the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution is our national standard. It must be upheld.

The Electoral College is part of the Constitution. It helps preserve our republican institutions. It gives middle America a voice. It maintains a balance of power so that the nation cannot be dominated by socialist California and New York. God help We the People to see the error of our ways and reject the seductive voices calling for more democracy! Lord help us, while we still can, to compel our state and national representatives to overturn the venomous Supreme Court opinion which essentially binds our electors to the popular vote and erases the fail-safe put in place by our wise Founding Fathers to prevent corruption and civil war! And may the Constitution stand now and forever!

Zack Strong,

July 11, 2020

What Government Can and Can’t Do

Government is not all-powerful. I know that’s a surprise to government bureaucrats and people in blue states (and too many in red ones). This article will cut through the fog of lies and lay out, in a very concise format, what government legitimately can and can’t do – which powers it actually has and doesn’t have.

America269

We need to start by asking and answering some basic questions: Where does government get its power from? From whom is its authority derived? And what is the purpose of government? The Declaration of Independence answers these questions. The Founding Fathers etched the following truths in stone:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, – That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

From this statement, we learn that government exists for the express purpose of securing the individual’s God-given rights, such as life, Liberty, property, speech, self-defense, and so on. We learn that governments don’t spring up out of the ground, but are created by people. They create them, as noted, to safeguard their rights. Governments are subservient to the people who create them. They may be abolished by the People at any given time – and especially when the government oversteps its obligation to secure people’s rights.

To reiterate, government gets 100% of its authority from you. As James Madison put it, “the people are the only legitimate fountain of power” (Federalist No. 49, February 5, 1788). Thomas Jefferson, concurring, affirmed: “I consider the people who constitute a society or nation as the source of all authority in that nation” (Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on the Treaties with France, April 28, 1793). Therefore, if you want to know what a government can and cannot do, simply determine what you justly can and cannot do. If you do not possess a certain power or authority, neither does government. It’s categorically impossible for government to rightly claim prerogatives and powers that its creator does not have.

Additionally, people acting together in groups does not magically endow the group, or government, with extra privileges and powers. Joint action adds zero authority to anything! Acting with your neighbor doesn’t suddenly grant you privileges you lacked as an individual acting alone. Society cannot justly do a single thing individuals are forbidden from doing. If it is wrong for an individual, it is wrong for the group and for the government.

To make this clearer, let’s consult some basic examples.

Do you have a right to kill another human being for no reason? No. Therefore, government does not possess the authority to take a life without justification.

Liberty1

Do you have a right to kill someone in self-defense? Yes. Therefore, government has the authorization to kill in self-defense; that is, to defend its people against foreign invasion and to secure the rights of citizens, with lethal force when necessary, against criminals.

Do you have a right to seize and imprison someone without cause? No. Therefore, neither does government have that right.

Do you have a right to take money from your neighbor? No. Therefore, neither does government have a right to take money. The obvious exception to this is taxation. In the case of taxation, however, the People collectively consent to giving up a small portion of their income to help the government fulfill its purpose of securing their rights. When it exceeds this purpose, it becomes common theft.

Do you have a right to take money from someone and give it to someone else? No. Therefore, neither does government have a right to take your money and divvy it out to someone else in the community – even for allegedly “charitable” purposes.

Do you have a right to take someone’s property? No. Therefore, neither does government have a just authority to confiscate property. A possible exception is when someone uses their property in such a manner as to infringe upon the rights of other people. For instance, a person cannot acquire property at the head of a river and dam it off so that other people down river suddenly are deprived of their equal share of the water usage. And so forth.

Do you have a right to tell another person what they can and cannot say? No. Therefore, neither does government have that authority. As in the last case, there are exceptions. Slander and libel laws prevent people from lying and intentionally harming the reputation of another individual. You have no right to lie about people. Liars are essentially murderers – murderers of truth, killers of reputations, and destroyers of lives. Just laws protect people against this type of abuse. Similarly, public decency laws protect people against profane language, threats, and so forth.

Do you have a right to control another person’s body? No. Therefore, government doesn’t have authority over another’s body.

America271

Do you have a right to tell your neighbor what they can and cannot put in their body? No. Therefore, government doesn’t possess any such authority. That being said, certain substances, such as alcohol, impair the individual’s judgment and frequently lead them to mindlessly harm, maim, and kill innocent people. Alcohol is one of the leading causes of death, disease, and violence in our nation. Inasmuch as it is a legitimate threat to individual safety, to say nothing of its danger to society by subverting families and morality, government has a legitimate power to protect the rights of its people. You cannot, however, make a similar argument for everything that someone might deem a “threat,” such as fatty foods or guns.

Do you have a right to tell others who the can and cannot marry? No. Therefore, government has no right to dictate in this matter either. The only exception is to prohibit that which is not only unnatural and morally reprehensible, but which demonstrably undermines the stability of the nation and its innocent children. Homosexuality and same-sex marriage is one such example. Lest you protest, remember that the Declaration of Indepedence referenced “the laws of Nature” and “Nature’s God” as the foundation of our entire civilization. To institutionalize violations of the laws of nature is to throw out the entire Declaration of Independence and the very concept of America.

Do you have the right to tell someone what they can and cannot build, do, or grow on their property? No. Therefore, government cannot tell people what they can and cannot do on their property – excepting, of course, criminal activities that violate other people’s rights.

Do you have a right to dictate what other people can and cannot wear? No. Therefore, neither can the government claim authority to dictate in this aspect. Public decency laws apply, however.

Do you have a right to deprive your neighbor of his means of self-defense? No. Therefore, government cannot justly take away a peaceable individual’s means of personal protection. To acknowledge, as the Declaration of Independence does, that our rights come from God is to simultaneously acknowledge that we have an equal right to defend them. You cannot take away this right without jeopardizing all other rights.

America281

Do you have a right to force your neighbor’s children to go to a public institution to study? No. Therefore, neither does government possess authority to separate children from their parents and force them to study in a public school.

Do you have a right to force another person to inject substances into his body? No. Therefore, government has no such power.

Finally, do you have a right to force your neighbor to stay in his home, wear a face mask, or close his business? No. Therefore, government has no right to force peaceable citizens to stay in the homes, wear masks over their faces, or close their businesses and cut off their livelihoods.

Our list of examples could go on almost indefinitely. You can clearly see the picture, however. The key point is that government is only authorized to do what you, the individual, can do. Nothing more. If you have no authority to do something, then neither does government!

The U.S. Constitution has actually simplified this concept by including a short list of enumerated powers. These powers – about 18 in number, depending on how you want to break up the list – are the only things Congress is authorized to do. They are specific, not broad. They cover individual items, not entire classifications of things. They define what Congress can do, and, by implication, dictates they cannot do anything more.

For instance, We the People have delegated to Congress the authority to “provide and maintain a Navy,” to “establish Post Offices and post Roads,” to “coin Money,” and so on. Beyond these rigid bounds, the Congress cannot legitimately go. The same goes for the other branches of government and their limited, specified powers.

It is crucial for us as free individuals to know where our public representatives derive their authority. It is indispensable to comprehend what government can and can’t do. When we understand that government does not inherently possess any authority except that which the individuals in society give it, then we can more easily recognize and prevent abuses of that authority. When we understand this cardinal point, we’ll also understand that we are the true source of power and that our nation’s destiny is in our hands. All political power springs from We the People. Never forget it.

America283

I close by quoting once more from the Declaration of Independence. Internalize the words. Really believe them. Reclaim your rights. Exercise your sovereignty. Know that government is accountable to you, not you to the government. And God give you the courage to rise in defense of Freedom like our forefathers before us!

. . . to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, – That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government . . . when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Zack Strong,

May 11, 2020

“Just Doing My Job” and Other Things Tyrants Say

Perhaps I missed the “Pandemic Clause” the last time I read the U.S. Constitution, but I don’t recall anywhere in that inspired document where is says that all our God-given rights can be curtailed in a crisis. Yes, the Constitution allows certain specific rights, such as that of habeas corpus, to be temporarily suspended during a time of “Rebellion or Invasion” when the public safety “may require it” (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2), but, otherwise, the document grants no authority to any officer of government to strip peaceable American citizens of their rights. Yet, during the current Coronacrisis hysteria, which I have openly called a psyop, the Constitution has been almost totally suspended by the president, governors, and local public servants. This article rebuffs that erroneous notion and is addressed to anyone who feels the Constitution can be suspended at their will and pleasure, but more particularly local law enforcement, sheriffs, judges, mayors, city councilors, county commissioners, and so forth.

B36TjgrCEAEM_9d

From New York to California, and from Idaho to Vermont, our sacred rights enshrined in the Constitution have been curtailed as a result of Coronavirus hysteria. Fear has proven to be a far deadlier contagion than this Red Chinese virus. At a time when the economy was booming, confidence in the president was high and rising, and the public was finally starting to talk openly about the dangers of socialism, an illness with an extremely low mortality rate imported from communist China has succeeded in gutting the Bill of Rights and reducing us to patients in a medical police state. In this piece, I won’t discuss the growing mountain of evidence that Coronavirus was and is a false-flag. Rather, I’ll focus my attention on the fact that fear of a limited disease is no justification for violating the rights of an entire nation.

For years, I’ve used the term “mini-tyrants” to refer to those in society, whether private citizens or public servants, who take it upon themselves to destroy people’s rights. In a recent article for The Federalist, John Daniel Davidson used the term “little tyrants” to refer to those who have reacted to Coronavirus by curtailing the American People’s rights guaranteed in the Constitution. In part, Davidson wrote:

We’ve now witnessed local and state governments issue decrees about what people can and cannot buy in stores, arrest parents playing with their children in public parks, yank people off public buses at random, remove basketball rims along with private property, ticket churchgoers, and in one case try—and fail—to chase down a lone runner on an empty beach. All of this, we’re told, is for our own good. . . .

Pandemic or not, this stuff has no place in American society. Petty tyranny of the kind these mayors and local officials are scheming is wholly alien to our customs and way of life, and destructive to the social contract on which our nation is built.”

Amen to every word! It is “wholly alien” to American history, heritage, and law to curtail individual rights simply because a crisis situation arises. Few would argue that society has a right to hunt down subversive groups, like the Communist Party or the MS-13 gang, which are attempting to undermine and destroy society or do harm to Americans, but that’s not what’s happening in the present case. Rather, normal, peaceable American citizens are being targeted, by mini-tyrants in state and local governments, as criminals for simply attempting to go about their daily lives, walk outside, play in the park, assemble in groups per the First Amendment, or go to church.

tyranny26

Let’s highlight a few of the horrid rights violations and outright irrational things governments have done because of Coronavirus hysteria:

In San Clemente, California, the city decided to dump 37 tons of sand onto a skate park to deter skateboarders from minding their own business and harming absolutely no one during the lock-down.

Near Malibu, California, a man was arrested on the beach for paddle boarding alone in the ocean.

In my home state of Idaho, in the little town of Rathdrum, a woman was cited by police for holding a yard sale and threatened with jail time.

In Meridian, Idaho, where I once lived, a mother who was playing in a public park with her kid was arrested for peacefully refusing to obey a cop’s unconstitutional demands to leave. This despicable incident, the protest at the officer’s house that followed, and the rash of pathetic online comments condemning the woman and ripping on anyone who doesn’t grovel before the golden throne of law enforcement and government “authority,” is what finally prompted me to write this article.

In Kentucky, the governor forbade in-person Easter church services and instructed police officers to take down the license plate numbers of all those evil church-goers.

The city of Westport, Connecticut is currently testing “pandemic drones” that detect coughs, sneezes, and people’s temperatures. I’m sure that won’t violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

In Philadelphia, a passenger was violently dragged off a bus by police officers for what crime? Not wearing a face mask. And how did the police know that some random, peaceful man wasn’t wearing a face mask? Why, the bus driver did his Soviet civic duty and called them, of course.

The state of Utah has limited public gatherings to ten people. Utah has also considered, though for the moment delayed, a bill that would allow local governments to “establish, maintain, and enforce isolation and quarantine, and exercise physical control over property and over individuals.”

The Michigan governor has deemed seeds “non-essential” and has forbidden their sale. Yes, seeds. Vegetable seeds. Fruit seeds. Seeds. I can’t think of many things more essential than seeds.

Walmart, Target, Costco, and other stores across the country have closed entire aisles of products, declaring them “non-essential” to conform with state orders closing all “non-essential” jobs and businesses.

The Chinese-owned Smithfield Foods meat plants in South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Missouri, the first of which alone supplies 5% of the nation’s pork, have been shut down.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has used Coronavirus as an excuse to close all gun stores. Not to be outdone, Los Angeles ordered gun stores closed during the “pandemic.” An activist judge agreed that guns are “non-essential” and that the city has the authority to close any business it wants to for any reason it deems necessary.

In Florida, a pastor was arrested for holding church services in violation of a rights-violating stay-at-home order. Pastors in others states have suffered similar persecution.

A toddler’s birthday party in a southern California public park was broken up by an entire goon squad of baton-wielding police officers. It reminds me of the System of a Down lyrics in the song “Deer Dance”: “[V]isible police, presence-sponsored fear. Battalions of riot police with rubber bullet kisses. Baton courtesy, service with a smile.”

The list of arrests and insane, authoritarian behavior could continue on and on, but these suffice to give you the flavor of what’s happening in America today.

This is the sort of behavior that people’s irrational fear engenders. This is the type of thing that people who support draconian stay-at-home orders allow to happen. This is what anti-Americans and mini-tyrants do and support. This is tyranny!

94317342_2943199515733213_3856028033555103744_n

People who are scared of Coronavirus have the right to stay at home and lock their doors if they please. But they do not have the right to force me and my family to stay locked up in our home. They do not have the right to prevent other people from going to work to earn a living. They do not have the right to stop other people from operating their businesses or selling their products. They do not have the right to keep other people from traveling. They do not have the right to prevent others in their community from playing in the public park. They simply do not have a totalitarian authority over the lives, actions, bodies, and property of other people. The most these timid and terrified people can do is stay at home if they truly think self-quarantine is in their best interest.

The general hysteria has shown millions of people to be hypocrites and supremely inconsistent in their views. For instance, isn’t it ironic that the same people who protest for their “right” to murder unborn babies are now supposedly so concerned about society’s health and well-being that they want us to give up our rights for their own personal safety? What happened to “my body, my choice” in these people’s darkened minds? Apparently this privilege only applies to them. These are the same sort of intellectually-stunted individuals who think that vaccines are safe and effective, yet are worried if you don’t vaccinate. At any rate, whether out of fear or ignorance, these cowed people have thrown their lot in with the mini-tyrants who never let a good crisis go to waste.

There is a lot of blame to go around for the hysterical overreactions and tyrannical impositions that have occurred during this Coronacrisis. We can blame those in government who have usurped power and have taken to dictating how we may or may not live our lives. We can blame police who say “just following orders” or “just doing my job” as they violate the Constitution and arrest innocent people who exercise their rights. We can blame the public for their timidity and for tolerating the tyrannical acts. As noted, however, I’m addressing this to public servants.

tyranny23

Police are the ultimate public servants. They are where the rubber meets the road. Their job is to “enforce” laws. But which laws? All laws? Or only constitutional laws? History has established that saying “I was just following orders” is no justification for committing immoral or oppressive acts. “Just doing my job” is what mini-tyrants say. Making the excuse “just doing my job” provides no excuse for implementing tyranny.

Any right-thinking individual must conclude that a police officer’s job is to enforce constitutional laws and protect the rights of citizens. By implication, police have no license to violate citizens’ rights regardless of what the law allows. Thus, it is fair to say that there can be no tyranny unless police acquiesce. A heavy burden and responsibility to rigidly enforce the Constitution and reject that which does not comply with it rests on their shoulders.

One of the things that sets America apart from other nations is that we have a national creed – the Constitution. The Constitution is the keystone of Americanism. It holds the Republic together. It is glue which keeps the fifty states in a workable Union. All public officers are bound to uphold the Constitution and the American People are likewise bound to sustain and obey it. It is important, then, that we understand the Constitution’s most important element – the Supremacy Clause.

In the national Constitution, there’s a thing called the Supremacy Clause. You can find it in Article VI, Clause 2. It states that the Constitution and laws made “in Pursuance thereof,” that is, constitutional laws that don’t violate any of its provisions, “shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” In other words, the national Constitution trumps any and all state and local laws that touch upon the same objects.

Let’s briefly examine,using three examples, what this means in practice. If a governor forbids you from assembling peaceably in your state, this is a direct violation of the First Amendment which guarantees “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” This obviously applies to city and state governments, not merely to the federal government. No city can forbid people from peaceably assembling on public property, such as in a park or the steps of the capitol. Next, if a governor forbids church services, he is violating the First Amendment which guarantees American citizens the “free exercise” of their right of worship. Lastly, if a governor or mayor assumes the authority to ban firearms or firearms sales because of a “crisis,” their declarations are null and void because the Second Amendment guarantees that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

92679235_1576638902505998_2350104360890925056_n

As you see, the Supremacy Clause is the linchpin of the entire Constitution. Either the Constitution is supreme and all citizens and officers at any level of government must obey it and all just laws passed “in Pursuance thereof,” or it’s a pointless document with no purpose or efficacy. If we admit that the Supremacy Clause is valid, which we do when we acknowledge the Constitution and claim the rights of citizens, then we also admit that any public servant – mayor, governor, judge, president, senator, sheriff – who passes or enforces a law, decree, or executive order that violates an individual’s rights is in blatant violation of the Constitution. If we are to remain a free nation, we must reclaim the understanding that was so basic to our Founding Fathers; namely, that the People had established the Constitution and, thus, it was obligatory and binding upon them and their representatives.

George Washington explained it this way:

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.”

Notice what President Washington said and did not say. He said that a free people which chooses its own constitution is bound by it. He did not say that the American People are bound to obey any and all laws and dictates that come from government. As noted, the Constitution says that we are bound to uphold the Constitution and laws “made in Pursuance thereof.” A law cannot be in pursuance of the Constitution if it violates portions of the Constitution, such as the First Amendment, Second Amendment, and so on. Any law, then, that violates any provision of the Constitution also violates the Supremacy Clause and is null and void.

To reinforce this crucial concept, which is at the heart of the subject at hand, I give just a few more quotations. In the famous, or infamous, court case Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court acknowledged: “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”

Constitution89

At the North Carolina Ratifying Convention of 1788, Governor Samuel Johnston referred to the Supremacy Clause and reasoned:

Without this clause, the whole constitution would be a piece of blank paper . . . Every law consistent with the constitution, will have been made in pursuance of the powers granted by it. Every usurpation or law repugnant to it, cannot have been made in pursuance of its powers. The latter will be nugatory and void.”

Finally, in Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton likewise explained:

There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid” (Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates, Resolutions, and Other Proceedings, in Convention, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol. 3, 166).

Can anyone read the plain language of the Constitution, and the unmistakable explanations of these good men, and conclude that the Constitution is not indeed the supreme law of the land? If it is the supreme law of the land, then state and local governments cannot violate it and still be in the right – regardless of their oh-so-benevolent reasons and intentions. When any governor, police officer, judge, mayor, county bureaucrat, ad infinitum, violates any provision of the Constitution (e.g. your right to assembly, your right to keep and bear arms, your free exercise of worship, your right to operate a business), then they have overstepped their authority and are in open rebellion to the Constitution and to the People who established it. Their dictates and actions, in these situations, are inherently and expressly null and void. One may even say they are even tyrannical.

As noted, the heart of the matter is the U.S. Constitution. There is no “Pandemic Clause” which nullifies the Constitution in the event of a crisis. There is no clause, section, or article of that document which allows it to be suspended at the say so of Congress, the president, the Supreme Court, your state governor, or your local mayor. It simply cannot be suspended except, as President Washington put it, “by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people.” Otherwise, it is in force and any local, state, or federal decrees, executive orders, or “laws” to the contrary are null and void.

Another issue connected with the Constitution and important to our understanding of the contrived Coronacrisis hysteria is that of rights vs privileges. A privilege can be taken away by the one who grants it. A right, however, cannot be taken away. It can be forfeited by violating another person’s rights, but it cannot be justifiably taken away from a peaceable citizen of this land.

Rights existed before the Constitution. They are inherent in man. He receives them as an endowment from his Creator, as the Declaration of Independence states so plainly. No government, then, can justly take them away unless the individual forfeits them by violating the rights of others. Thomas Jefferson explained:

[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).

Liberty or death1

If Jefferson was correct, and he almost always was, then the measures being taken by both our federal and state governments to curb Coronavirus are, by definition, tyrannical. How can they be otherwise? They most certainly violate our individual Liberty as guaranteed in the Constitution; the right of assembly foremost among them. Ah, but it’s a “crisis,” you say; it’s for the “public safety.” I dispute that putting an entire nation under house arrest can control a virus. But let’s assume it’s true that forced quarantine is good medical practice, where does the Constitution tell government it can nullify my Freedom just so it can fight a disease?

I fully grant that in legitimately extreme situations, such as in the face of a subversive enemy attempting to overthrow society from within, the Constitution is perhaps not sufficient. However, this is not such a situation. We’re supposedly faced with a virus akin to the common cold that has a 99% recovery rate and which can be cured with a simple $20 medication. Cite me the article, section, and clause that tells me the Constitution can be suspended in this situation and I’ll be pacified and remain silent.

If you cannot find a provision of the Constitution which empowers government officers to trample the Constitution in a “crisis” and violate individual rights for the so-called “good of society,” then you must, if you’re honest, conclude with me that what’s being done in the name of fighting this “pandemic” is tyrannical. And if you cannot draw this conclusion, I cannot in good conscience stand with you, but must consider you an enemy who seeks to destroy my rights. If you find yourself on the other side of this equation, you’re a mini-tyrant and a traitor.

I recant what I said a moment ago; we actually are in a crisis. However, the crisis is not because of some sickness (which may not even be caused by so-called COVID-19), but because of the despotic overreaches that have occurred as a result of the unfounded hysteria the media has whipped up. That is the real crisis. It is a constitutional crisis. We’re faced with an epidemic of mini-tyrants who, like cockroaches, have come out of the woodwork to capitalize on the public’s fear and massively expand the size and power of government.

Police, mayors, governors, and others have assisted in this wholesale destruction of the Constitution by acquiescing and going along with the tyranny. Yet, they say they’re “just doing their job.” If their job is to destroy the Constitution and eviscerate our rights, then they are correct. If their job, however, is to defend our God-given rights, then what they’ve done is break their oaths, trample the Constitution, and betray the trust of the American People.

Since few in government, the courts, and law enforcement apparently have any desire to stand up for American Freedom, it is our duty as freemen to declare our rights, to hold up the Constitution, and to punish traitors. George Washington once wrote: “[It] is a maxim with me, that in times of imminent danger to a Country, every true Patriot should occupy the Post in which he can render them the most effectually” (George Washington to James McHenry, February 25, 1799). Now is such a time.

The smallest, but perhaps most effective, thing you can do right now in this time of “imminent danger” to our Republic is to fearlessly vocalize your resistance to the tyrannical, communistic lock-down measures in place from coast to coast. You can take to social media to inform others that what is happening is nothing short of tyranny, that it is not for the public good, that it’s destroying the economy, that it is contrary to the Constitution, and that it severely weakens our Liberty. You can be the one who shares critical information with your family and friends both in person and online, because you can rest assured that the mainstream press won’t share it. Indeed, social media and the controlled media are attempting to silence and censor truthful content about the reality of this “pandemic,” cover up rights violations, and keep you in slavish fear. You can the voice of reason in a time of paranoia and fear.

Paul Revere1

I urge you, fellow freeman, to lend your voice to the resistance effort. Stand up for your rights and encourage others to stand up for theirs. Help rally your countrymen against the godless Marxist tyranny that oppresses us. Name names. Note those who vote against the Constitution and against personal Liberty. Organize electoral resistance to these charlatans in the next election. Call out and protest your local police for “just doing their job” to put shackles on you and your family. Educate and, if need be, rebuff your acquaintances, friends, and family members who support measures that, by their nature, are unconstitutional, tyrannical, and aimed at the demolition of our Republic.

Never be ashamed to stand up for your Freedom. Stand boldly and know that others stand with you. Be warned that if you cave to the pressure and go along with tyranny, even if it’s supposedly for the “public good,” you disgrace your nation and everything which the title “American” stands for. And also know that if you sincerely resolve “give me liberty, or give me death,” you stand with the great ones whose names we speak with reverence – Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Henry, Hancock, Parker, and so forth. America needs its Sons of Liberty and Daughters of the Revolution more now than ever. It’s your time to show where you stand.

Zack Strong,

April 24, 2020

The Book of Mormon Speaks of Freedom

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

Captain Moroni13

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Book of Mormon30

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Founding Fathers1

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

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

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

. . . Government is necessary, to preserve the public peace, the persons and property of individuals; but our social happiness must chiefly depend upon other causes; upon simplicity and purity of manners; upon the education that we give our children; upon a steady adherence to the customs and institutions of our ancestors; upon the general diffusion of knowledge, and the prevalence of piety and benevolent affections among the people.

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

John Adams similarly believed:

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

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

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

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

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

Benjamin Franklin also subscribed to this philosophy, writing:

[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters” (Benjamin Franklin to Abbes Chalut and Arnoux, April 17, 1787).

George Washington by Tim Davis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We read what happened next:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Book of Mormon16

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Captain Moroni12

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Captain Moroni4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Captain Moroni16

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Captain Moroni17

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Book of Mormon32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Captain Moroni18

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Constitution7

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

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

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

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

Elsewhere, the Lord has revealed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Captain Moroni15

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

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

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

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

And now, we can behold the decrees of God concerning this land, that it is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off when the fulness of his wrath shall come upon them. And the fulness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity.

For behold, this is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off; for it is the everlasting decree of God. And it is not until the fulness of iniquity among the children of the land, that they are swept off.

And this cometh unto you, O ye Gentiles, that ye may know the decrees of God—that ye may repent, and not continue in your iniquities until the fulness come, that ye may not bring down the fulness of the wrath of God upon you as the inhabitants of the land have hitherto done.

Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which we have written” (Ether 2:7-12).

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

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

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

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

The Book of Mormon19

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

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

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

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

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

And I said unto him: I know not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And I will fortify this land against all other nations.

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

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

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

The Book of Mormon11

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

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land” (2 Chronicles 7:14).

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

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

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

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

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

Captain Moroni1

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

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

Zack Strong,

February 27, 2020

State Flags and American Values

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

flag of Pennsylvania1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Washington52

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

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

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

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

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

flag of Georgia1

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

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

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

flag of Rhode Island1

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

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

flag of Virginia3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

flag of Virginia4

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

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

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

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

America239

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

Zack Strong,

February 6, 2020

Virginia Showdown

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

guns97

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Constitution10

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sic Semper Tyrannis6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

communism785

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ADL6

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

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

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

“And Jews were cheering them on.

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

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

gun control12

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The event is underpinned by antigovernment conspiracy theories.”

SPLC2

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

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

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

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

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

Sic Semper Tyrannis7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

guns103

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

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

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

Zack Strong,
January 18, 2020

Letters of Marque and Reprisal

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

Guns For Hire - Afghanistan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

America136

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

America153.jpeg

Writing for The Federalist, Georgi Boorman similarly explained:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

letter of marque and reprisal1

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

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

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

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

America1 (2)

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

Zack Strong,

January 4, 2019

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

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

Abortionism – Cult of Death

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

abortion32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

abortion12

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

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

Its standard practices are three “abortions”:

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

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

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

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

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

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

abortion25

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

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

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

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

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

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

abortion24

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

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

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

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

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

abortion9

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

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

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

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

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

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

abortion49

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

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

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

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

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

abortion3

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

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

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

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

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

abortion63

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

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

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

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

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

abortion58

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

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

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

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

abortion53

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

Zack Strong,

December 31, 2019

America Needs Nationalism

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

Republican National Convention: Day Three

 

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

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

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

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

America129

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

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

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

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

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

white16

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

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

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

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

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

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

America145

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

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

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

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

ap_411003015

A Charles Lindbergh America First Committee rally

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

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

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

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

America143

A Charles Lindbergh America First Committee rally

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

Zack Strong,

December 20, 2019