Bloomberg Vows to Destroy Your Right of Self-Defense

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

guns88

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

guns49

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

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

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

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

guns17

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

guns22

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

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

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

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

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

guns29

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

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

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

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

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

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

guns21

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bloomberg1

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

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

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

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

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

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

guns18

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

Zack Strong,

December 6, 2019

The Constitution

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

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

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

America13

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JeffersonHengistandHorsa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Republic

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

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

Alexander Hamilton said:

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

Thomas Jefferson strongly favored republicanism and stated:

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

Jefferson also told the nation during his First Inaugural Address:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Washington1

Another time he observed:

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

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

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

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

A third witness, John Witherspoon affirmed:

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

Finally, George Washington told the nation:

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

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

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

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

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

America14

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

Zack Strong,

September 18, 2019

The Anti-Gun Agenda

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

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

gun control7

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

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

O’Rourke responded:

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

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

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

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

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

guns5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

guns21

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

guns9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

guns12

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

guns18

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sic Semper Tyrannis! Long Live Liberty!

Zack Strong,

September 14, 2019

Indispensable Men: George Washington

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

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

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

George Washington33

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Washington63

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Washington46

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another French observer wrote:

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

George Washington73

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Washington75

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another time, Washington observed:

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

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

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

George Washington by Tim Davis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Washington79

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

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

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

A few quotes show Washington’s apprehensions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Washington34

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Washington45

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

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

Zack Strong,

August 21, 2019.

You Do NOT Determine My Rights

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

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

majority2

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

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

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

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

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

guns27

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

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

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

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

guns3

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

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

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

guns15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

guns11

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

Zack Strong,

August 18, 2019.

Communist Party USA at 100

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

communism382

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

communism191

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Are meetings public like those of ordinary political parties?

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

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

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

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

“Why do people become Communists then?

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

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

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

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

communism351

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

“Do only Communists carry out Communist work?

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

“What is a fellow traveler?

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

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

“What is a Communist front?

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

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

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

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

communism279

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“What do Communists call those who criticize them?

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

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

communism321

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

communism392

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“How are they organized?

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

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

communism349

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

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

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

Zack Strong,

August 12, 2019.

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

 

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

Vaccine Tyranny

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

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

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

vaccines7

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

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

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

vaccines1

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

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

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

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

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

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

government8

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

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

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

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

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

vaccines13

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

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

Thomas Jefferson defined “rightful liberty” thus:

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

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

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

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

vaccines11

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

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

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

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

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

vaccines4

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

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

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

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

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

vaccines6

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

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

Zack Strong,

August 9, 2019.

Minimum Wage Madness

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

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

communism299

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

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

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

communism307

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

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

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

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

communism310

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

communism301

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

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

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

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

communism300

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

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

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

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

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

communism305

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

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

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

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

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

communism304

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

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

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

communism306

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

communism297

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

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

Zack Strong,

August 2, 2019.

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

“How Does the Minimum Wage Work?”

 

“What’s the Right Minimum Wage?”

A Personal Sketch

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

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

20180220_204451.jpg

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

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

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

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

1931061_255713965000_2338_n

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

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

1909919_282015965000_4347_n

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

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

1909919_282016085000_51_n

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

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

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

1914525_468081630000_1199577_n

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

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

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

1937234_1108379226847_4164055_n

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

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

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

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

11665549_10156006842545001_9112073626762390530_n

Visit independentamericanparty.org for more about the IAP

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

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

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

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

14907036_10157959241025001_6604571085329224281_n

The Halloween mask I created and sewed together in 2016

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

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

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

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

DSC07007

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

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

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

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

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

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

CG6A5894

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

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

Zack Strong,

July 16, 2019.

Oppose a Convention of States!

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

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

ConCon2

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

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

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

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

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

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

ConCon7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Founding Fathers12

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

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

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

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

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

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

Founding Fathers11

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

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

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

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

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

ConCon6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please read the rest of the very astute warning here.

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

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

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

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

ConCon5

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, Common Cause issued this warning:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ConCon1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

James Madison1

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zack Strong,

June 3, 2019

For more, watch the following: