Prohibition Was a Success

After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.” – 18th Amendment, Section 1

Yes, you read the title correctly – Prohibition was a success! The conventional wisdom is that Prohibition, or the national ban on alcohol enacted by the 18th Amendment on January 16, 1920, was a massive failure. This, my dear friends, is sheer propaganda. The reality that is concealed and distorted by mainstream voices is that Prohibition was a huge success, that it made America a better place, and that it was only overturned through the machinations of some very powerful anti-American groups.

Prohibition65

In a 1989 piece titled “Actually, Prohibition Was a Success,” Professor Mark H. Moore stated some basic truths of Prohibition. He noted that “the conventional view of Prohibition is not supported by the facts.” He then proceeded to list several reasons why Prohibition, contrary to “conventional” myths, was actually a success. First, Professor Moore reminded us that “alcohol consumption declined dramatically during Prohibition.” In fact, consumption declined at least “by one-third.” He wrote:

Cirrhosis death rates for men were 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 and 10.7 in 1929. Admissions to state mental hospitals for alcoholic psychosis declined from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928. Arrests for pubic drunkenness and disorderly conduct declined 50 percent between 1916 and 1922. For the population as a whole, the best estimates are that consumption of alcohol declined by 30 to 50 percent.”

Professor Moore also debunked the prevalent idea that violent crime skyrocketed during Prohibition. Homicide rates actually remained consistent from the pre-Prohibition period through the end of Prohibition. “Organized crime may have become more visible and lurid during Prohibition, but it existed before and after,” Moore stated.

I call forward another witness. In the abstract to his 2006 essay “Did Prohibition Really Work? Alcohol Prohibition as a Public Health Innovation” Professor Jack S. Blocker, Jr. opened with this declaration: “The conventional view that National Prohibition failed rests upon an historically flimsy base.” The author went on to write in his essay of some of Prohibition’s benefits:

In 1916, there were 1300 breweries producing full-strength beer in the United States; 10 years later there were none. Over the same period, the number of distilleries was cut by 85%, and most of the survivors produced little but industrial alcohol. Legal production of near beer used less than one tenth the amount of malt, one twelfth the rice and hops, and one thirtieth the corn used to make full-strength beer before National Prohibition. The 318 wineries of 1914 became the 27 of 1925. The number of liquor wholesalers was cut by 96% and the number of legal retailers by 90%. From 1919 to 1929, federal tax revenues from distilled spirits dropped from $365 million to less than $13 million, and revenue from fermented liquors from $117 million to virtually nothing. . . .

. . . The closing of so many large commercial operations left liquor production, if it were to continue, in the hands of small-scale domestic producers. . . .

Prohibition1

. . . once Prohibition became the law of the land, many citizens decided to obey it. Referendum results in the immediate post-Volstead period showed widespread support, and the Supreme Court quickly fended off challenges to the new law. Death rates from cirrhosis and alcoholism, alcoholic psychosis hospital admissions, and drunkenness arrests all declined steeply during the latter years of the 1910s, when both the cultural and the legal climate were increasingly inhospitable to drink, and in the early years after National Prohibition went into effect. They rose after that, but generally did not reach the peaks recorded during the period 1900 to 1915. After Repeal, when tax data permit better-founded consumption estimates than we have for the Prohibition Era, per capita annual consumption stood at 1.2 US gallons (4.5 liters), less than half the level of the pre-Prohibition period. . . .

. . . it is important to list the ways in which National Prohibition did fulfill prohibitionists’ expectations. The liquor industry was virtually destroyed, and this created an historic opportunity to socialize rising generations in a lifestyle in which alcohol had no place. To some degree, such socialization did take place, and the lessened consumption of the Prohibition Era reflects that. . . .

. . . Prohibition did work in lowering per capita consumption. The lowered level of consumption during the quarter century following Repeal, together with the large minority of abstainers, suggests that Prohibition did socialize or maintain a significant portion of the population in temperate or abstemious habits. That is, it was partly successful as a public health innovation. Its political failure is attributable more to a changing context than to characteristics of the innovation itself.”

To recap Professor Blocker’s analysis, Prohibition did essentially what it promised to do – lower alcohol consumption throughout the nation. It wiped out the alcohol industry – an industry that profits by getting Americans addicted to a harmful substance and destroying their health and the morality of the community. As noted, the average American was a law-abiding citizen and followed the law. Because of the general compliance with the law, deaths and diseases related to alcohol consumption plummeted. Drunkenness ceased to be an issue in many communities. Order, health, and overall sobriety was on the rise during the Prohibition era.

On January 29, 1922, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, a Utah-based newspaper, ran a report titled, “Two Years of Prohibition – An Unbiased Report.” The subheading of the article heralded, “Drinking Cut 60% Since Law Went Into Effect.” It referred to a few of the effects of the law thus:

[T]wo years of prohibition have brought these results:

The smuggling of a vast quantity of liquor into the United States and the illegal manufacture of perhaps as much again.

The decrease in in the consumption of intoxicating liquor by approximately 70 per cent. . . .

The cutting off of more than $350,000,000 a year of the revenue of United States Government and a great unknown loss of revenue to the State and municipal governments.

The increasing of the revenue of the Government from the sale of theater and other amusement tickets and from the sale of soft drinks.

The substantial and general decrease in crime and in insanity cases.”

In other words, Prohibition successfully cut down heavily on alcohol consumption, decreased crime, lessened alcohol-related illness, and deprived the federal government of more funds. All positive effects.

Prohibition11

A well-sourced website gives us this a host of quotations on our subject and provides this commentary on the success on Prohibition:

Bottom line, notwithstanding the mismanagement and politicization, Prohibition was a success, despite the many efforts to sabotage it. And it was repealed BECAUSE it was succeeding, thus resented by moneyed “special interests.”

[Ernest B.] Gordon cites evidence including from Thomas Edison. Edison reported that, prior to Prohibition, women would seek his help on Mondays after their husbands had “drank up” the week’s pay received the previous Friday, over the weekend. During Prohibition, said Edison, such incidents ceased. Gordon cites many other examples, including a substantially increased rate of savings. . . .

Gordon shows that Prohibition succeeded, that is why corrupt interests (called “special interests” nowadays) had it repealed, by means/methods including:

“– getting rid of honest enforcement agents, and

“– bribery of officials and legislators. . . .

And note rebuttal of the myth that “you cannot legislate morality.” “The example often given to support that position is the [alleged] failure of [Prohibition]. It is even maintained that people consumed more alcohol during the Prohibition era of the 1920’s because liquor was made more exciting by being taboo. One writer went so far as to argue that prohibitions have caused most of our addictions. In fact, for all the speakeasy nightclubs and bathtub gin, consumption was actually less during the Prohibition era than before or afterwards because alcohol was less available—and availability remains the first condition for consumption, albeit not the only one. When something becomes illegal and thereby less accessible, consumption may not cease altogether but it drops—if the law is enforced,” says Prof. Michael Parenti, Ph.D., Land of Idols: Political Mythology in America (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993), Chapter 1, “Myths of Political Quietism,” p 8.

And: “If it were true that legal prohibition introduces the enticement of taboo, than we would expect consumption to decline when a substance is legalized and becomes less of a forbidden fruit. In fact, after Prohibition was repealed, consumption increased as did the incidence of alcohol-related diseases. So with narcotics. As the supply becomes more abundant, in part because of the corrupt cooperation of law enforcement agencies, consumption increased. . . . In short, when the law or the market makes something more available, consumption tends to increase; when less available, consumption tends to decrease,” Parenti, Myths, supra, pp 8-9.”

Prohibition57

It seems common sense that a lower supply of a product leads to lower usage, yet there are some people who deny it. These people are victims of the mind manipulation perpetrated by those “special interests” noted. They use false arguments like “you cannot legislate morality” to guilt trip people into allowing harmful substances to proliferate in our communities. Dallin H. Oaks, a highly respected former judge, had this to say to those who argue you cannot legislate morality:

I suppose persons who mouth that familiar slogan think they are saying something profound. In fact, if that is an argument at all, it is so superficial that an educated person should be ashamed to use it. As should be evident to every thinking person, a high proportion of all legislation has a moral base. That is true of the criminal law, most of the laws regulating family relations, businesses, and commercial transactions, many of the laws governing property, and a host of others” (Dallin H. Oaks, quoted by President James E. Faust, “Will I Be Happy?” General Conference, April, 1987).

Our entire Constitution is based on moral law. More specifically, it is based on Biblical law. It is based on the revealed commands in the Ten Commandments such as “Thou shalt not kill,” “Thou shalt not bear false witness,” and so forth. Prohibition was only an extension of Biblical law. But Prohibition not only attacked the immorality of alcohol consumption, but was calculated to better America, make us wealthier and healthier, and reduce crime. I draw three choice quotations from the previous website mentioned about the effects of Prohibition:

Evidence has accumulated on every hand that prohibition has promoted public health, public happiness, and industrial efficiency” (Charles W. Eliot, Pres., Harvard U., in a letter to the Massachusetts Legislature, 2-17-1922).

I have no hesitation in saying with emphasis that the Volstead Act . . . have been very beneficial to the industry of this country, and to the workmen connected with it, and their families” (Judge Elbert Gary, Chairman of the Board, U. S. Steel Corp., New York Times, 7-21-1923).

I am not a prohibitionist myself, but look upon this matter purely from a scientific and commonsense standpoint. In my own business, conditions have been greatly improved….I am convinced that the theory that the country in general would be benefited by Prohibition has been proven a fact” (Edward Freschi, President, Holeproof Hosiery, Milwaukee, in the Manufacturer’s Record, 1922).

Despite the benefits widely acknowledged at the time, Prohibition was eventually repealed. We will discuss the culprits later, but I borrow one final quote from our source to give you a preliminary idea of the duplicity of Prohibition’s repeal.

[I]n 1834 a third of the population . . . was of Puritan descent. . . . ministers . . . developed and shaped the higher education of the nation, who gave the country its peculiar idealist quality. . . . They played their part in the fight against slavery, the Parkers and Beechers. They would have lifted the burden of alcoholism from America if they had not been checkmated and cheated by Wall Street” (Ernest B. Gordon, The Wrecking of the Eighteenth Amendment, 141).

Perhaps I’m overloading the reader with information. Yet, it seems necessary in light of the realization that it is difficult to break through generations of conditioning and propagandizing. It’s risky business telling people that what they thought they knew all their life is actually myth and fable. Yet, that’s the business of truth-telling. That’s what a reformer of error does, the consequences be what they may.

Prohibition18

In a recently updated Vox article titled “Prohibition worked better than you think,” German Lopez gave us this helpful insight:

Contrary to the conventional wisdom, the evidence also suggests Prohibition really did reduce drinking. Despite all the other problems associated with Prohibition, newer research even indicates banning the sale of alcohol may not have, on balance, led to an increase in violence and crime.

It’s time to reconsider whether America’s “noble experiment” was really such a failure after all. . . .

Prohibition meant to address these problems by reducing drinking. On that metric alone, it succeeded.

This is not controversial among experts. When I asked [David T.] Courtwright, a drug historian at the University of North Florida, whether Prohibition led to more drinking, he responded, “No well-informed historian has believed that for 50 years.”

Courtwright’s The Age of Addiction has the statistics: “Per capita consumption initially fell to 30 percent of pre-Prohibition levels, before gradually increasing to 60 or 70 percent by 1933.” That suggests a 30 percent reduction, at a minimum, in consumption. . . .

Even if Prohibition did lead to less drinking, what about Al Capone and the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre? Surely the big increase in these types of crime wasn’t worth the benefits.

But it’s not clear Prohibition really did cause, on net, more violence. . . .

Alcohol is known to induce violence. In modern times, the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence estimated alcohol is a factor in 40 percent of violent crimes, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention calculated that alcohol contributed to 47 percent of homicides. . . .

So what were Prohibition’s overall effects on crime? Emily Owens, an economist at the University of California Irvine, analyzed the effects of national Prohibition and state-level prohibitions in studies published in 2011 and 2014.

She found, contrary to popular perceptions about Prohibition and crime, that prohibitions were associated with lower murder rates — as much as 29 percent lower in some cases. Where crime did increase, it wasn’t always prohibition but other factors, like the swift urbanization that was occurring in the era, that were mostly to blame.”

Lopez’s article contains a lot of straightforward information that needs no commentary. However, I want to draw attention to the comment by Dr. Courtwright. He said that “No well-informed historian has believed that [Prohibition increased alcohol consumption] for 50 years.” Isn’t it interesting that historians know the reality, but the mainstream propaganda mechanisms work overtime to keep the general public misinformed? Think of how many times you’ve heard from media personalities, Libertarian pundits, Hollywood types, and loudmouths on the internet that “Prohibition failed,” “Prohibition increased alcohol consumption,” or “Prohibition is responsible for an uptick in organized crime.” No “well-informed” individual actually believes those myths, yet because of a well-funded misinformation campaign, the average person believes them.

You need to understand that the powers-that-be have a vested interest in keeping us in the dark about Prohibition’s success. They want us to continue to believe their poppycock about Prohibition’s supposed “failure” so that we will never act in our own best interest and ban harmful substances such as alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, and pornography. It truly is in our best interest to abolish, prohibit, and ban soul-destroying, morals-eroding, nation-degrading substances, yet people are too afraid to make that step because they’ve been propagandized into thinking it can never work. The truth is that it not only can work, but that it has worked – and it can work again.

Let’s now talk a little about how Prohibition came to be. For generations, the anti-alcohol temperance movement had been gaining steam all across the country. Prior to the 18th Amendment, a handful of states had already abolished alcohol consumption. Indeed, for years after the repeal of the 18th Amendment, a number of states retained their anti-alcohol laws. This was not a sudden movement that came about on a whim. Prohibition grew out of the wisdom of generations of experience dealing with drunkenness and its damning consequences to marriages, families, community order, health, and national morality. It was essentially a Christian movement, though women tired of seeing drunkenness in their families and communities played a prominent role as well.

Prohibition12

In 1914, Representative Richmond P. Hobson of Alabama stood on the floor of Congress and voiced his support for a bill that would prohibit alcohol. He touched upon the purpose of the then current proposal, took to task some of the common objections, and eloquently excoriated the evils of alcohol:

What is the object of this resolution? It is to destroy the agency that debauches the youth of the land and thereby perpetuates its hold upon the Nation. How does the resolution propose to destroy this agent? In the simplest manner…. It does not coerce any drinker. It simply says that barter and sale, matters that have been a public function from the semicivilized days of society, shall not continue the debauching of the youth. Now, the Liquor Trust are wise enough to know that they can not perpetuate their sway by depending on debauching grown people, so they go to an organic method of teaching the young to drink. Now we apply exactly the same method to destroy them. We do not try to force old drinkers to stop drinking, but we do effectively put an end to the systematic, organized debauching of our youth through thousands and tens of thousands of agencies throughout the land . . . Science comes in now and says that all alcohol does harm; that the malt and fermented liquors produce vastly more harm than distilled liquors, and that it is the general public use of such drinks that has entailed the gradual decline and degeneracy of the nations of the past. . . .

Their [alcohol supporters] favorite contention is that we can not reach the evil because of our institutions. This assumes that here is something very harmful and injurious to the public health and morals, that imperils our very institutions themselves and the perpetuity of the Nation, but the Nation has not within itself, because of its peculiar organization, the power to bring about the public good and end a great public wrong. They invoke the principle of State rights. As a matter of fact, we are fighting more consistently for State rights than they ever dreamed of. We know the States have the right to settle this question, and furthermore our confidence in three-quarters of all the States to act wisely does not lead us to fear that if we submit the proposition to them they might establish an imperialistic empire. We believe that three-quarters of all the States have the wisdom as well as the right to settle the national prohibition question for this country.

Neither can they take refuge about any assumed question of individual liberty. We do not say that a man shall not drink. We ask for no sumptuary action. We do not say that a man shall not have or make liquor in his own home for his own use. Nothing of that sort is involved in this resolution. We only touch the sale. A man may feel he has a right to drink, but he certainly has no inherent right to sell liquor. A man’s liberties are absolutely secure in this resolution. The liberties and sanctity of the home are protected. The liberties of the community are secure, the liberties of the county are secure, and the liberties of the State are secure. . . .

I say now, as I said before, I will meet this foe on a hundred battlefields. . . .

The poisoning attack of alcohol is specially severe in the cortex cerebrum-the top part of the brain-where resides the center of inhibition, or of will power, causing partial paralysis, which liberates lower activities otherwise held in control, causing a man to be more of a brute, but to imagine that he has been stimulated, when he is really partially paralyzed. This center of inhibition is the seat of the will power, which of necessity declines a little in strength every time partial paralysis takes place.

Thus a man is little less of a man after each drink he takes. In this way continued drinking causes a progressive weakening of the will and a progressive growing of the craving, so that after a time, if persisted in, there must come a point where the will power can not control the craving and the victim is in the grip of the habit.

When the drinking begins young the power of the habit becomes overwhelming, and the victim might as well have shackles. It is estimated that there are 5,000,000 heavy drinkers and drunkards in America, and these men might as well have a ball and chain on their ankles, for they are more abject slaves than those black men who were driven by slave drivers.

These victims are driven imperatively to procure their liquor, no matter at what cost. A few thousand brewers and distillers, making up the organizations composing the great Liquor Trust, have a monopoly of the supply, and they therefore own these 5,000,000 slaves and through them they are able to collect two and one-half billions of dollars cash from the American people every year. . . .

To cure this organic disease we must have recourse to the organic law. The people themselves must act upon this question. A generation must be prevailed upon to place prohibition in their own constitutional law, and such a generation could be counted upon to keep it in the Constitution during its lifetime. The Liquor Trust of necessity would disintegrate. The youth would grow up sober. The final, scientific conclusion is that we must have constitutional prohibition, prohibiting only the sale, the manufacture for sale, and everything that pertains to the sale, and invoke the power of both Federal and State Governments for enforcement. The resolution is drawn to fill these requirements.”

Congressman Hobson was exactly correct. Alcoholics are modern slaves and those who manufacture and sell alcohol are their masters. There is nothing in the consumption of alcohol that benefits individuals or society. Instead, it has a retarding, degrading, corroding effect upon civilization and makes men mere brutes. And banning the sell of alcohol, as noted, does not infringe upon an individual’s rights as the Libertarians would claim. Instead, it protects the community and sends the message to youth that soberness pays dividends. Though the proposal ultimately failed in 1916, it continued to gain steam and by 1920 the Prohibitionists had obtained the requisite state and Congressional support to make the 18th Amendment the law of the land.

Prohibition62

Shortly after the 18th Amendment was passed, Congress passed the Volstead Act. The Volstead Act gave teeth to the 18th Amendment by defining the “intoxicating liquors” banned by the 18th Amendment as those containing 0.5% alcohol (in other words, nearly all alcoholic beverages). It is highly interesting that President Woodrow Wilson opposed and even vetoed the Volstead Act. Wilson’s Administration was one of the most hostile to American Liberty. In fact, as a rabid socialist who led us unnecessarily in to the First World War, among other affronts, he ranks #2 on my list of worst presidents. It therefore fits Wilson’s M.O. to oppose something as beneficial for America as Prohibition. Thankfully, the U.S. House of Representatives had more sense and overruled the president’s veto, thus passing the Volstead Act and giving real enforcement power to the 18th Amendment.

W.H. Anderson, a leader in the Anti-Saloon League, applauded the 18th Amendment. He said:

An enemy of mankind, that has killed more men and broken more mothers’ hearts than all the wars of recorded history since the days of Julius Caesar, has been dethroned from a position of respectability and made a fugitive from justice. The level of thinking and acting of a great free people has been so lifted that instead of considering the sale of liquor the accepted and expected thing and drunkenness as an unavoidable incident of governmental complicity and iniquity, they look upon the sale of liquor as ‘news’ and the sight of a drunken man, now exceedingly rare, is accepted as proof of dereliction in official life” (W.H. Anderson, State Superintendent of the Anti-Saloon League, in The Ogden Standard-Examiner, January 29, 1922).

After reaping Prohibition’s benefits of fewer deaths, less alcohol consumption, and more public order, health, and wellness, the newly-elected Democratic Congress went to work chipping away at Prohibition. The new Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was in reality a communist whose chief advisers were later outed as Soviet moles and who did the bidding of Wall Street moguls, campaigned on raising revenue by bringing back alcohol. On March 13, 1933, FDR petitioned Congress for “the immediate modification of the Volstead act, in order to legalize the manufacture and sale of beer and other beverages of . . . alcoholic content.” He added: “I deem action at this time to be of the highest importance.” Curious, is it not, that getting America drunk was of such high importance?

It should be no surprise to my readers that the man who single-handedly thrust America into the Second World War, foisted his New Deal communist legislation on the nation, prolonged the Great Depression with failed policies, attempted to alter the entire structure of our Constitution, saved the Soviet Union with his Lend-Lease program, played buddy-buddy with mass-murderer Joseph Stalin, gave away Poland and China to the communists at Yalta, and pushed the repeal of Prohibition, occupies the #1 spot on my worst presidents list. Were it not for FDR and the Democrats ascending to power because of their false promises of economic recovery at the time Americans were suffering through the Great Depression, there might never have been a 21st Amendment.

Less than a year after FDR and his Democratic cohorts in Congress pushed for a repeal of Prohibition, the American People in the states decided the matter with their votes. Ironically, Utah was the deciding vote. Since this aspect of our saga is germane to me, I’ll mention a word about it.

It is sad that Utah was the deciding vote because Salt Lake City is home to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, of which I am a member. In 1933, members of the Church made up the majority of Utah’s population. For those who do not know, our Church has a strict health code called the Word of Wisdom. It was revealed to us through the Prophet Joseph Smith by the Lord in 1833. The Word of Wisdom prohibits the use of alcohol, tobacco, and strong drinks like coffee and tea. It also encourages people to eat healthy foods like wheat, fruit, and herbs, says to eat meat “sparingly,” and tells us to keep the commandments. Those who do these things are promised a host of blessings, including health, wisdom, and divine protection. This, mind you, was given in 1833 and proved to be generations ahead of its time. Science has vindicated each and every point.

The 1833 revelation also gives a warning that applied in 1920 and 1933 and which is timely today. The Lord said that He was giving the Word of Wisdom “In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days” (Doctrine and Covenants 89:4). Those familiar with the machinations of the medial establishment, Big Pharma, alcohol and tobacco manufacturers, and drug cartels realize the wisdom of this warning. Truly the Apostle John’s warning about pharmakeia were accurate.

Bringing the story back to Prohibition, the leader of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1933, President Heber J. Grant, had urged the members to vote against repeal. When they disobeyed his inspired counsel and cast the deciding vote on December 5, 1933, President Grant was devastated. I cite two quotes from this man of God, found in the book Heber J. Grant: Highlights in the Life of a Great Leader by Bryant S. Hinckley:

I have never felt so humiliated in my life over anything as the state of Utah voting for the repeal of prohibition.”

I have been requested time and time again, principally by anonymous letters, ‘For heaven’s sake, find a new subject, quit preaching so much on the Word of Wisdom.’ Never in all my life have I fought and pleaded and been convinced that the Latter-day Saints need the Word of Wisdom so much as they need it today. Why? Because the whole United States has discarded prohibition. They have gone back to liquor. This they have done because the cry went up ‘There is more drunkenness — there is more drinking of whiskey under prohibition than there was before.’ Pardon me, but all of the advertisements of that kind were pure unadulterated falsehoods.”

Truly, it is humiliating and saddening to think that Christians would rebel against the Gospel of Jesus Christ and prize alcohol over salvation, drunkenness over public order, and suffering over health. But that’s what happened. Americans voted against their own best interests when they voted, under pressure of propaganda, to repeal the 18th Amendment. The entire campaign to repeal Prohibition was based on lies and propaganda – most which are still, tragically, believed today. And the perpetrators of this massive deception got away with it.

Prohibition9

We finish this article by turning the spotlight on those hostile forces who opposed Prohibition and resurrected the scourge of drunkenness in America. As unpopular as it might be to say, organized Jewry was probably the biggest culprit in the drive to drown America in booze. In an article for the Jewish outlet Forward, Jenny Hendrix noted that 2 million Eastern European Jews had flooded into the United States between 1880 and 1920. Hendrix added:

These opposed Prohibition from the start, not least because alcohol was central to their culture. Also by the late 1800s, acculturated Jews were widely represented in the liquor industry. “At first,” said Marni Davis, author of the forthcoming “Jews and Booze: Becoming American in the Age of Prohibition”, “alcohol offered a way for American Jews to present themselves as the best sorts of Americans, as the ones who consume alcohol regularly but are not drunkards, who participate in the economy in ways that benefit communities and society at large.”

As Prohibitionists touted the evils of drink, it was the Jewish distillers, wholesalers and saloonkeepers who found themselves cast as outsiders. Attacking the liquor industry, “dry” politician John Newton Tillman said: “I am not attacking an American institution. I am attacking mainly a foreign enterprise.” To prove it, he listed distillers’ names: Steinberg, Hirschbaum, Shaumberg.

The 18th Amendment, ratified in 1920, declared the “manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors” illegal, but did little to stop the actual flow of alcohol in the United States. Canadian and British whiskey, and rum from the Caribbean, flooded across the borders; homemade beer, wine and moonshine were produced in quantity; speakeasies proliferated, and exceptions for religious, medicinal and industrial alcohol left soggy loopholes in the law. Jews participated in this shadow trade as both buyers and sellers. Sam Bronfman, a Canadian Jew (whose surname comes strangely close to bronfn, the Yiddish word for “liquor”), became the proprietor of a vast smuggling empire along the border between the United States and Canada, buying up Joseph Seagram’s distillery and taking on the company name. Because Bronfman ferried his product across it so successfully, Lake Erie became locally known as “the Jewish Lake.”

Jews were also prevalent in the criminal networks that Prohibition helped install. Their number included Philadelphia’s Max “Boo Boo” Hoff; Dutch Schultz and Meyer Lansky in New York; Newark, N.J.’s Longy Zwillman; Solly Weisman in Kansas; Moe Dalitz in Cleveland, and the notorious Purple Gang of Detroit. It’s troubling, Davis suggests, that these Jewish gangsters are now portrayed as strong Diaspora Jews: heroic warriors against anti-Semitism, their illegal, often murderous actions a form of protest. “I think,” she said, “there is something sort of exciting about the possibility that Jews resisted a law that today is regarded as a failure.” But at the same time, these were violent, murderous gangsters, in it for the money.

Section 6 of the Volstead Act, which allowed Jewish families 10 gallons of kosher wine a year for religious use, left an especially large loophole. For unlike the Catholic Church, which got a similar dispensation, the rabbinate had no fixed hierarchy to oversee distribution. Infractions were rampant. In 1924, the Bureau of Prohibition distributed 2,944,764 gallons of wine; the American Hebrew marveled at the “rapid growth of Judaism.” Prohibition agent Izzy Einstein — himself a Jew from New York City’s Lower East Side and able to spot a ruse — arrested numerous rabbis for dispensing “sacramental” brandy, crème de menthe, vermouth and champagne. The scam was as common among actual rabbis as among those only claiming to be such: Einstein also arrested rabbis of convenience, named Houlihan and Maguire, as well as African Americans who claimed, according to Okrent, to have recently “got religion in the Hebraic persuasion.”

. . . Henry Ford’s Dearborn Independent claimed that Jewish transgressions against Prohibition represented widespread conspiracy against American morals. “The Jew is on the side of liquor,” Ford wrote, “and always has been.” . . . [Daniel] Okrent estimates that half the bootleggers were Eastern European Jews; as a result, Jews were seen as delinquents who neither understood nor respected American culture.”

These admissions, recall, were made in the popular Jewish-owned media organization Forward. They were not made by so-called “anti-Semites.” Yet, to shield themselves from legitimate criticism – such as pointing out that the biggest force behind the anti-Prohibition movement was Jewry – these criminal Jews raise the specter of “anti-Semitism.” Real Americans are sick of being told we’re “anti-Semitic” because we oppose destructive ideologies and practices that are corrupting the soul of our nation.

Prohibition25

In an article unironically titled “How Jewish Bootleggers Saved the Day During Prohibition,” Nick Hines wrote:

An Italian accent, a suit, and a Tommy gun — it’s the classic stereotype of the classic Prohibition bootlegger that’s been glorified in popular culture for decades. But there was actually another, larger group of people who had more influence on where people got their illegal drinks: the Jews.

It’s impossible to know the exact number of criminals involved in bootlegging during Prohibition, but historians believe that fully 60 percent were Jewish. Just 30 percent were Italian, and only around 10 percent were Irish, Daniel Okrent, the author of “Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition,” tells VinePair. The bootlegger stereotypes, it turns out, are more than a little misleading. . . .

. . . Jews for the most part were staunch opponents of Prohibition. First off, wine is an important component of religious practice; it’s blessed and consumed in Jewish homes on Friday night and Saturday morning as part of the Sabbath meal. Second, alcohol was big business. Finally, and importantly, Prohibition was part of a Christian and xenophobic movement in America that wanted to keep immigrants and other religions like Judaism and Catholicism out of the mainstream, according to historians. The American Jewish Committee, B’nai B’rith, and other Jewish organizations opposed Prohibition. . . .

In 1926, a federal grand jury investigated 600 rabbis in New York City for greatly exaggerating the number of people in their congregations. The rabbis had a huge amount of wine in distribution centers, where Jews could pick up their wine without forcing their rabbis to act as distributors. During the investigation, the amount of wine pulled from the sacramental wine storage locations went from one million gallons in 1925 to just over 6,000 gallons in 1926. Clearly, devout Jews weren’t the only ones taking wine out of storage. . . .

It wasn’t all rabbis and rabbi pretenders. Meyer Lansky and Bugsy Siegel, one of the most notorious mobsters of the 1900s, ran the Bugs and Meyer Mob, which later became a part of Murder Incorporated, the enforcement arm of the Italian Mafia. Murder Inc. was a crucial component of organized crime’s bootlegging activities.

Pushing gallons of sacramental wine to people who weren’t Jewish never reached the cultural cool of hard liquor bootlegging. The demand for a drink knows no bounds, though. Rabbis, people pretending to be rabbis, and Jewish bootleggers worked the system to help keep religious wine in people’s hands.”

Yes, rabbis by the hundreds worked overtime to procure alcohol for people illegally. They were backed by the most powerful Jewish groups, such as the intimidating Masonic sect B’nai B’rith. Jewish mobsters – among which ranked the top mobsters of the era – also helped drive this largely Jewish bootlegging enterprise. The fact is that it was Jewish immigrants, by and large, who backed and ran the underground alcohol industry during Prohibition, thus undermining the will of the American People and the health and well-being of the United States. And again, I underscore the truth that facts are not “anti-Semitic” or “xenophobic,” yet that’s what Jews claim in order to deflect legitimate criticism about them and their illicit, subversive activities.

I now point your mind to the fact noted earlier that Wall Street was involved in “checkmating” the Prohibitionists. But just who were these Wall Street manipulators? Many of them were the Jews mentioned in the above quotation. From the top down, and from the bottom up, Jews – mostly foreign-born immigrants – pushed bootlegging and the move to repeal the 18th Amendment. But in a more generic sense, we can say Wall Street was behind the repeal of Prohibition. And it is interesting that New York City was the epicenter of this anti-Prohibition campaign, inasmuch as it was the home of American Jewry, Wall Street, early communist activity, and FDR.

I share this insight about Wall Street from Ernest Gordon’s book The Wrecking of the Eighteenth Amendment:

[T]he fight for Repeal has been the affair of Wall Street in collusion with the press controlled by Wall Street, a power without equal. Its major organization, the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment, came from the innermost circles of high finance. The parallel Women’s Organization for (anti) Prohibition Reform was captained by the wife of the president of the Guaranty Trust, a great Morgan Bank. The Crusaders were cubs of the Du Pont, Sabin, Wadsworth, Mather, and other rich families of the A.A.P.A.” (Ernest Gordon, The Wrecking of the Eighteenth Amendment, 79).

Prohibition19

It should come as no surprise that communists (who, it is an undisputed historical fact, were largely Jewish and had deep connections to Wall Street) also opposed Prohibition. On page 323 of his damnable book Toward Soviet America, Communist Party USA head William Z. Foster wrote that the communists would appeal Prohibition. Instead, he proposed that the government take control of the alcohol industry: “The American Soviet government will deal with this question by eliminating prohibition, by establishing government control of the manufacture and sale of alcoholic liquors.” As always for collectivists, the answer to all problems is “more government.” Communists are the ultimate monopolists. They want a monopoly over your life by centralizing all power – political, social, economic, military, religious – in the hands of the government.

In short, it was radical Jews, (Jewish) communists, (Jewish) mobsters, and their fellow drunken Americans who worked like termites to undermine and destroy Prohibition until 1933 when a Democratic Congress and a communist-loving president prodded the states into voting against their best interests. It was this subversive element that did all they could to overthrow sobriety in America and drown us in booze. And they did it for two major reasons: 1) To profit from American debauchery; and 2) to destroy American morals even further, thus weakening our Republic.

Before I close, I feel I should add a word about counter arguments. Libertarians and others often allege that Prohibition was unconstitutional. There is no bigger lover of the Constitution in this country than I. However, Prohibition was completely constitutional and just. First, Prohibition came about through the constitutionally appointed process of amendment ratification. The American People chose Prohibition. Second, it is my interpretation that we each have a right to health. This should not be interpreted to mean we have a right to health care. But we do have a right to have our health protected from the infringements of others. And it is an undeniable fact that alcohol causes vast damage to innocent people and is a real threat to families and communities everywhere. Third, regardless of one’s constitutional interpretation, the laws of necessity trump and supersede all written laws – and it is a necessity that we stamp out the harmful substances that are eroding the morals, wealth, and strength of our People. The wise Thomas Jefferson affirmed:

The question you propose, whether circumstances do not sometimes occur, which make it a duty in officers of high trust, to assume authorities beyond the law, is easy of solution in principle, but sometimes embarrassing in practice. A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means” (Thomas Jefferson to James B. Colvin, September 20, 1810).

When you consult the facts, you must conclude that Prohibition was not only legal and valid, but that it was a success. Yes, Prohibition was a success! It is a travesty that Americans were persuaded, through a constant propaganda bombardment of lies and the highly-publicized actions of an anti-American element infecting society which cast the 18th Amendment in a bad light, that Prohibition was not in their interest. Prohibition is in everyone’s best interest. If we follow the laws of necessity, we will unite to purge our society of soul-destroying alcohol.

Prohibition56

I pray for the day that the American People will wake up, see sense, and once and for all outlaw harmful substances like pornography, cigarettes, drugs, and alcohol. They have no place in our Republic. You have no Liberty to be licentious or to harm innocent people through your “private” actions. While we wait for the American People to awaken to this reality, we lose 88,000 of our countrymen every year to alcohol. So the next time you see a story about about a drunk driver killing someone, or a spouse being beaten by an intoxicated partner, and an inebriated thug robbing a gas station, remember that it could have been avoided had we not foolishly repealed Prohibition.

Zack Strong,

December 4, 2019

The Great Betrayal – How China Turned Red

“I have unswerving faith in the re-emergence of my country as a free united nation and in the eventful triumph of freedom over slavery throughout the world.” – General Chiang Kai-shek, Soviet Russia in China, 349.

In 1949, China was conquered by the communists led by Mao Tse-tung. Under Chairman Mao’s iron rule, the Reds slaughtered between 60 and 100 million innocent Chinese and threw tens of millions more in brutal labor and reeducation camps – camps still in use to this day. Naturally, the Red regime in Beijing was supported by the Soviet Union. In fact, the enslavement of China was perhaps the Moscow-based communists’ greatest victory. However, there is an aspect to this sad saga that is often overlooked – the critical role the United States played in undermining China’s Freedom movement and facilitating a communist triumph.

Chiang7

General Chiang Kai-shek

In pre-Maoist China, the legitimate leader was a patriotic general named Chiang Kai-shek. Chiang has been unjustly maligned by the Marxist Establishment as a brutal despot who impeded Chinese progress. In fact, Chiang desperately wanted a democratic government and a free China and was a staunch supporter of the United States. He fought tooth and nail against the communists almost his entire life. Fighting communism is, to the Western Elite, the same as impeding “progress.” It was precisely because of his anti-communist stance that Chiang has been smeared by Western academia. Also worthy of note is the fact that Chiang was a devout Christian – certainly not the sort of man welcome in Elite circles.

In mid-1947, as his Nationalist forces fought the communists under Mao, General Chiang stated of his Kuomintang (KMT) military:

“Regardless of what aspect we discuss, we hold an absolute superiority; in terms of the troops’ equipment, battle techniques and experience, the Communists are not our equal. . . . And we are also ten times richer than the communist army in terms of military-supply replacements, such as food, fodder, and ammunition” (Loyd E. Eastman, “Who Lost China? Chiang Kai-shek Testifies,” The China Quarterly, No. 88, 658, December, 1981).

How did a militarily superior force ostensibly aided by the United States eventually lose a civil war against the Reds? The answer is that the subversive element in the U.S. government did not support Chiang’s movement, but used their positions of influence to undermine it at every step. It was really a case of the U.S. Elite combining with the Soviets against Chiang and his Nationalists.

In his often overlooked book detailing Western involvement in the world-wide communist conspiracy, W. Cleon Skousen wrote of the fall of free China:

“General Albert C. Wedemeyer was the last commander of the Chinese Theater of Operations during World War II, and he has described in his book, Wedemeyer Reports . . . how he assured Chiang Kai-shek that the U.S. would support the Nationalist Chinese in setting up a democratic form of government after the war. But this never came about, because right at the time the delicate process of writing and adopting a constitution was in process, the State Department sent over George C. Marshall to tell Chiang Kai-shek that if he didn’t allow the Communist Chinese to immediately enter his government on a coalition basis, all U.S. aid would be terminated. General Wedemeyer wrote a comprehensive report to President Truman showing how this fantastic demand would ultimately lead to a Communist conquest of 600,000,000 Chinese. The State Department demanded that General Wedemeyer be “muzzled.” Chiang Kai-shek refused to accept the Communists in his government, and General Marshall fulfilled his threat. He wrote: “As Chief of Staff I armed 39 anti-Communist divisions (in China), now with a stroke of the pen I disarm them.” U.S. aid to China was reduced to a dribble. Both economic and military collapse became inevitable.

“We have already discussed the Establishment’s manipulation of the State Department through its Institute of Pacific Relations, which set the stage for the betrayal of China to a Communist conquest.

“By 1949 the whole mainland of China was in Communist hands and a bloodbath of genocidal terrorism was being poured out upon the people. What Americans had fought World War II to prevent the Japanese from doing to China, the State Department had encouraged Mao and Chao to go ahead and accomplish.

China17

“The next task was to keep the American people from discovering how China had been betrayed to the Reds. It was necessary to cover the tracks of the IPR and its agents who were working inside the U.S. government. Dean Acheson, Secretary of State, wrote a notorious White Paper trying to put the blame on Chiang Kai-shek and saying the State Department had been helpless to prevent the Communist coup. However, Acheson’s ambassador to China, John Leighton Stuart, wrote a book called Fifty Years in China . . . in which he admitted that he and his associates in the State Department could not escape their “part of the responsibility of the great catastrophe.” He repudiated the White Paper as a historical document and said it left out much of what really happened. Professor Kenneth Colegrove of the Political Science Department at Northwestern University went even further. He said Dean Acheson’s White Paper “was one of the most false documents ever published by any country”” (W. Cleon Skousen, The Naked Capitalist, 74-76).

Similarly, researcher John Coleman, in his phenomenal book One World Order: Socialist Dictatorship, which I cannot recommend too highly, wrote:

“Roosevelt refused to listen to intelligence reports about the activities of Owen Lattimore, and insisted on appointing him as his personal advisor to Chiang Kai Shek, which left Lattimore in the enviable position of easily betraying the Nationalists to the Communists. The Chinese Nationalist forces were further betrayed by Roosevelt appointee Lauchlin Currie, who ordered Army supplies intended for the Chiang Kai Shek’s Nationalist forces dumped into the Indian Ocean” (John Coleman, One World Order: Socialist Dictatorship, 121).

Currie was acknowledged by J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI to be a Soviet agent. And Lattimore was likewise a long-time Soviet spy. Nearly all the men that FDR surrounded himself with were Marxist agents. FDR, my candidate for the worst president in American history, was himself a communist! He gave us four straight terms of communism and not only fundamentally altered our country for the worse, but played a major role in the communist restructuring of the world.

One of the enduring aspects of FDR’s treason against humanity is the fact he loved mass-murderer Joseph Stalin, used American resources to literally save the Soviet Union from Hitler’s anti-communist campaign, and enabled the Soviets to come back from the brink of near defeat at Germany’s hands to spread its Satanic influence across the globe – including into China. China was the dazzling jewel in the communist crown and its conquest would not have been possible had FDR not been a closet communist, had he not surrounded himself – in defiance of intelligence reports – with known Soviet agents, and had he not appointed communists to oversee the management of China. To learn about the shocking communist takeover of our government that occurred during FDR’s reprehensible administration, read Stalin’s Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government by M. Stanton Evans and Herbert Romerstein.

In his book None Dare Call It Conspiracy, Gary Allen wrote of Elites’ efforts to turn the world communist:

“A clique of American financiers not only helped establish Communism in Russia, but has striven mightily ever since to keep it alive. . . .

“At Versailles, this same clique carved up Europe and set the stage for World War II . . . In 1941, the same Insiders rushed to the aid of our “noble ally,” Stalin, after his break with Hitler. In 1943, these same Insiders marched off to the Tehran Conference and proceeded to start the carving up of Europe after the second great “war to end war.” Again at Yalta and Potsdam in 1945, they established the China policy . . . later summarized by Owen Lattimore: “The problem was how to allow them [China] to fall without making it look as if the United States had pushed them.” The facts are inescapable. In one country after another Communism has been imposed on the local population from the top down. The most prominent forces for the imposition of the tyranny came from the United States and Great Britain. Here is a charge that no American enjoys making, but the facts lead to no other possible conclusion. The idea that Communism is a movement of the downtrodden masses is a fraud.

“. . . But if Communism is an arm of a bigger conspiracy to control the world by power-mad billionaires (and brilliant but ruthless academicians who have shown them how to use their power) it all becomes perfectly logical” (Gary Allen, None Dare Call It Conspiracy, 75-76).

I want to point out that communism is not an American plot. It actually originated in Europe in 1776 when Adam Weishaupt formed the Order of Illuminati. In my books, I’ve traced the ideology we know as communism back to the Illuminati. I will not repeat the details here. Suffice it to say that communism is Illuminism by another name. It is, therefore, hardly an American plot.

Additionally, many of communism’s financiers come from Europe – not simply from the United States. And Britain’s involvement is so pronounced in world conspiracy precisely because communists and Fabian Socialists took over England. Both Britain and the United States have been used by the international communists to set up bases in Russia and China from whence they carry out their world revolution.

Europe – indeed, the rest of the world – is much further down the communist rabbit hole than the United States. Despite the alarming growth of the communist cancer in our midst, we are still the last best hope for humanity and have the greatest potential for throwing off the Soviet shackles. However, it is absolutely true that Marxists imported their dogma to the United States beginning with the Illuminati-Jacobins just after the American War for Independence. Their existence was acknowledged by George Washington and other informed individuals. It has grown from there, being greatly aided by Jewish and other European immigrants.

communism36

“Bolshevism without the Mask”

Let’s be clear: The global Elite are all Marxists. And the top cadre within this group is a clique of avowed Satanists. I have discussed this at length in my books. These Elites are led by Lord Maitreya and the Ascended Masters of Wisdom – fancy names for Lucifer and his fallen angels. They direct the affairs of Satan’s earthly kingdom. Communism is their chief tool. Be very careful not to describe communism as an American or British plot. It is, rather, a worldwide conspiracy in which the super-rich, academic elitists, and other professional revolutionaries and occultists combine their dubious talents to conquer the world and subjugate humanity.

Texe Marrs has written of how Red China has been set up as another Illuminati-communist base of operations. He said:

“Red China has been chosen to be the poster child and role model for the Illuminati’s Hegelian synthesis of Communism and Capitalism. The United States, meanwhile, is being purposely beat down and suppressed. Alien philosophies and a wave of immorality are being used to destroy peoples’ minds while Wall Street operators continue their Ponzi scheme manipulation. The Federal Reserve, under Jewish banker Ben Bernanke’s direction, is regularly transmitting boatloads of electronic cash to foreign banks in China. Thanks to this infusion of dollars, along with the trillions of dollars brought in from stolen Iraqi oil use and sales, the Chinese economy is galloping ahead” (Texe Marrs, Conspiracy of the Six-Pointed Star, 202).

True it is that the Marxist Elite envision a future communist world order that combines elements of political, social, military, and religious communism with state-run monopoly capitalism (i.e. socialism). As I’ve covered elsewhere, demonic entities that have appeared to occultist conspirators around the world have relayed the message that the coming occult world order will be a fusion of the so-called best of both worlds: “The Masters advise 70 per cent socialism to 30 per cent capitalism as the best proportion” (Benjamin Creme, The World Teacher for All Humanity, 74). It is perfectly accurate, then, to call China the “poster child and role model for the Illuminati’s Hegelian synthesis of Communism and Capitalism.”

Much of what later happened in China was drawn up at the Yalta Conference of 1945 attended by the likes of Stalin and Roosevelt. These comrades essentially decided the fate of China. I take several paragraphs from James Perloff’s superb article “China Betrayed Into Communism.” He explained:

“Fateful decisions resulted when Roosevelt met with Stalin at the Teheran Conference (late 1943) and Yalta Conference (February 1945). Stalin, though our ally against Germany during World War II, maintained a nonaggression pact with Japan. This suited Stalin, as he wished the Japanese to wear down China’s Nationalist forces.

“At the Teheran and Yalta wartime conferences, however, Roosevelt asked Stalin if he would break his pact with Japan and enter the Far East war. Stalin agreed, but attached conditions. He demanded that America completely equip his Far Eastern Army for the expedition, with 3,000 tanks, 5,000 planes, plus all the other munitions, food, and fuel required for a 1,250,000-man army. Roosevelt accepted this demand, and 600 shiploads of Lend-Lease material were convoyed to the USSR for the venture. Stalin’s Far Eastern Army swiftly received more than twice the supplies we gave Chiang Kai-shek during four years as our ally.

“General Douglas MacArthur protested after discovering that ships designated to supply his Pacific forces were being diverted to Russia. Major General Courtney Whitney wrote: “One hundred of his transport ships were to be withdrawn immediately, to be used to carry munitions and supplies across the North Pacific to the Soviet forces in Vladivostok…. Later, of course, they were the basis of Soviet military support of North Korea and Red China.”

“But Stalin didn’t just want materiel in return for entering the Asian war. He also demanded control of the Manchurian seaports of Dairen and Port Arthur — which a glance at the map shows would give him an unbreakable foothold in China — as well as joint control, with the Chinese, of Manchuria’s railroads. Roosevelt made these concessions without consulting the Chinese. Thus, without authority, he ceded to Stalin another nation’s sovereign territory. The president made these pledges without the knowledge or consent of Congress or the American people.

“The State Department official representing the United States in drawing up the Yalta agreement was Alger Hiss — subsequently exposed as a Soviet spy. General Patrick Hurley, U.S. Ambassador to China, wrote: “American diplomats surrendered the territorial integrity and the political independence of China … and wrote the blueprint for the Communist conquest of China in secret agreement at Yalta”” (James Perloff, “China Betrayed Into Communism,” The New American, July 24, 2009).

In his brilliant book How the Far East was Lost, Anthony Kubek devoted a thorough chapter to the fateful Yalta Conference and its lasting consequences. He wrote:

“Roosevelt went off to Yalta, there to buy Stalin’s entry into the war we had already won. We are still paying the price. The needless and bloody battles on Iwo Jima and Okinawa were immediate costs. The dropping of the atomic bombs on Asiatic civilian populations – acts which have so prejudiced the United States in the eyes of Asian people – was another. Sovietization of China and the Korean War were still others. And the end is not yet in sight. . . .

“No discussion of Yalta by those who were present at that conference, thus far, explains Roosevelt’s generosity to Stalin, why he violated his own principles of the Atlantic Charter by transferring territory from one country to another without the consent of the deprived country, or why he reneged on his promises to Chiang Kai-shek at Cairo. It must be remembered he had promised the Generalissimo all the territory Japan had taken since 1914. Roosevelt gave to Stalin at Yalta effective control of the same territory over which the United States had gone to war with Japan, and by doing so set the stage for the Communist conquest of China, and it was a prelude to the war in Korea” (Anthony Kubek, How the Far East Was Lost: American Policy and the Creation of Communist China, 1941-1949, 91, 111).

FDR1

Comrades Stalin and FDR

General George C. Marshall – the same who disarmed Chiang Kai-shek’s forces – was one of the prominent attendees at Yalta. He used his influence to encourage Roosevelt’s pro-Soviet sympathies:

“One may find some explanation for the Yalta give-away in a review of the men who made up Roosevelt’s delegation. The most important of these advisers was General George Marshall, Chief of Staff . . . He stood at Yalta urging the grim necessity of Russia’s entry into war against Japan. He did nothing to deter Roosevelt from embarking on his ill-starred course which ended in disaster.

“The desire to have Russia’s help in the Far East was constantly stressed by Marshall . . . It was Marshall’s mistaken estimate of Japan’s capacity for continued military resistance, after all signs pointed to enemy collapse, that fortified Roosevelt in his determination to buy Soviet entry into the Pacific war at the price of vast strategic concessions in China. This deal foreordained the loss of China to Communist control” (Anthony Kubek, How the Far East Was Lost: American Policy and the Creation of Communist China, 1941-1949, 94).

Yalta was a communist conference from beginning to end. Yalta was a grimy location in the Soviet Union where Stalin, who had picked it, knew he could control the narrative. And control it he did with the help of FDR’s communist delegation which included communist sympathizers and Soviet spies. And FDR must be directly blamed for the existence of this compromised delegation – it was his administration that had formally recognized the Soviet regime on 1933 when it was on the verge of collapse.

It is truly incredible that the fate of any nation – let alone one like China – could be decided by a group of communist conspirators meeting in the Soviet Union with the full consent and blessing of an American president. Yet, that is what happened. Everything that came later merely followed the Yalta script.

The U.S. government’s attitude toward General Chiang had always been hostile, though it became more apparent toward the close of World War II. A disgraceful incident describes the contempt we had for the man and has anti-communist Nationalist government. In late 1944, FDR and other U.S. military and diplomatic leaders were busy discussing the conquest of Burma which was under Japanese control. They wanted Chiang’s Chinese forces to move quickly into Burma. However, they wanted their own hand-picked General Joseph W. Stilwell to take charge of the troops. Anthony Kubek explains the shameful scenes that followed:

“President Roosevelt again urged the Generalissimo to place Stilwell in command of all Chinese forces. Chiang was willing to agree on condition that the power of distributing lend-lease supplies would remain strictly under his control. But Stilwell confided in his diary: “If the G-mo [Chiang Kai-shek] controls distribution, I am sunk. The Reds will get nothing”. . . .

“. . . Marshall submitted a blunt message to Chiang with Roosevelt’s approval. The Generalissimo was asked (1) to reinforce the Chinese armies in the Salween area in Burma and to press their offensive in conjunction with the British, and (2) to place Stilwell in “unrestricted command” of all Chinese forces. . . .

“The message arrived in Chungking on September 19, 1944, with instructions that Stilwell was to deliver it “in person.” Stilwell was full of jubilation; he had waited for this moment to deliver an ultimatum to the Generalissimo. He noted in his diary: “President’s message arrived. Hot as a firecracker. ‘Get busy, boy, or else.’ ‘Do it now.’ The Peanut will have a red neck on this one.”

“General Hurley advised Stilwell this was not the time to deliver the President’s message. To quote from his later testimony, “I said (to Stilwell) ‘You shouldn’t now, because of this firm language, pile it on him at a time he has felt compelled to make every concession that we have asked. He has made them; he is ready to go; he is ready to bring troops down from the North to reinforce you in the Salween front; he is going to appoint you commander-in-chief.” Stilwell would not change his mind. He wanted to humiliate the Generalissimo and said, “I am directed by the President to hand it to him.

“. . . When Hurley handed the message to Chiang Kai-shek, the Generalissimo read it and Hurley noticed “. . . that he looked like he had been hit in the solar plexus. . . . “ Silence followed; no one moved. Then Chiang Kai-shek reached over to his tea cup and put the cover on upside down. Stilwell, in Chinese asked, “That gesture still means, I presume, that the party is over?” Someone in Chiang’s staff said, “Yes.” Stilwell and Hurley then walked out. . . .

“Stilwell’s lack of tact and his persistent urge to aid and use Communist forces shattered any confidence Chiang Kai-shek had in placing him in command of Chinese armies . . . John Stewart Service, U.S. foreign service officer in China, had some understanding of the true meaning of the recommendations and what Chiang suspected. “This was, in effect, a proposal that the Chinese Communists be armed,” Service later testified” (Anthony Kubek, How the Far East Was Lost: American Policy and the Creation of Communist China, 1941-1949, 214-216).

China23

If this was a one-time event, it could perhaps be written off as a simple blunder. However, the U.S. government’s consistent pattern of behavior toward Chiang Kai-shek and China proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that FDR and his administration favored the Chinese communists and did everything they could to undermine the establishment of a free China.

I quote once more from Kubek. He stated:

“It is a tragedy we did not accept the repeated warnings of Nationalist leaders and others that the Chinese Communists were part of a Marxist movement for world domination. Perhaps some blame should be placed on the Generalissimo for not selling this point to American officials. He saw the Red threat in the Far East far better than many of our foreign service officials. As a result of our miscalculations, deliberate or otherwise, we are today faced with a formidable threat – Red China. It can be said that the serious menace we face in the Far East was not due to our lack of information. On the contrary, our tragic policy in that area can be mostly attributed to the opposition of U.S. foreign service officers and other American officials to Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalist Government. These Americans frustrated attainment of our traditional and unannounced aims in Asia – preservation of the “territorial and administrative” integrity of China” (Anthony Kubek, How the Far East Was Lost: American Policy and the Creation of Communist China, 1941-1949, 217).

Volumes of additional evidence could be cited showing the duplicity and pro-communist sentiments of U.S. government personnel and military leaders. However, for the remainder of this article we turn the spotlight on General Chiang Kai-shek’s own witness and account of the Red takeover of China. In his highly-detailed book Soviet Russia in China: A Summing-Up at Seventy, Chiang gave a sometimes day-by-day account of how the communist conquered China. In numerous locations, Chiang’s history shows the betrayal and neglect showed by the United States. I now quote at length from his book, though I’m only able to quote a small portion of what I would like to and shift the burden upon the reader for additional study. Chiang testified:

“It was a matter of great regret that our ally, the United States, should stop its supply of arms to the Chinese Government at the very moment when the Chinese Communists began their anti-American activities. Earlier, in April [1946], following the Chinese Communists’ breach of the cease-fire agreement, the American Government had stopped its US $500,000,000 loan to the Chinese Government. Now it interrupted its military aid to China. At the same time it took no action whatever against the Chinese Communists despite their violations of the cease-fire agreement. In fact, it did not even adopt any measures in the face of Soviet Russia’s arming of the Chinese Communists in Manchuria with Japanese weapons. This dealt a severe blow to the anti-Communist forces and constituted a great boost to neutralism. . . .

“By February 1947 Communist student agitators in Shanghai formed a “Federation of Associations in Protest Against Violence by American Forces in China” as headquarters for students’ anti-American activities in various parts of the country. The federation soon started a “Signature Movement by Chinese students to urge the United States to change her policy toward China.”

“The Chinese Communists launched the “Anti-Violence Movement” when the industrial and commercial circles in the country failed to respond to their agitation against the Sino-American Commercial Treaty. When the people in general again failed to respond to the “Anti-Violence Movement” they switched to a “Boycott American Goods” movement . . . its only objective was “opposition to U.S. aid” and the “expulsion of American forces from China.”

“The American Government obliged by gradually withdrawing its troops from Peiping, Tientsin, Tsingtao and other places, and by discontinuing its military aid to China. Thus, a glorious episode of Sino-American cooperation in the cause of freedom came to an end under the attacks of the Chinese Communists and their international “comrades”” (Chiang, Soviet Russia in China, 185-187).

communism449

A common communist tactic the world over is to request “peace talks,” negotiations, cease-fires, and détentes when things are going badly. These phony “peace talks” and cease-fires serve to buy time for the communists to regroup, rearm, and adjust their strategy. As soon as the communists are fully prepared to resume hostilities, they break off talks and negotiations and violate the cease-fire. We see this tactic successfully employed year after year by North Korea and Russia-backed Palestine, to name only two. Chiang Kai-shek documented this tactic in painstaking detail in his book, giving us many pages of valuable insight. I draw forth just a few lines relative to China’s downfall as examples:

“For security reasons the Government had to conduct military operations against the Communist troops which had taken Kalgan by storm and against the others concentrated around it. Chou En-lai tried to intimidate General Marshall by saying: “If the Government does not call off its military action against Communist troops in Kalgan and in its environs, the Communists will regard it as the open declaration of an over-all rupture.” Shortly afterward he left Nanking for Shanghai to dodge further discussions.

“On October 5 I again accepted General Marshall’s suggestion and ordered a ten-day halt during which the Conference of Three would discuss the military question while the Subcommittee of Five would deliberate on the political issues.

“Simultaneous discussion of military and political questions was originally one of the Communists’ demands. When the Government finally accepted it, they reversed their position by using the Kalgan question as a pretext. Now, after the Government had announced a halt in the Kalgan area, the Communists raised their demands again. . . .

“Chou En-lai also added the following points to General Marshall in a critical tone:

““The Chinese Communists cannot agree to the United States Government giving material aid to the Kuomintang Government at a time of civil war. . . .”

“Thus General Marshall had to return to Nanking emptyhanded. This meant that the Chinese Communists had already succeeded in gaining the time they needed for preparing their all-out insurrection. It also meant that Communist smiles of welcome to American mediation were no longer necessary. This signified the virtual termination of the peace talks and military mediation centered around General Marshall as a result of the Chinese Communist sabotage. As in the six previous instances the peace negotiations, which lasted for more than one year this time, also ended in failure.

“As the Chinese Communists showed no signs of willingness to resume negotiations after the expiration of the ten-day truce, Government troops retook Kalgan. . . .

“At this juncture, leaders of parties other than Kuomintang and the Chinese Communist Party, and nonpartisan leaders offered to mediate as “the third side.” On October 25, 29 and 30 a series of talks were held. The terms which they produced were likewise rejected by the Chinese Communists. In the meantime the Chinese Communists and the Democratic League launched anti-American movements in Peiping, Tientsin, Nanking and Shanghai.

“On November 10, only two days before the National Assembly was due to open, Chou En-lai said to General Marshall: “Whether the National Assembly is merely postponed or convened unilaterally, in either even there will be no room for any more political discussions.” Thus it became clear that the Communists’ real purpose was to prevent the convocation of the National Assembly and the introduction of constitutional rule.

“Meanwhile, it also became very clear that they intended to sabotage the peace talks and military mediation altogether and to resort to armed rebellion to subvert the country . . . on November 11, on the eve of the convocation of the National Assembly, I made a final appeal to them in the hope that they would, whether before or during the Assembly meetings, submit a list of Communist delegates and have them take part in the deliberations to give national backing to the launching of constitutional rule. . . .

“. . . The Chinese Communists were the only ones who had refused to submit a list of their delegates. The Democratic League, which had up to now posed as an independent neutral, tore off its mask and followed the example of the Chinese Communists by refusing to attend. After the opening ceremony the National Assembly decided to call a three-day recess to wait for the Communist and Democratic League delegates to turn up, but in vain.” (Chiang, Soviet Russia in China, 175-181).

Chiang again wrote of the international efforts to sabotage the establishment of a free China with a democratic government:

“[O]ne could see that behind Soviet Russia’s sabotage of the American mediation was her wish to replace the United States as mediator so that she could manipulate the Chinese political situation.

“In December 1946 the United States announced the end of its mediation effort in China. Shortly thereafter General Marshall went back to America and the Chinese Communists openly launched a general rebellion. During the year which followed Soviet Russia and the Chinese Communists both directly and indirectly kept on asking the Chinese Government for resumption of peace talks. In the autumn of 1947, when Government troops were advancing toward Chefoo, Weihaiwei and Penglai on the southern coast of the Gulf of Chihli, their request for cessation of hostilities and resumption of peace talks became more urgent than ever. . . .

“. . . the Chinese Communists made use of American mediation as part of their neutralist tactics. In other words, they saw in the American mediation a chance for the growth of neutralism, just as they had seen in the cease-fire agreement a convenient cover for their military movements. Once the cease-fire agreement was concluded, their purpose in accepting U.S. mediation had been achieved. After that they no longer considered themselves bound by any stipulations in the agreement.

“On the other hand, the Government’s eagerness to abide by the agreement put its troops in a passive position and made them easy prey for the Communists. Now we know that the Communists accepted American mediation in order to sabotage it and they concluded the cease-fire agreement in order to break it. This created a situation of neither war nor peace in which fighting and peace talks went on side by side. This was the practical application by the Communist International of the laws of dialectics both in its basic stratagem and in its line of action. All through the year 1946 the Communists used this stratagem to gain time to complete their preparations for a final military showdown with the Government.” (Chiang, Soviet Russia in China, 190-192).

China19

Chiang gave us valuable insight into how the communists subverted China. His insight is detailed and specific. The Red blueprint doesn’t change much, so this history ought to wake us up because the same tactics are being used in our own nation. Chiang recounted:

“After October 1948, when the Hsuchow-Pengpu Battle was at its critical stage and when the people and those in the Government were under the spell of Communist infiltration, there came into circulation a slogan to the effect that “Unless President Chiang goes, no American aid will be forthcoming,” and that “Unless President Chiang goes, there can be no peace talks.”

“In these circumstances, I decided to retire from office. I did so on January 21, 1949. The moment I was gone both the armed forces and civilians on the mainland seemed to have lost a symbol of common purpose. Thus, the political situation, social order and the people’s minds all fell under the Communists’ invisible control. The military situation deteriorated rapidly and soon became irretrievable.

“In their political activities and social movements, both the Chinese Communists and their front organizations, especially the Democratic League, had to take certain stands and were, therefore, easily identified. The same thing, however, could not be said of infiltration by these front organizations. They penetrated deep into government organs, representative bodies and civic organizations. They even joined such anti-Communist religious bodies and secret societies as the Kolaohui [a secret society in Szechwan province]. They also got hold of military men who had fought the Communists either in or outside the battlefield and politicians who acted as go-betweens between Kuomintang and the Communists. Through infiltration or encirclement they manipulated these public bodies and individuals directly as well as indirectly in order to attain their own objective.

“It was generally thought that ex-militarists, ex-bureaucrats and merchants and brokers seeking profits through speculation would make poor Communists or fellow travelers. In seeking to subvert the country and to destroy the social order, the Communists found that the more degenerate these people were the more useful they would be in working for the Communists and in running their errands. Their task was to help shake the very foundation of society and demoralize the military and the civilians alike by such slogans as “oppose conscription,” “oppose requisition,” “oppose mobilization” and “oppose civil war.”

“Though the Government knew the latter were acting as the Communists’ jackals, it felt its hands were tied by democratic institutions, and as long as they operated under the cloak of “freedom” and “human rights,” the Government could not take any action against these religious bodies, secret societies, underworld characters, gangsters, disgruntled politicians and profiteers who had come under the Communist grip. It was in this manner that neutralism and defeatism came to spread in the Government and in the armed forces, paving the way for Communist rumors to foment dissatisfaction, to stir up trouble and to create antagonism and disunity between the Government and the people” (Chiang, Soviet Russia in China, 188-190).

Can you see the eerie similarities in recent events in the United States? Can you see how our own so-called “representatives” are selling us out in order to benefit themselves and extend the reach of the invisible hand that controls events? Can you see the same infiltration, the same propaganda pitches, and the same feelings of despair, neutralism, and defeatism that are pervading our society? Can you see the same communist front groups – feminism, LGBT radicals, environmental extremists, Antifa, the Democratic Party – at work today to “shake the very foundation of society and demoralize the military and the civilians alike”? The game plan is nearly identical – and the results will be the same unless we wake up and fight back.

General Chiang was one of history’s staunchest anti-communist fighters. A large section of his book is addressed to the world. He learned from firsthand experience how communists conquer a nation. He personally witnessed and forever mourned China’s defeat. He desired that the rest of the world would use the store of knowledge and experience he had gained regarding communist tactics and deceptions, as well as what works and what doesn’t in the fight against intentional Marxism. Again I stress that I’m sharing only a thimble full of the wisdom contained in Chiang’s remarkable book Soviet Russia in China. Chiang warned us:

“The Communists’ camouflage, deception and propaganda war are practical manifestations of their dialectic laws of contradictions and of negation. For instance, their resort to political assault to disguise their military operations, their assumption of a defensive posture to cover their offensive action, their use of propaganda war containing nothing but casuistry and falsehood, and their combining enticements with intimidation, all these are based on the principle of “unity in contradictions.” Again, for instance, their use of peace talks to negate or undermine their opponent’s morale and their use of hostilities at the same time to negate the peace talks with their opponent, are based on the law of “negation of negations.” In short, the Communists in their propaganda war stop at nothing wicked and mean to achieve their goal, i.e., in creating suspicion and disturbances. They are particularly adept in the fabrication of stories with no factual foundations, in misrepresentation such as “pointing at a deer and calling it a horse,” in distortion and in the forging of documentary proofs all of which they consider legitimate – even virtuous. Whenever it suits their purpose, they represent Satan as God or God as Satan. What the Communists say and what they do are entirely two different things. It is obvious that they had themselves robbed the people under their control of freedoms, and yet they asked the Government for all political freedoms. In areas under Communist control, there was nothing but darkness and regimentation, an yet in their external propaganda they boasted of political democracy and of a bright future for their slaves. In Communist terminology, “people” means the Communists themselves, “liberation” means enslavement, “peace” means another form of war and “coexistence” means exclusive Communist control. It follows that the smile they put on is another facet of their evil nature. The free world should be ready to expose and attack this kind of propaganda before anyone falls prey to it.

“In their “peaceful coexistence” campaign, the Communists have developed two methods of approach, which can easily lead the free world to think that the Communists are really seeking peace, or to consider their suggestions as genuine roads to peace.

“Peace talks. To ordinary people, peace talks represent a transitional path from war to peace. Whenever the Russian or Chinese Communists ask for “peace talks,” people in the free world instantly take it to mean that they will not engage in any more war of aggression. But, to the Communists “peace talks” do not constitute a path to peace, but are just another form of war. They start peace talks not for the purpose of attaining the objective of peace, but for the purpose of attaining their objective of war. The peace talks which the Chinese Communists held with the Government were to serve the following purposes:

“Peace talks could delay attacks by Government troops. . . .

“Peace talks could cover up preparations for armed revolt. . . .

“Peace talks could enlarge the following for neutralism, and expand the reserve strength of the front organizations. . . .

“Peace talks could undermine the morale of Government forces. . . .

“Peace talks could create the impression of “two Chinas” in the free world.

“Therefore, both the Russian and Chinese Communist love protracted negotiations . . . protracted negotiations carried on by the Russian and Chinese Communists represent a method of struggle with them.

Cease-Fire Agreement. “Respite tactics” are often resorted to by the Russian Communists. To secure a needed respite, they will not only negotiate with their enemy but will sign cease-fire agreements with him and, in fact, will even go so far as to conclude a peace treaty with him. . . .

“To the Communists, it is not simply a defensive tactic. They use peace talks and cessation of hostilities to reinforce and replenish their troops in preparation for the next attack; they use them also to start a political propaganda campaign to sow suspicions between their enemy and his allies, to strike at his morale, and to shatter his internal solidarity. To the Communists, all these are positive functions of peace talks and cease-fire agreements. . . .

“If we judge the Russian and Chinese Communists’ proposals for peace talks and cease-fire in the light of the dialectic law of negation, we can immediately grasp their very essence. Why do the Russian and Chinese Communists always want to hold peace talks and sign a cease-fire agreement while at war but violate the cease-fire agreement and resume fighting after it has been signed? We must understand that in their ideology, peace talks and cessations of hostilities are the negation of war, and to sabotage the peace talks and violate the cease-fire agreement is the negation of this negation. When they cannot win by force, they stop fighting and hold peace talks instead, they may even sign a cease-fire agreement. When they succeed in splitting the enemy’s camp, shattering his will to fight and destroying his morale, they will negate their peace talks and cease-fire agreements, for the purpose of waging, and winning, the final decisive battle” (Chiang, Soviet Russia in China, 374-377).

Chiang6

Ladies and gentlemen, you have just read some of the most eloquent and frank descriptions of communist tactics and aims you will ever read. Will you heed them? Will you rush forward to save your own country from similar collapse? Will you finally put aside alternative theories – false theories – that blame anyone else but the Satanic communists for the plight of the world? It is time, long past time, to treat the Reds as a cancer than must be quarantined and eradicated if the world, let alone our own Republic, is to survive. Communism must die if America is to survive!

We can begin on our journey by learning about communism. We can learn the history of communist conquest around the world, most prominently in Russia and China. China’s example in particular provides an excellent account of how American traitors aid the international Bolshevik movement. It proves that conspiracy exists. It proves that the people we elect and send to Washington are not on our side and couldn’t care less about Freedom. It proves that many of our “heroes,” most prominently FDR, are in fact traitors and comrades in the Red conspiracy.

If we are to heal and move forward, we must acknowledge the tragedies of the past – tragedies orchestrated by an elitist clique of Marxist gangsters who want to subjugate the world. It is not a conspiracy theory, it is a conspiracy fact. Do you have the courage to embrace and help spread the truth? Or will you self-censor because the social media giants, the controlled media, and the raucous chorus of mindless lemmings attempt to shout you down? Unless we want our fate to be Red China’s, we will endure the hate, oppose the efforts to silence us, and push back mercilessly against the communists.

Chiang Kai-shek was correct when he asserted:

“It can be said that the greatest threat posed by international Communism lies in Asia, and this threat stems mainly from the Chinese Communists. The fall of the Chinese mainland was a tragedy to the world and its seriousness is only beginning to be recognized. Had my Government remained on the mainland, there would never have been such calamities as the Korean War and the Communist occupation of northern Korea and northern Indo-China. The place to begin combating Communism in Asia, therefore, is mainland China” (Chiang, Soviet Russia in China, 348).

As the current Hong Kong unrest shows, China’s regime is still brutal and constitutes a direct threat to free peoples everywhere. And the threat will only grow. Already our military generals are warning that China has nearly reached our level of expertise (and Russia has surpassed it in some respects). We should never have to hear the solemn declaration that “[the U.S. military] might struggle to win, or perhaps lose, a war against China or Russia” (National Defense Strategy Commission, November 14, 2018) or “China’s impressive military buildup could soon challenge the United States across almost every domain” (Admiral Harry Harris, February, 2018). Yet, that is what our generals are telling us.

President Trump, for all his host of flaws, is correct in also pointing out Red China’s currency manipulation and economic subterfuge. For years, China has been taking advantage of the West – and most often with the consent of the big business tycoons. Whether you agree or disagree with implementing tariffs on Chinese goods as a solution, it should be obvious that we must find a solution, and fast. The communist world is gearing up for their end game against the West as we crumble under the weight of Marxist subversion of our Faith, Families, and Freedom.

This war, like the one waged in China in the 1940s, can have only one of two outcomes for us: Victory or defeat. Which will it be? Will be maintain peace through strength or will we allow our nation to be bartered away to Chinese and Russian communists and their dupes here in America? Will we allow our anti-communist fighters to be insulted, denigrated, and smeared while the Elite run roughshod over the will of the People? Will we allow the communist-controlled press to demoralize us or will we catch the vision of heroes like General Chiang and resist communism to the last? Will we win or will we lose? Our fate is in our own hands.

Whatever we choose and however it plays out – and I believe things will get much darker before the light bursts forth – remember that communism is Satanism and that the Devil’s days are numbered. Christ has already won the victory! The only thing left to decide is what part we will play in this epic saga. Will we choose the right team? Will we help minimize the expansion of evil and tyranny by waking up and fighting back in our own sphere of influence? God help each of us to do so! And let each of us have the faith required to see this through to the end when the Red flag will go down and never more rise.

“I have unswerving faith in the re-emergence of my country as a free united nation and in the eventful triumph of freedom over slavery throughout the world.” – General Chiang Kai-shek, Soviet Russia in China, 349.

communism204

Zack Strong,

August 31, 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?”

Best and Worst U.S. Presidents

To commemorate Presidents Day, I have put together a top-five list of best and worst U.S. presidents. Choosing the five best presidents is quite easy inasmuch as the pool of good presidents is rather small. Selecting only five to grace my top-five worst presidents list is much harder considering the dozens of awful candidates to choose from. As I fill out my list, I will highlight the successes and failures of these men in the interest of learning from the past.

Let’s start off with the bad news first. Though it was a difficult decision, I have narrowed down my list to the worst five presidents in our nation’s history. These men have thoroughly desecrated the Constitution, which is a sacred and inspired document. They have abused and violated their solemn oath of office, thus committing treason. They have signed egregious, unconstitutional, and immoral laws and created a multitude of horrendous departments and agencies. Each of these men presided over America during a time of war – and often wars which they deliberately caused in order to further an agenda. I consider most of these men not merely bad presidents, but evil conspirators in the international conspiracy which holds mankind by the throat and threatens the overthrow of Freedom and peace in all lands. Without further ado, I present the five worst U.S. presidents and the accomplishments which won them infamy.

Worst Presidents

5. Abraham Lincoln

4. George W. Bush

3. Barack Obama

2. Woodrow Wilson

1. FDR

presidents7

Abraham Lincoln: Some folks may be surprised to see Lincoln on my list of worst presidents. After all, didn’t Abraham Lincoln free the slaves, keep the country united, and preach unity, love, and peace? Actually, no, he did not. President Lincoln’s violations of the U.S. Constitution were colossal. Most historians sweep these violations under the rug or label them “war expediency.” They were unfortunate but “necessary” war measures, they claim. Yet, the historical reality was far different from the glowing, laudatory, worshipful one painted by Lincoln’s adoring 21st Century supporters.

It must be remembered that Abraham Lincoln started the Civil War, or, perhaps more accurately, the War of Northern Aggression. After South Carolina had seceded from the Union, she demanded that Union troops be removed from Fort Sumter. Abraham Lincoln refused to acquiesce even though South Carolina warned they would attack if the troops were not peacefully removed. If you have never read the exchange of letters between Fort Sumter’s commanding officer and South Carolina’s military leaders, you ought to. They reveal that the fort’s commanders wanted to withdraw to avoid war, but stayed on Lincoln’s orders. They also reveal that the attack was not a surprise, but that South Carolina actually told the fort’s defenders when they would attack and expressed their regret in so doing.

The tragedy of war could have been avoided if Lincoln had simply removed his troops from what consisted of a foreign territory where he had no legal jurisdiction. Using the attack on the fort as a pretext, Lincoln unilaterally and illegally called up troops to form an army. It must be remembered that a president is not always commander-in-chief. He is only commander-in-chief when the Congress declares war and calls up the military. However, Lincoln apparently knew better than the Constitution and its Framers.

During the Civil War, Lincoln violated the constitutionally-protected right of habeas corpus and illegally arrested and imprisoned in veritable concentration camps tens of thousands of Northerners who did not support his illegal war. Among those arrested were judges who issued statements saying he was acting unconstitutionally and in violation of his oath and authority as president. Lincoln’s troops were also involved in voter fraud on numerous occasions and were used to bully reluctant states into tacitly supporting the war. Lincoln pardoned war criminals and presided over the unnecessary and heinous rape and plunder of the Confederacy. Lincoln’s policies were so collectivist and tyrannical that even Karl Marx loved Lincoln and wrote him congratulatory letters and declared that he was helping the world revolution.

In his personal life, Lincoln was a very troubled man. Numerous sources explain that he frequently told dirty and inappropriate jokes. Though he was anti-slavery, he was also consistently anti-emancipation and, indeed, his Emancipation Proclamation was a propaganda war measure that did not free one single slave. Lincoln’s family was deeply troubled and he is reported as having attended séances in the White House. He was not the wonderful, humble Christian man the history books claim he was.

All of that said, it is my personal opinion that President Lincoln may have had a change of heart during the middle of the war. In 1863, there was a marked changed in his tone and rhetoric. He began suddenly talking about God and religion and how this calamity was God’s judgement upon a nation that had violated His laws. This is perfectly accurate, the Civil War was a judgement of the Almighty. Some historians have discounted Lincoln’s change in tone as mere political posturing. Whether it was or was not, we cannot say because we do not know Lincoln’s heart. I hope for his sake that he did have a change of heart.

In the end, however,Abraham Lincoln’s gross, deliberate, and frequent violations of the Constitution, his initiation of a bloody war and the invasion of a sovereign country, his persecution and imprisonment of war dissenters, and the fact that he massively centralized the government and effectively destroyed the power of the States ensured in the Tenth Amendment, earn him a place on my list of worst presidents. Do not think of Lincoln as the “great emancipator,” think of him as the “great centralizer” and the “great destroyer of the Constitution.” While he might have had a change of heart and inwardly repented of his crimes and his violations of his oath of office, his evisceration of the Constitution cannot be excused or overlooked.

presidents9

George W. Bush: Without a doubt, the younger Bush was one of the worst men to ever sit in the Oval Office. Under his watch, the United States initiated the bogus War on Terror which has cost the lives of millions of people globally, including many thousands of our countrymen. Still today, twenty-four veterans commit suicide every day as a consequence of the horrors they have witnessed and were compelled to commit because of this illegal, immoral, unconstitutional, and undeclared war. These wars have done untold damage to the country, our national spirit, and our image abroad. Apart from the cost in human life and suffering, trillions of dollars have been wasted on these aggressive wars against nations who have never harmed us and do not have the capability to do so.

If you have not yet woken up to the fact that 9/11 was a false flag terror event, please educate yourself. Whether the president was aware of the plot ahead of time is debatable. But that there were conspirators in our government, and in the intelligence services of other nations, who perpetrated this event is beyond question. At any rate, President Bush used this false flag as a pretext to not only take us to war against innocent nations, but to restrict Liberty here at home. The Patriot Act was rammed through Congress in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. This act, as well as others such as the John Warner Defense Authorization Act and the Military Commissions Act, shredded the Constitution’s guarantees of the right of habeas corpus, due process, privacy, etc. Being advised by ex-Stasi (i.e. communist secret police) agents, Bush created the Department of Homeland Security. He also commissioned the unconstitutional agency known as the TSA. Through these and other agencies, President Bush presided over a mass violation of Americans’ privacy rights.

9112

Additionally, President Bush signed into law the communistic No Child Left Behind bill which gave the federal government even greater control over American schools and enforced mediocrity nationwide. He signed into law a massive expansion of Medicare and other socialist welfare programs. He delivered “bailouts” to numerous corporations and thus furthered the government’s socialistic grasp on the economy. And the list of “accomplishments” goes on and on and on.

Finally, President Bush, like his father, was a member of the elitist secret society known as Skull and Bones. The evidence suggests that this group is an offshoot or sub department of the Order of Illuminati founded in Bavaria in 1776. Numerous U.S. presidents have belonged to oath-bound secret societies. These societies rule our nation and world and are increasing their power and control with each passing year. With puppets like George W. Bush in the White House, their control deepens and our Republic suffers.

presidents12

Barack Obama: President Obama’s legacy of corruption is fresh in everyone’s mind, so I won’t spend much time on it. Suffice it to say that Obama was an out-and-out communist who was mentored by the rabid communist Frank Marshall Davis, groomed by communist advisors such as the felon and terrorist Bill Ayers who belonged to the communist Weather Underground, and surrounded with conspirators like Zionist Rahm Israel Emanuel. He was groomed for the presidency by communistic elements. His rapid rise, despite his lack of credentials, experience, and funds, is incredibly telling. He kow-towed to the communist conspiracy and worked hard for eight years to further the Marxist agenda and continued subverting American culture and law.

In complete repudiation of his campaign promises, President Obama continued, and in some respects intensified, Bush’s immoral War on Terror. Obama’s drone strikes killed thousands of innocent people throughout the Middle East. Under Obama’s stewardship, the U.S. military attacked numerous countries including Libya, Yemen, and Syria. The current crisis in Syria hit its stride during Obama’s presidency.

Additionally, the economy tanked during Obama’s terms. Unemployment rates skyrocketed despite the government’s manipulation of the numbers to conceal the problem. Our debt rose dramatically and, in fact, doubled the previous debt of all past administrations combined. Inflation and taxation increased during his terms. Per communist ideology, wealth redistribution to both domestic and foreign sources went into overdrive. And, lastly, Obamacare expanded socialistic control over every aspect of Americans’ lives, while simultaneously increasing rates across the board.

President Obama’s administration was a total disaster. By the end of his terms, the country was more divided than ever, the economy had been wrecked, the federal government’s powers had been increased, spying was even more rampant than under Bush, our War on Terror had increased while our military’s high tech weaponry was simultaneously gutted, and communists became emboldened enough to show themselves publicly. For all of these reasons, and hundreds more that I do not have space to record, Obama ranks third on my list of worst presidents.

presidents14

Woodrow Wilson: President Woodrow Wilson’s administration was a landmark turning point in U.S. history – and not for the better. President Wilson presided over the fundamental restructuring of the American economic system. Wilson signed into law the Federal Reserve Act which wrenched the control of America’s currency from the government and lodged it in the hands of a private entity known as the Federal Reserve. Contrary to myth, the Federal Reserve is not federal – that is, it is not a government agency. It is a system of privately-owned banks. Some of the shareholders in these bankers are foreigners. As the Federal Reserve chairmen have openly stated, the Federal Reserve is not accountable to the U.S. government. In other words, in direct violation of the Constitution which gives Congress the control over the coining of our currency, that power has been given to an unaccountable, privately-owned group of elitists who print money on a whim and who raise and lower our rates of interest and inflation at their leisure. If America is ever to recover her status as an independent Republic, she must cut out this Federal Reserve cancer immediately.

Additionally, Woodrow Wilson fought against the Constitution when he went along with the passage of 16th and 17th Amendments. The 16th introduced the graduated income tax in direct violation of the Constitution’s plain provisions governing equal taxation, and the 17th changed the ingenious constitutional method for electing senators, thus dramatically lessening the power of the states.

In direct violation of his campaign promises, Wilson’s henchmen secretly negotiated with Britain and various international entities to bring the United States into World War I – a war in which we had no legitimate interest. Once reelected for a second term, the administration put the wheels into motion and sent our boys to die in France in a pointless struggle. The pretext used was the sinking of the Lusitania, a passenger ship illegally carrying munitions to Britain in violation of the rules of neutrality. The British deliberately steered the ship into hostile waters and sacrificed it in order to draw America into her war.

During the war, Wilson unjustly rounded up and imprisoned tens of thousands of political prisoners and assaulted the right of free speech under the Sedition and Espionage Acts. Then, after the war, Wilson was instrumental in pushing for the League of Nations – an early version of the United Nations and an attempt to create a one-world government. Fortunately, the effort failed at that time. But the damage had been done – America began to become a warlike people which engaged itself in the petty conflicts of Europe.

From subverting our entire economic system by aiding in the establishment of the Federal Reserve monstrosity, to taking us to war while pretending to be a paragon of peace, to altering the Constitution’s plain provisions regarding elections, state authority, and taxation, Wilson was a horrendous president who did more damage to the nation than almost any other man who has ever lived in it. Additionally, it is worthy of note that Wilson was a Fabian Socialist. He was America’s first openly socialistic president, though of course he used a different and misleading label. But call it what you will, Wilson promoted the Fabian Socialist cause. And students of history will know that Fabian Socialism was merely a wing of the greater communist conspiracy.

presidents15

FDR: FDR’s presidency shall live in infamy. FDR tops my list of worst presidents because he gave America four terms of straight communism at home and unbridled interventionism abroad. He fundamentally altered the American way of life perhaps more than any other president, though Woodrow Wilson’s acquiescence to the establishment of the Federal Reserve and the whims of international bankers places him in a close second place. During FDR’s terms, the government bureaucracy ballooned. Its ranks became infested with communists and Zionists. By the end of FDR’s fourth term, the United States had been converted from a relatively non-interventionist nation to a warlike, aggressive, international empire ruled by a power-hungry, communist-infiltrated regime.

Though he nurtured the image of a grandfatherly figure in a wheelchair, FDR was in actuality a conniving conman and mass murderer who was beholden to Wall Street and the international bankers. FDR loved the Soviet Union and was good friends with the communist tyrant Joseph Stalin, whom he affectionately called Uncle Joe Stalin. FDR’s regime became the first major nation to diplomatically recognize the failing Soviet Union and establish ties with it. This recognition allowed Western aid and capital to pour into the USSR, thus saving it from its severe deterioration. Stalin returned the favor by sending his spies and agents to infiltrate FDR’s government, and using the aid to build up his war machine.

presidents19

Entire books have been written about the staggering number of communists who infested FDR’s regime and served as his personal advisors and policy makers. One of the most infamous was Alger Hiss, a Soviet spy who served as an aid to FDR and later became the first secretary-general of the communist-controlled United Nations. During 1941 when the Germans were on the verge of destroying the evil empire once and for all, FDR intervened and sent billions of dollars of aid, and thousands of trucks and tanks and other badly needed supplies to the Soviet Union under the Lend-Lease program. Without this aid, it is possible that Germany – the most anti-communist nation on earth at the time – would have won the war in the East and eliminated the communist virus. Indeed, so evil and cruel was the Soviet Union that many Russian subjects hailed the Germans as liberators and many joined her armies to fight against their own Red Army. However, America intervened and saved the Soviet Union – the evilest and most murderous regime in world history – and tipped the balance of history in the communists’ favor.

World War II was started by the Allies. You won’t read that in mainstream history books or see it on the History Channel, but it is true. I devote a chapter in my book A Century of Red to explaining the true origin of that deadly conflagration. Hitler simply did not start the war. You have been lied to. But more relevant to our discussion is how the United States entered the war.

Prior to 1941, FDR had tried desperately to get into the war in Europe. He goaded the Germans, attacked German ships, illegally sent supplies to Britain and the USSR, etc. Yet, Germany did not take the bait. Consequently, FDR changed tactics and decided to enter the war by goading Japan into attacking us. To do this, FDR pressured Asian governments to stop selling supplies to Japan. The United States also placed embargoes on Japanese materials. Slowly, following an 8-point plan, the United States strangled the Japanese economy. Japan, in retaliation for what constituted acts of war according to international law, decided to strike the American Pacific Fleet based at Pearl Harbor.

FDR1

As the war preparations developed, FDR kept tabs on them in almost real time. Unbeknownst to most people is the fact that the United States and Britain had broken the Japanese secret codes. Not only did we crack their diplomatic codes, but we deciphered their military codes as well. Only a handful of individuals, including FDR, had access to these reports. Consequently, when Japan’s fleet sailed to Hawaii to attack Pearl Harbor, FDR could literally track their movements across the Pacific. He knew they were going to strike but deliberately and intentionally withheld this information from his commanders at Pearl Harbor. FDR wanted war and he was prepared to sacrifice almost 3,000 American lives to do so.

As he rose in Congress the day after the attack to demand a declaration of war, FDR lied to the world when he said that Japan’s attack was a surprise. The only “infamy” of that day rested on his very own shoulders. FDR has American blood on his hands. And, through his maneuvering and duplicity in getting the United States into war, he has the blood of millions of German and Japanese civilians on his hands, too. From the firebombing of more than 60 Japanese cities to the horrific terror bombings of Germany and mainland Europe, FDR committed gross war crimes and presided over some of the worst atrocities in world history. And at Yalta, FDR surrendered Europe to the communists, thus sealing the fate of tens of millions of innocent people.

presidents18

In addition to these crimes, FDR took America off the gold standard and confiscated Americans’ gold, instituted numerous socialistic programs including the disastrous New Deal, tampered with the judicial system, and repeatedly violated the Constitution. FDR signed more executive orders than any other president. He ruled as a dictator, rounded up Japanese-Americans and threw them into concentration camps, deliberately took us into the bloodiest war in history, saved the Soviet Union from defeat, presided over the dastardly terror bombings of millions of innocent people, inaugurated the construction of the atom bomb, brought more communist and Zionist operatives into the government than any other president, bowed to his masters on Wall Street, lied through his teeth to the American People, and rode roughshod over the U.S. Constitution and international law.

FDR was, without a doubt, the worst president in our history. Save for FDR, the communist conspiracy which menaces the world may have died out or at least been severely diminished. Save for FDR, the United States would not have been involved in the Second World War. Save for FDR, America might have remained on the gold standard. Save for FDR’s socialist policies, the Great Depression would have ended far sooner. I can think of nothing FDR ever did in his 12-year reign that benefited the United States. He was a lying degenerate and war criminal whose name and legacy should live “in infamy.”

Honorable mention:

Teddy Roosevelt. As an outright socialist (or, as he called himself, a “progressive”) Roosevelt greatly shifted the government from a republican one to a socialistic one, and thus deserves an honorable mention on my worsts presidents list.

 

The list of good presidents is very short. Those who made the list are so well known that I have decided to only provide short lists of their numerous accomplishments. I urge every American to study these men and their principles and policies. They were patriots and constitutionalists. They were Christians with high moral character. They hated war, fought the international bankers, slashed governmental spending, and were apostles of Liberty who tried hard to protect individual rights and traditional values. I now present the five best American presidents.

Best Presidents

5. James Monroe

4. Andrew Jackson

3. James Madison

2. George Washington

1. Thomas Jefferson

presidents20

James Monroe: President Monroe was one of the last Founding Fathers to become president. He was a faithful Christian and an upright man. He famously established the Monroe Doctrine to protect the United States and the Americas from foreign tyranny. This wise, Heaven-inspired policy was not interventionism, as some have assumed, but a legitimate defensive posture to protect this special (and once free) land of America. Behind the scenes, Thomas Jefferson was influential in encouraging President Monroe to institute this policy.

presidents21

Andrew Jackson: The Establishment historians hate President Jackson. Such hate coming from controlled Establishment sources piqued my interest some years ago and I started investigating Jackson’s presidency. All the public knows about Jackson’s legacy is the Trail of Tears, the Indian Removal Act, and how “Old Hickory” was a cantankerous and bitter man. What we are not told is that Andrew Jackson was one of the most qualified men to ever become president. We don’t hear that he fought against the vile bankers and singlehandedly saved America from becoming a fiefdom to them. We are never told that Jackson wholeheartedly supported the Constitution and rule of law. We are not told that President Jackson was the only president to ever pay off 100% of the national debt. We are not told that the economy boomed during the Jacksonian era. And we are certainly never informed that Jackson fought corruption within the government itself. These wonderful achievements are covered up and instead we only hear that Andrew Jackson was an “Indian-killer,” a “racist,” a “tyrant,” and other such ludicrous labels.

presidents24

James Madison: Clearly one of the most brilliant men ever to hold office, James Madison ranks third on my list. Other than winning the War of 1812 against the British invaders, James Madison’s terms were fairly uneventful. For that, I thank President Madison. A president is not meant to “get in there and change things.” A president is meant to quietly preside over the executive branch, ensure that each citizen is protected in his rights, and, otherwise, to butt out of the nation’s affairs. His benign policies led America into a period of peace and prosperity known as the “Era of Good Feelings.” Beyond this, Madison was one of the most upright and moral men to hold high office in this country. He was the Father of the Constitution, the author of the Bill of Rights, understood what Liberty truly is, and spent his life protecting our God-given rights and serving his country faithfully. If we had more men like James Madison today, I would not fear for our Republic’s future.

presidents25

George Washington: The Father of our Country was one of the greatest figures in all of recorded human history. Though the Establishment history books denigrate this amazing man as a slaveholder, an aristocrat, and a self-serving politicians, this is total hokum. General George Washington was an incredibly devout Christian who fasted and prayed and enforced high moral conduct among his soldiers. Few statesmen in our history have spoken more about God and our obligation to be a moral People. In his famous Farewell Address, President Washington said:

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

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

George Washington by Tim Davis

George Washington was a true friend to America and to human Freedom. I revere and honor his name. He was the indispensable man in the War for Independence. And he was utterly indispensable in the establishment of our inspired Constitution with its glorious protections of our God-given rights. Without George Washington, there may have been no Union. With only a few exceptions, Washington’s Administration was emphatically faithful to the Constitution and to the promotion of American Liberty.

presidents28

Thomas Jefferson: The Sage of Monticello graces my #1 spot for best U.S. president. I love Jefferson and often call myself a Jeffersonian Constitutionalist. I believe Jefferson was the most brilliant statesman who has ever lived. His writings thrill me. His depth of wisdom astounds me. While I have a couple minor disagreements with his views, I find that his views are closer to my own on political principles than any other person I have ever met or read about.

Like Washington, Jefferson was indispensable to the birth and formation of this nation. No man was as well versed in republicanism and the principles of good government as was Jefferson. This knowledge prepared him to write the Declaration of Independence, and to pronounce that our rights are God-given and that the People hold power over their government. Historians have attempted to discredit his political work by spreading the lie that he had affairs with his slaves. This has been so thoroughly disproved and debunked that I seriously question the honesty of any so-called expert who repeats it. Thomas Jefferson was, contrary to propaganda, a Christian who loved the Bible and cherished the teachings of Jesus. He was not a deist. In fact, none of the Founding Fathers were deists; they were true Christians.

presidents27

Jefferson’s presidency was, in my opinion, the best in our history. President Jefferson protected individual rights, pardoned those who had been wrongly convicted under the Alien and Sedition Acts, established good relations with the American Indians, delayed war with England, slashed the national debt in half, lived off his own money as president, made the government more accessible to the common man, and educated the People in the principles of good government. He was a statesman in every good sense of the word. I love Thomas Jefferson!

I end this section with a quote from Jefferson’s prolific and inspired pen. Writing from Europe, he exclaimed: “[M]y god! how little do my countrymen know what precious blessings they are in possession of, and which no other people on earth enjoy” (Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, June 17, 1785).

Honorable mentions:

John Adams. The only reason John Adams does not make my best presidents list is because he signed the Alien and Sedition Acts. Otherwise, my soul loves John Adams and his utter devotion to America and to the cause of Independence from monarchical tyranny.

John Quincy Adams: He followed in his father’s footsteps and was an honorable man of high moral conduct. He also fought the scourge of Freemasonry.

The first seven presidents of the United States were the best seven, without any question in my mind. However, beginning with the eighth president and despot Martin Van Buren, I can scarcely find a decent man who has sat in the Oval Office. It is a black mark on the American People that they have voted, decade after decade, for many generations, for scurrilous, self-serving men who have belonged to secret societies and who have worked tirelessly to subvert our God-inspired Constitution and the Freedom our Lord has bestowed upon us.

We have rejected God and He has taken away our wise judges and left us with men who mirror our own natures. If we repent of our indifference, our apathy, our ignorance, and our infidelity to the principles of the Constitution, the Lord “will restore [our] judges as at the first, and [our] counsellors as at the beginning” (Isaiah 1:26). If we do not follow this course, we will continue to have despots and immoral men to rule over us, and what is left of our precious Liberty will continue to diminish. If we do not resurrect common sense, constitutionalism, and God’s laws, our fate is sealed. I leave you to ponder the prophetic words of patriot John Adams. He warned:

“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.

tyranny1

Zack Strong

February 19, 2018.