In Support of the President’s Use of Domestic Military Force

Turn on any TV and you’ll see scenes of destruction, lawlessness, and violence being played out from coast to coast. Organized mobs are brutally attacking police and random citizens, injuring dozens and leaving several dead. They’ve started hundreds of fires, destroyed businesses, looted stores, threatened to rampage through the suburbs, graffitied national monuments, and clashed with Secret Service at the White House. Our Republic is in the grip of a cleverly-orchestrated revolt.

Minneapolis-riot

The malevolent forces behind this revolt are the Marxists and their front groups such as Antifa and Black Lives Matter. To his credit, President Donald Trump has mobilized the military to put down this savage insurrection. The goal of this article is to explain the constitutional and moral justifications for calling in the military to restore law and order and to punish the renegades, and to demonstrate why the riots are not spontaneous events but part of a larger agenda.

On June 1, President Trump delivered a speech at the White House. To me, it was the greatest speech he’s yet given. I quote it nearly in full to contextualize my remarks:

“I am your president of law and order and an ally of all peaceful protesters. But in recent days our nation has been gripped by professional anarchists, violent mobs, arsonists, looters, criminals, rioters, Antifa, and others. A number of state and local governments have failed to necessary action to safeguard their residents. Innocent people have been savagely beaten like the young man in Dallas, Texas who was left dying on the street or the woman in upstate New York viciously attacked by dangerous thugs. Small business owners have seen their dreams utterly destroyed. New York’s finest have been hit in the face with bricks. Brave nurses who have battled the virus are afraid to leave their homes. A police precinct has been overrun. Here in the nation’s capital, he Lincoln Memorial and the World War II Memorial have been vandalized. One of our most historic churches was set ablaze. A federal officer in California, an African American enforcement hero, was shot and killed.

“These are not acts of peaceful protest. These are acts of domestic terror. The destruction of innocent life and the spilling of innocent blood is an offense to humanity and a crime against God. America needs creation, not destruction; cooperation, not contempt; security, not anarchy; healing, not hatred; justice, not chaos. This is our mission and we will succeed. 100% we will succeed. Our country always wins.

America279

“That is why I am taking immediate presidential action to stop the violence and restore security and safety in America. I am authorizing all available federal resources civilian and military to stop the rioting and looting, to end the destruction and arson, and to protect the rights of law-abiding Americans including your Second Amendment rights. Therefore, the following measures are going into effect immediately:

“First, we are ending the riots and lawlessness that have spread throughout our country. We will end it now. Today I have strongly recommended to every governor to deploy the National Guard in sufficient numbers that we dominate the streets. Mayors and governors must establish an overwhelming law enforcement presence until the violence has been quelled. If a city or state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them.

“I am also taking swift and decisive action to protect our great capital, Washington, D.C. What happened in this city last night was a total disgrace. As we speak, I am dispatching thousands and thousands of heavily armed soldiers, military personnel, and law enforcement officers to stop the rioting, looting, vandalism, assaults, and the wanton destruction of property. We are putting everybody on warning our 7 o’clock curfew will be strictly informed.

“Those who threaten innocent life and property will be arrested, detained, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I want the organizers of this terror to be on notice that you will face severe criminal penalties and lengthy sentences in jail. This includes Antifa and others who are leading instigators of this violence.

“One law and order. And that is what it is. We have one beautiful law. And once that is restored and fully restored, we will help you, we will help your business, and we will help your family. America is founded upon the rule of law. It is the foundation of our prosperity, our freedom, and our very way of life. But where there is no law, there is no opportunity. Where there is no justice, there is no liberty. Where there is no safety, there is no future.

“We must never give into anger or hatred. If malice or violence reigns, then none of us is free. I take these actions today with firm resolve and with true and passionate love for our country. By far our greatest days lie ahead.”

I don’t often say this about a political speech, but in this excerpt, every word is accurate. I endorse it in full. But just what am I endorsing?

To begin with, President Trump correctly refuted the idea that what’s happening are “peaceful protests.” He gave multiple examples of the violence, destruction, and murder that’s occurring. He could have given thousands more. The controlled media has pushed the false narrative that this is all “peaceful,” even as cities burn, people lose their life savings, stores are looted, rioters threaten to “kill white people,” people are assaulted, police cars and offices are torched, and so on. At least 23 states have now activated their National Guard, yet this is supposedly a “peaceful” event!

President Trump correctly described the anarchy as “domestic terror.” Antifa, one of the radical Judeo-Marxist organizations spearheading the riots, has a 10-point plan to cause enough chaos to effect regime change. To give you a flavor of their scheme, I quote two proposals. Point #2 threatens: “We will destroy the state, police, military, corporations and all those who run the American plantation.” And point #10 says: “Liberation begins where America dies.”

Suffice it to say, I was ecstatic three days ago when when the president designated Antifa a “terrorist organization.” I’ve advocated doing that for years. In fact, I propose labeling all openly Marxist organizations, political parties, and publications as terroristic and/or subversive and formally outlawing them and rounding up their members. More on that later.

The president went farther by pointing out that not only is the violence “domestic terror,” but that it is being orchestrated by “professional anarchists.” He put “the organizers of this terror . . . on notice” and referred to Antifa thugs as “leading instigators of this violence.” It is perfectly accurate to say that these riots are not organic or spontaneous. They were pre-planned and only needed the right pretext to set them in motion.

Is there evidence that the riots are being formally organized by malevolent organizations? Yes there is. The evidence is of two sorts – real and theoretical. First, protesters in multiple locations have been caught with printed instructions for how to cause violence and whom to call for bail if arrested. BuzzFeed and Vox, among others, have published online guides for how to protest. BuzzFeed posted a 19-point guide, which included the tip: “Wear clothing that covers tattoos, discernible scars, and birth marks that could be used to identify you.” And Joe Biden’s campaign has been busy bailing Minneapolis rioters out of jail, thus sanctioning the violence.

communism690

Mayor Melvin Carter of St. Paul stated several days ago that every person who had at that point been arrested in connection with the riot was non-local. They had traveled to the hot spot to engage in and incite violence. The police chief of Minneapolis likewise said that the core group of thugs who kicked off the melee were not local residents, but had arrived from other locations. In Richmond, Virginia, Police Chief Will Smith recounted the following:

“Last night, protesters intentionally set a fire to an occupied building on Broad Street. This is not the only occupied building that has been set fire to over the last two days, but they prohibited us from getting on scene. We had to force our way to make a clear path for the fire department. Protesters intercepted that fire apparatus several blocks away with vehicles and blocked that fire department’s access to the structure fire. Inside that home was a child. Officers were able to help those people out of the house. We were able to get the fire department there safely.

“. . . We have people from across the country who have traveled many states to be here. We know that this is an organized effort. We’re committed to try and identify those that are behind it. And we’re doing our very level best to arrest those that are perpetrating the violence on our community, and our city, and our citizens.”

Here we have more out-of-staters coming into an area and coordinating violence against the population. Can anyone doubt that the various riots are planned and directed from above?

Furthermore, a strange video showed a man in a mask walk up behind a crowd, smash out store windows, and calmly walk off. Another short video showing a bedraggled hippie paying rioters and directing their operations has also come to light. From Kansas City to Baltimore to New York City, piles of bricks for rioters to throw have also been mysteriously showing up in countless locations, strategically located near high-end stores and places where they can inflame passions the most. An article in The Most Important News (TMIN) noted that some of the anarchist groups are using networks of bicycle scouts to communicate with rioters on the ground and direct their operations. TMIN also cited police reports from Minnesota where “several caches of flammable materials” had been found in various neighborhoods, having “been planted days ago and some only in the last 24 hours.”

Foreign intervention has similarly been uncovered. While writing this, news broke that FBI agents in several locations have arrested groups from Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, and Honduras for paying thugs to create violence during the riots. An investigator in the FBI sting operation told the news: “There are definitely individuals associated with Venezuela who paid trips to people to various cities in the United States to promote chaos.” The article carrying this story noted:

“Several of the detainees are residents of the Miami area known as Little Haiti, who participated in the riots in downtown Miami between Friday and Saturday, the source said.

“Activists marching with the flag of the Sandinista National Liberation Front, the party of Nicaraguan dictator Daniel Ortega, also participated in the demonstrations.”

plaza_19-7-2017_19.jpg_1718483346

The Sandinista National Liberation Front is a well-known Soviet front organization founded during the Cold War for the promotion of socialism in Nicaragua. It’s no surprise that the revolutionary Marxist Sandinistas are participating in the communist-inspired riots alongside Antifa and others of like ideology.

Some in the media are accusing Russia of involvement in the rioting, while others on the “conservative” side are calling this accusation “fake news.” Yet, is it really “fake news” when you consider that Russian proxy states like Cuba and Venezuela, and Russia-supported groups like the Sandinistas, are being caught red-handed financing rioters? It was an acknowledged Soviet tactic to do their dirty work (terrorism, assassination, drug smuggling, etc.) through proxy states so they could claim their hands were clean. They continue to use the tactic to this day. Similarly, the Red Chinese have openly said the rioting is a “beautiful sight to behold.” China has also invested billions of dollars in radicalizing American youth, especially on university campuses. You can be sure that time will reveal more Russian and Chinese fingerprints on these violent riots.

All of these things demonstrate that paid professional provocateurs are being used to cause chaos, inflame tensions, and whip up clashes with police. Rioters are being provided with the fuel – sometimes literally – to continue their rampaging. Justice is being denied by people with deep pockets bailing out the criminals. The mark of prior planning and coordinated action is obvious to see.

The next kind of evidence is theoretical. That is to say, these riots follow a distinct pattern. They play out according to a well-crafted script. This script is used again and again. It’s such a distinct program that it’s immediately recognizable. This script was used to pull of the Kent State Massacre false flag, which I recently wrote about. It was used more recently in the Occupy Wall Street and Ferguson riots. It’s the same blueprint set down by the communists and implemented by a professional cadre of revolutionaries whenever the pretext presents itself (or can be made to appear).

In my article “George Floyd and the Scourge of Black Criminality,I quoted several statements explaining the communist blueprint for insurrection. Today, I briefly refer to them, expand on one observation, and add an additional quotation. First, the Russian immigrant author Alexander Markovsky succinctly summarized the Bolshevik playbook for revolution:

“Lenin was a master at taking advantage of chaos. He believed that crises create opportunities for change, or, in his mind, revolution. “Our task,” Lenin wrote in 1902 in What Is to Be Done, “is to utilize every manifestation of discontent, and to collect and utilize every grain of rudimentary protest.” Indeed, if you want to change a society, here is Lenin’s script: cause the problem. Spread the misery. Send a cadre of professional community organizers to unite all of the angry and disinherited spirits to fuel an organized revolt. Entice chaos and violence. Exploit chaos for larger political objectives. Blame your political opponents, demonize and criminalize them. Move decisively to request a temporary suspension of civil liberties in exchange for the restoration of law and order. Usurp power before the deceived masses realize that there is more permanent in politics than something temporary. . . .

communism449

“Taking advantage of a crisis has always been a strategy for extremists to make fundamental changes in society. . . .

““Never allow a crisis to go to waste,” former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told the New York Times, echoing Lenin and Strasser” (Alexander G. Markovsky, Liberal Bolshevism: America Did Not Defeat Communism, She Adopted It, 28).

Crisis, reaction, solution. That’s the way the Marxist Elite operate. They cause a crisis, they manage and steer the public’s reaction to the crisis, and then they offer a “solution” that will benefit their agenda. In other words, they make people’s lives miserable and then rush in with “solutions,” posing as the savior. They run the same script over and over, as many times as necessary to construct their communist monopoly piece by piece.

Ezra Taft Benson referred to this tactic in 1967 when, in the midst of the communist-controlled Civil Rights Movement, he warned:

“As far back as 1928, the Communists declared that the cultural, economic, and social differences between the races in America could be exploited by them to create the animosity, fear, and hatred between large segments of our people that would be necessary beginning ingredients for their revolution.

“Briefly, the three broad objectives were and are as follows:

1. Create hatred

2. Trigger violence

3. Overthrow established government. . . .

“Police and National Guard units will never be adequate to handle such widespread anarchy, especially if a large part of our men and equipment are drained away in fighting foreign wars. In self-defense, larger numbers are brought into fighting on both sides. The appearance of a nationwide civil war takes form. In the confusion, potential anti-Communist leaders of both races are assassinated, apparently the accidental casualties of race war.

Civil Rights Confrontation

“Time the attack to coincide, if possible, with large-scale sabotage a water supplies, power grids, main rail road and highway arteries, communication centers, and government buildings With fires raging in every conceivable part of town, with wanton looting going on in the darkness of a big city without routine police protection, without water to drink, without electrical refrigeration, without transportation or radio or TV, the public will panic, lock its doors in trembling fear, and make it that much easier for the small but assembled and fully disciplined guerrilla bands to capture the power centers of each community. Overthrow the government! After complete control is consolidated (and that may take many months, as in Cuba), only then allow the people to discover that it was a Communist revolution after all. . . .

“In such countries as Czechoslovakia, the Communists have used an entirely different method of internal conquest. Instead of the force and violence of a bloody revolution (a “war of national liberation”), parliamentary and political means were used to bring about a more peaceful transition to Communism. The Communist strategists call this alternate plan a “proletarian” revolution.

“This plan is as follows: Using unidentified Communist agents and non-Communist sympathizers in key positions in government, in communications media, and in mass organizations, such as labor unions and civil rights groups, demand more and more government power as the solution to all civil rights problems. Total government is the objective of Communism. Without calling it by name, build Communism piece by piece through mass pressures for presidential decrees, court orders, and legislation that appear to be aimed at improving civil rights and other social reforms. If there is social, economic, or educational discrimination, then advocate more government programs and control.

“And what if riots come? Then more government housing, government welfare, government job training, and, finally, federal control over police. Thus the essential economic and political structure of Communism can be built entirely “legally” and in apparent response to the wishes of the people who have clamored for some kind of solution to the problems played-up, aggravated, or created outright by Communists for just that purpose. After the machinery of Communism is firmly established, then allow the hidden Communists one by one to make their identities known. Liquidate first the anti-Communists and then the non-Communist sympathizers who are no longer needed in government. The total state mechanism can now openly and “peacefully” be transferred into the hands of Communists. Such is the so-called proletarian revolution. Such has happened in other, once free, countries. It has already started here.

“The Communists are not entirely certain whether force and violence or legal and political means or a combination of both would be best for the internal conquest of America. At first, there was talk of splitting away the “Black Belt,” those southern states in which the Negro held a majority, and calling them a Negro Soviet Republic. But, as conditions changed and more Negroes migrated to the northern states, they applied this same strategy to the so-called ghetto areas in the North. It now seems probable that the Communists are determined to use force and violence to its fullest, coupled with a weakening of the economy and military setbacks abroad, in an effort to create as much havoc as possible to weaken America internally and to create the kind of psychological desperation in the minds of all citizens that will lead them to accept blindly the application of legal and political means as the final blow.”

There’s a lot to consider here and the full address is even more powerful, but the key takeaway is that the communists have always planned to use riots – particularly race riots – to create chaos in which they can come to power. If enough chaos can be created and sustained, they may be able to give the system a shove and topple it altogether and come to power. But more than likely, it will take many attempts and so they settle for causing crisis after crisis, and each time enacting more and more restrictive legislation. Eventually, by hook or by crook, the communist revolutionaries hope to demoralize, confuse, and conquer America. The current riots are a part of that overall strategy.

BI6A0286-1

I quote one more important statement from Benson. In 1963, Benson explained different methods the communists have planned to capture the United States:

“There are three possible methods by which the Communists might take us over. One would be through a sufficient amount of infiltration and propaganda, to disguise Communism as just another political party.

“The second method would be by fomenting internal civil war in this country, and aiding the communists’ side in that war with all necessary military might.

“The third method would be by a slow insidious infiltration resulting in a takeover without the American people realizing it.

“The Soviets would not attempt military conquest of so powerful and so extensive a country as the United States without availing themselves of a sufficiently strong fifth column in our midst, a fifth column which would provide the sabotage, the false leadership, and the sudden seizures of power and of means of communication, needed to convert the struggle, from the very beginning, into a civil war rather than clear-cut with an external enemy.

“We can foresee a possibility of the Kremlin taking this gamble in time. In fact, it is clear that the Communists long ago made plans to have this method available, in whole or in part, to whatever extent it might be useful. The trouble in our southern states has been fomented almost entirely by the Communists for this purpose. It has been their plan, gradually carried out over a long period with meticulous cunning, to stir up such bitterness between the whites and blacks in the South that small flames of civil disorder would inevitably result. They could then fan and coalesce these little flames into one great conflagration of civil war, in time, if the need arose” (Ezra Taft Benson, “We Must Become Alerted and Informed,” speech, December 13, 1963).

I trust you can see that the communist playbook of old is being used right now, this very day, in the mass riots across our nation. The Red blueprint is being implemented precisely as drawn up. Lenin’s old script is being used yet again. Whether the average thug rioter knows it or not, he’s playing a part in the Bolshevik conquest of America. Whether the average Black Lives Matter dupe admits it, he’s cannon fodder for this final communist revolution.

Political commentator Dan Bongino was quick to point out that the rioting did not begin spontaneously. He observed:

“This is not some run-of-the-mill criminality by people who have nothing to do on a Saturday night. Yes, there are some people there who are just there to cause trouble. This is a sophisticated insurrection-type attack. This is not a joke.”

1591094462979

Bongino also said:

“This isn’t a protest anymore, this is a coup. This is an organized internal coup by a small group of agitators acting as a domestic terror group. That’s a fact.”

It is a fact. Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and other organizations are teaming up in a coordinated effort to cause mayhem, bring our government to a screeching halt, and prepare the way for a regime change – a regime that that would, ironically, ruthlessly prohibit the sort of rioting these people are engaged in.

To fight these domestic terrorists, President Trump has called up the military. In particular, the famed 82nd Airborne Division of the U.S. Army is heading Washington, D.C. and possibly Minnesota to put an end to the outlawry. Tens of thousands of National Guard troops have been activated. Numerous other federal personnel are joining the fight to suppress this Marxist uprising. Fortunately, this is not “the big one” and we should be able to bring things to a speedy conclusion. Unfortunately, this is a shadow of worse things yet to come.

Now I will address the constitutional and moral justifications for using military force domestically. This is necessary because people on both sides are calling President Trump’s move an overreach, a usurpation, and even an act of tyranny. The perpetual Trump-haters call anything the president does “tyrannical.” Their knee-jerk reactions don’t matter. I’m addressing my words to those who love America, my fellow constitutionalists and conspiracy researchers, and patriots everywhere.

As soon as the word broke that President Trump was calling up the military, people began citing the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. Posse comitatus is a Latin term meaning “force of the country.” The Encyclopaedia Britannica describes the function of posse comitatus as an “ancient English institution consisting of the shire’s force of able-bodied private citizens summoned to assist in maintaining public order. Originally raised and commanded by the sheriff, the posse comitatus became a purely civil instrument as the office of sheriff later lost its military functions.”

The Act in question essentially states that the military will not be used to enforce domestic laws. The context of this Act is important, however. After Lincoln’s war against the Confederacy, the South was occupied by the Union Army. The Army served as a police force. Eventually, it was necessary to end the military occupation and restore civilian control of the Southern states. Posse Comitatus was passed to accomplish this. Today, many are invoking Posse Comitatus to claim President Trump is overstepping his authority by using the military to ensure law and order.

America271

I would ask, whence does the president derive his authority? From the Posse Comitatus Act? No. He gets his authority from the American People by virtue of the Constitution which he swears an oath to uphold and defend.

The Constitution is our national creed. It’s what binds us together as Americans. It’s the “cement of the Union,” as James Madison called it (James Madison, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1809). The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and in its sphere it trumps all state and local laws. Indeed, even federal laws are only valid if they conform to the principles of the Constitution.

The Declaration of Independence proclaimed:

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

The purpose of the Constitution, therefore, is to limit government in such a way as to protect individual rights; that is, our lives, our Liberty, our property, and so forth. More explicitly, the Bill of Rights defends our right of self-defense, our right to peaceably assemble, our right to privacy, our right to jury trial, our right to freely worship God, our right to have our property protected, and so on. The entire purpose of the U.S. government is to do secure our rights and defend us from those who would violate them.

To defend our rights, the Constitution has certain mechanisms. One is the Supremacy Clause which ensures that no state or local laws can ever justly violate the Constitution and another is the president’s oath of office which states that his sole job is to uphold the Constitution.

The most common sense idea is that the president, as the chief officer of the federal government, has the ultimate responsibility to ensure that the rights of Americans everywhere are being protected. It only makes sense that if a state decided to curtail its people’s right of worship, for instance, the federal government – headed by the president – could, and should, step in and correct this flagrant abuse of God-given rights. Who will protest this fact? I believe only one who doesn’t understand the purpose and necessity of a general government can deny the president his just right to defend the American People from abuse, even if must use military force.

What’s more, I would ask: If the federal government doesn’t have the authority to compel obedience to the Constitution, then why does it exist? If it doesn’t possess the authority to compel obedience to just laws, then it’s a dead letter – a useless instrument that should be tossed on the ash heap of history. Thankfully, it does contain the authority for the government to step in and defend the rights of citizens. President George Washington expressed the idea this way his immortal Farewell Address:

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

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

America274

As General Washington said, we owe obedience to the government’s laws, inasmuch as they do not infringe upon our rights. The government therefore has inherent power to compel obedience while the People ratify the government with their consent and while its actions are harmonious with our Liberty. And as the chief executive, the president commands the power to compel.

Furthermore, our history furnishes precedent for the president using the military domestically. To justify his actions, President Trump took the advice of Senator Tom Cotton and invoked the 1807 Insurrection Act. The Act, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Thomas Jefferson, authorizes the president to deploy the military or militias during times of insurrection or when general law and order have been thwarted. The purpose of authorizing military force is for putting down insurrection or causing the laws to be duly executed. Congress has, more than once, reaffirmed the Insurrection Act and, thus, legally speaking, President Trump has every authority necessary to call in the military and use them to suppress the dangerous rioting that has already claimed the lives of multiple individuals and has set the whole nation on edge.

Even before the Insurrection Act, President George Washington demonstrated that the president has the right, when the situation calls for it, to use the military to bring about law and order. In 1791, the Whiskey Rebellion began. The rebellion lasted three years with the government futilely attempting the tax evaders. The final straw came in 1794 when 6,000 demonstrators erected mock guillotines and threatened government leaders (think of what was happening in France at the time). President Washington was so furious that the laws set forth by a government ratified by the consent of the People were being flouted that he issued a stern proclamation on August 7, 1794. In part, it read:

“[I]t is in my Judgment necessary under the circumstances of the case to take measures for calling forth the militia in order to suppress the Combinations aforesaid and to cause the Laws to be duly executed, and I have accordingly determined so to do, feeling the deepest regret for the occasion, but withal the most Solemn conviction, that the essential interests of the Union demand it, that the very existence of Government and the fundamental principles of social order are materially involved in the issue, and that the patriotism and firmness of all good Citizens are seriously called upon, as occasion may require, to aid in the effectual suppression of so fatal a Spirit.

“Wherefore, and in pursuance of the Proviso above recited, I George Washington, President of the United States, do hereby command all persons, being insurgents as aforesaid and all others whom it may concern on or before the first day of September next to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes. And I do moreover warn all persons whomsoever against aiding abetting or comforting the perpetrators of the aforesaid treasonable Acts: and do require all officers and other Citizens according to their respective duties and the laws of the land to exert their utmost endeavors to prevent and suppress such dangerous proceedings.”

1a Washington Reviewing the Western Army, at Fort Cumberland, Maryland, after 1795 attributed to Frederick Kemmelmeyer (German-born American artist, c.1755-1821)

President Washington, citing the 1792 Militia Acts, suited up in his old general’s uniform and rode at the head of an army of 13,000 militiamen to quell the “treasonable” uprising and punish the “insurgents.” Most of the “insurgents” departed peaceably, a number were arrested, a few were tried, two were found guilty of treason, and in the end Washington pardoned them. In that same year, James Madison wrote:

“The result of the insurrection ought to be a lesson to every part of the Union against disobedience to the laws. Examples of this kind are as favorable to the enemies of republican government as the event proves them to be dangerous to the authors” (James Madison to Hubbard Taylor, November 15, 1794).

Some then and now challenge Washington’s authority in this matter, yet the General understood that the president has the inherent right to enforce the Constitution – even by military means. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, for instance, initially disagreed with President Washington’s move. Yet, it was Thomas Jefferson, supported by James Madison, who, feeling the necessity to use troops to suppress a brewing rebellion by Aaron Burr, pushed for and signed the Insurrection Act a few short years later. Today, real patriots should be able to agree with Presidents Washington, Jefferson, and Madison that situations arise in which the president must have the authority and power to use the nation’s military might domestically.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the Constitution does not allow the president to use the military in domestic matters when a crisis calls for it. Even in this scenario, the president would be in the right to use the military to bring order. He would be justified by the “laws of necessity.”

Thomas Jefferson spoke often of the “laws of necessity” as being higher than the actual written law. I concur as emphatically as mortal words allow me to. The great sage explained:

“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 John B. Colvin, September 20, 1810).

Another time, Jefferson simply stated that “necessity is above all law” (Thomas Jefferson, “Report on Navigation of the Mississippi,” 1792).

The “laws of necessity” are of higher value even than the Constitution, which I consider to be a literally Heaven-inspired document. I revere the Constitution as I do the Bible and other holy scripture. Yet, the “laws of necessity” supersede all mortal laws. Even Heavenly laws such as “thou shalt not kill” can be justly broken when self-defense or the punishment of criminals necessitates it.

Think of the situation we find ourselves in as a People. Thousands of violent rioters from Miami to New York City to Baltimore to Houston to Minneapolis to L.A. are looting stores, destroying private property, burning down apartments and police stations, murdering law enforcement personnel, attacking truck drivers, and causing general chaos. Doesn’t necessity require a swift end to the violence? Doesn’t necessity dictate that our nation’s military, which exists to protect our Republic, be used to do their job? Fortunately, even if you can’t yet hear the call of necessity, you can settle your mind in the fact that the Insurrection Act championed by the great Thomas Jefferson authorizes domestic military intervention during legitimate crises.

America115

I don’t say this often, but God bless Donald Trump! I didn’t vote for him in 2016 and I won’t be voting for him in 2020. However, even while he has done many things I find deplorable, he has done more good than any president in my lifetime. During the past week alone he has hit several home runs: Moving to designate Antifa a terrorist organization; taking the United States out of the World Health Organization (WHO); moving to stop censorship by social media outlets that take tax-payer money; expelling Chinese “students” associated with the communist People’s Liberation Army (PLA) from America; and now deploying the military to put down violent Marxist riots.

If I was in the presidency, I would use the office to designate all organizations, parties, publications, groups, and clubs promoting Marxism as “subversive.” I would move to disband and criminalize them. I would do everything in my power – including using the military – to round up the members of these organizations. They would be placed through an educational course similar to what prospective U.S. citizens take. At the end, they would be given an option: Swear allegiance to the U.S. Constitution or be exiled. In extreme cases, I propose the death penalty. Capital punishment has always been the penalty for traitors.

This proposal no doubt sounds draconian. After all, isn’t this what Hitler did to the communists who were attempting to overthrow Germany? Yes, it is. And by so doing, he saved Germany from a communist coup d’état! Despite how authoritarian it seems, removing the source of violence and disturbance is an essential duty of the officers of government. Think of it in other terms. When you find a cancerous tumor in your body, do you leave it there or do you cut it out? You of course remove it. If you leave it in the body, it spreads, festers, damages tissue cells and bone marrow, and eventually kills you – sometimes in an agonizing manner. The same is true of political contagions like communism. If they are not ruthlessly rooted out, the society will deteriorate, convulse, and die.

We have to ask ourselves if we’re willing to let our cities burn and watch our people’s lives, livelihoods, and property be destroyed in the name of an organized mob fighting so-called “injustice.” Are we prepared to sit by idly as the law if flouted and savage mobs roam the streets like hyenas searching for prey? Or are we willing to do what necessity requires and fight back? Thankfully, President Trump has decided to do his duty and fight back. According to one poll, 58% of Americans support his decision. Even if they did not, however, it would still be the right thing to do. It is the only moral thing to do in this dire situation.

Even as I emphatically support the president’s decision, I offer a word of caution. Having a standing army on our streets was something the Founding Fathers collectively feared. They distrusted military establishments. The Constitution in fact only permits Congress to fund a military two years at a time – a clear attempt to check a future police state. History bears out the fact that tyrants often rise out of the habitual use of military force. Would-be-despots love crises because they give a pretext for instituting martial law.

President Trump is not the one who will use the military to oppress Americans and enact full martial law. However, if we get comfortable with having the military patrol our streets or if we allow the Marxist plague to force the military to be called out again and again, there will come a day when a future president will use the military to overthrow the Constitution.

I call on everyone to unite to cut the communist cancer from the American body once and for all. We must focus all our attention on the real enemy:

“We must not become confused over side issues. Our enemy is not the Catholic, not the Protestant, not the Negro, not the white man, not the Jew, not the Gentile, not employers, not employees, not the wealthy, not the poor, not the worker, and not the employer. Our mortal enemies are the Satanic Communists and those who prepare the path for them” (Ezra Taft Benson, “A Race Against Time,” BYU Address, December 10, 1963).

Not only are Black Lives Matter and Antifa goons communists themselves, but they’re preparing the path for a much eviler criminal cult to take power in the chaos – the very chaos people endorse and sanction when they erroneously identify the riots as “peaceful protests,” add “Black Lives Matter” filters to their Facebook pictures, and call people “racists” for not going along with their white-guilt-fueled professions of sorrow.

communism445

Finally, I echo J. Edgar Hoover who encouraged American patriots, saying:

“Communism can exist only where it is protected and hidden. The spotlight of public exposure is the most effective means we have to use in destroying the communist conspiracy. Drag that conspiracy into the light! Tear it apart. Reveal the flaws in its philosophy. Keep the pressure on it. Force it into retreat” (J. Edgar Hoover, The Lion, October, 1957, in Jerreld Newquist, ed., Prophets, Principles and National Survival, 251).

Fellow American, do your part to drag this diabolical conspiracy into the light where it will wither and die. Use your influence, however great or small, to denounce communism while advocating in favor of our Faith, Families, and Freedom. We have an opportunity, if we’re wise, moral, and courageous enough to take it, to deal a major blow to the communist conspiracy in America. If we fail to exterminate communism from our Republic, or if we allow our military to be improperly used in this fight, we may be signing our own death certificate. God help the pure in heart see the day when the communist gravediggers lie in the same mass grave they dug for us!

Zack Strong,
June 3, 2020

560

Order my “Communism is Treason” shirt at the link and support my work: https://teespring.com/shop/new-communism-is-treason?pid=369&cid=6512

To Be Prepared for War

Peace through strength is an ancient concept. It was the Roman modus operandi as Rome expanded her influence across the known world. It was also the policy pursued by our very own George Washington. In our modern world of appeasement and surrender to the forces of tyranny, maintaining peace through strength has become a uniquely American custom. It is not only the national policy followed by great American presidents, but that which is followed by American gun owners every day. Peace through strength, then, is part of the true American heritage.

America43

In his first annual message to Congress, President George Washington stated: “To be prepared for War is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.” In the very next breath, he continued: “A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined” (George Washington, First Annual Message to Congress, January 8, 1790). When you examine the annals of history, whether you look in ancient Israel, manly Sparta, gallant Rome, or in the American Republic, you find that free people have always been armed. Indeed, arms in the hands of freemen distinguishes them from serfs and slaves.

The philosophy “peace through strength” derives from common sense and practical experience. All human experience shows that unscrupulous men, criminals, and tyrants, prey upon the defenseless and weak. Evil people are frequently cowards and their victims are usually targets of opportunity. And no one is more defenseless and presents an easier target than the unarmed and weak. This is the reason why lunatics choose to shoot people in gun-free zones rather than in locations where free men and women are armed and able to defend themselves.

The same is true of nations. An Evil Empire like the Soviet Union preys upon weak nations. They backpedal and try to negotiate (though they only make deals when it benefits them) when a nation presents a strong and united front against them. Instead of launching a risky frontal assault, they resort to subversion, infiltration, psychological warfare, terrorism, and guerrilla tactics in order to demoralize, weaken, corrupt, confuse, and undermine an opponent before they ever attempt conquest by force.

Communist Russia and Red China will never attempt to take down the United States through force of arms unless we have been sufficiently degraded on the inside first. Unfortunately, that horrific day is swift approaching as cultural Marxism (i.e. feminism, LGBT, radical environmentalism, “civil rights” movements, political correctness, etc.) rips through our vital institutions. We are becoming a weak nation because we have been too politically correct to stand up to the Reds and to call a spade a spade. We are so afraid of offending someone, hurting their feelings, or causing a stir that we suffer abuses and reductions in our personal rights and national influence rather than boldly confront the enemy.

When necessary, a free society must use its arms and strength to defend itself. This should be a last resort to preserve peace, but it must be an option. A nation that is not prepared to defend itself presents a soft target to an aggressor. The Red Chinese commonly refer to the United States as a “paper tiger” that doesn’t have the stomach for a long struggle. They think we are weak and will eventually crumble because they have yet to see us stand up and confront them in a meaningful way. Islamic terrorists (which are primarily trained and funded by Soviet Russia) hold this same philosophy. America’s enemies cannot be appeased or bought off – appeasement only emboldens them.

We learned through our experiences with Barbary pirates at the beginning of our Republic that buying peace with tribute makes our enemies insatiable and actually increases the problem. Because of a lack of naval power at the time, President Washington was forced to pay the Islamic pirates who were raiding our ships rather than face them in battle. President John Adams did the same while creating a navy that could eventually contend with overseas opponents.

military7

President Thomas Jefferson was the first president to use our newly minted Navy and Marines to punish the pirates and defend America’s vital international trade. After the War of 1812, President Madison sent the U.S. Navy to the Mediterranean to finish what President Jefferson had started. Our Navy devastated the pirates, ensuring peace between the United States and the Barbary States for generations. We learned from this episode that peaceful relations can only be established with hostile states by standing up to them or crushing them with overwhelming strength. Evil people and regimes only bow to power.

Because of his experience as a colonel during the French-Indian War and as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army during the Revolution, President George Washington understood this principle perhaps better than anyone. It infuriated him that the United States did not have the means to deal with enemies who ruthlessly attacked peaceful trading vessels and harmed Americans and America’s interests. In a letter to the Marquis de Lafayette, he raged:

“[H]ow is it possible the great maritime powers of Europe should submit to pay an annual tribute to the little piratical States of Barbary. Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enimies to mankind, or crush them into nonexistence” (George Washington to Marquis de Lafayette, August 15, 1786).

Washington understood that only an armed society – both on a personal and a national level – could retain their Freedom against the multitude of adversaries and tyrants that abound in the world. He knew that freemen could only remain so if they were strong and projected their strength. Part of this was to always be ready for war so that a potential aggressor would think twice before attacking – and so that he would severely regret it if he did.

At the beginning of our War for Independence, General Washington encouraged his troops to stand firm against British tyrants. He said:

“[T]he hour is fast approaching, on which the Honor and Success of this army, and the safety of our bleeding Country depend. Remember officers and Soldiers, that you are Freemen, fighting for the blessings of Liberty—that slavery will be your portion, and that of your posterity, if you do not acquit yourselves like men . . . every one for himself resolving to conquer, or die, and trusting to the smiles of heaven upon so just a cause, will behave with Bravery and Resolution” (George Washington, General Orders, August 23, 1776).

George Washington35

The “smiles of heaven” only rain down upon those who take the pains to defend themselves and increase their own human strength. Only the vigorous and valiant are worthy of divine intervention and blessings. Only by “fighting for the blessings of Liberty,” and remaining virtuous, can Americans remain freemen. And all real freemen are soldiers – warriors for justice, truth, and Liberty.

All true freemen are armed and prepared for battle at a moment’s notice – whether against a domestic enemy or against an invader. This is precisely why Samuel Adams envisioned America as a “Christian Sparta” (Samuel Adams to John Scollay, December 30, 1780). Like the Spartans, “molon labe,” or “come and take it,” would be our war cry. It was strict adherence to this principle of preparing for war and being ready to defend the peace, coupled with faithful obedience to God’s laws, that made America great. And the same course can make America great again.

Similar to Washington and Adams, Thomas Jefferson believed that strength was a means of preventing war. He wished every American freeman to be a soldier. He stated:

“[T]he Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. the Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression, as a standing army. their system was to make every man a soldier, & oblige him to repair to the standard of his country, whenever that was reared. this made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so” (Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, September 10, 1814).

This remedy – namely, to arm and discipline our citizens in the art of war – would make America “invincible” to foreign threats so long as we also remain virtuous. A free nation that expects to remain free must be prepared for war. We prepare for war but pray for peace. As Thomas Paine expressed it: “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it” (Thomas Paine, The American Crisis, No. 4, September 12, 1777).

The phrase “peace through strength,” in its modern context, was popularized by Ronald Reagan during his 1980 campaign against socialist appeaser Jimmy Carter. For eight years, President Reagan preached peace through strength and tried to get America back to her roots. While President Reagan was only marginally successful in his gigantic task, reminding ourselves of some of his inspiring thoughts seems appropriate.

America39

During one of the presidential debates with then President Jimmy Carter, candidate Reagan said:

“Now, I believe, also that this meeting, this mission, this responsibility for preserving the peace, which I believe is a responsibility peculiar to our country, that we cannot shirk our responsibility as the leader of the Free World, because we’re the only one that can do it. And therefore, the burden of maintaining the peace falls on us. And to maintain that peace requires strength. America has never gotten in a war because we were too strong” (Reagan/Carter presidential debate, October 28, 1980).

In a speech to the American People regarding national security, President Reagan explained the need for strength to combat the Red menace – the exact same menace we face today at home and abroad. He rightly observed:

“We know that peace is the condition under which mankind was meant to flourish. Yet peace does not exist of its own will. It depends on us, on our courage to build it and guard it and pass it on to future generations. . . .

“. . . American strength is . . . a sheltering arm for freedom in a dangerous world. Strength is the most persuasive argument we have to convince our adversaries to negotiate seriously and to cease bullying other nations.

“. . . American power is the indispensable element of a peaceful world. . . .

“But it is not just the immense Soviet arsenal that puts us on our guard. The record of Soviet behavior – the long history of Soviet brutality toward those who are weaker – reminds us that the only guarantee of peace and freedom is our military strength and our national will. The peoples of Afghanistan and Poland, of Czechoslavakia and Cuba, and so many other captive countries – they understand this.

“Some argue that our dialogue with the Soviets means we can treat defense more casually. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was our seriousness about defense that created the climate in which serious talks could finally begin. . . .

“Our job is to provide for our security by using the strengths of our free society” (Ronald Reagan, speech, February 26, 1986).

military21

Think about it, who is more likely to persuade a thug to put down his gun – an unarmed negotiator with no leverage or a seasoned police officer with a raised rifle? The answer is obvious. Though the Soviets have broken literally every treaty they ever signed with the United States, they were wary of President Reagan because they knew that he would not hesitate, if necessary, to launch nuclear missiles and a full-scale war against the communists in defense of America and the West.

One of my favorite Ronald Reagan moments demonstrates President Reagan’s willingness to stand up to the communist threat. It occurred on August 11, 1984, when President Reagan told a joke. Though clearly a joke, it contained a large kernel of truth. During a microphone sound check prior to his speech, President Reagan mused: “My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.”

I can’t listen to the audio recording of this classic moment without laughing. Yet, the Soviets weren’t laughing – and not because Russians don’t have much of a sense of humor. Rather, these communists – who consider themselves in a permanent state of war with the West – understood that in Ronald Reagan they had a man who would not cower in fear, kow-tow to Moscow, or back down to Soviet advances. Evil regimes like the Soviet Union only gain momentum unless forcibly stopped in their tracks and resisted manfully by one of equal or greater strength.

President Reagan’s views were inspired by his belief that God founded this country and that we are not only exceptional, but that we have a mission to lead the world by our shining example:

“I’ve always believed that this land was set aside in an uncommon way, that a divine plan placed this great continent between the oceans to be found by a people from every corner of the earth who had a special love of faith, freedom and peace. Let us reaffirm America’s destiny of goodness and goodwill” (Ronald Reagan, Thanksgiving message, 1982).

America67

Part of being the world leader is helping to preserve peace when it is within our sphere of influence and duty. President Reagan rightly affirmed:

“We’re not a warlike people. Quite the opposite. We always seek to live in peace. We resort to force infrequently and with great reluctance, and only after we’ve determined that it’s absolutely necessary. We are awed – and rightly so – by the forces of destruction at loose in the world in this nuclear era. But neither can we be naive or foolish. Four times in my lifetime America has gone to war, bleeding the lives of its young men into the sands of island beachheads, the fields of Europe, and the jungles and rice paddies of Asia. We know only too well that war comes not when the forces of freedom are strong; it is when they are weak that tyrants are tempted. . . .

“Of all the objectives we seek, first and foremost is the establishment of lasting world peace. We must always stand ready to negotiate in good faith, ready to pursue any reasonable avenue that holds forth the promise of lessening tensions and furthering the prospects of peace. But let our friends and those who may wish us ill take note: the United States has an obligation to its citizens and to the people of the world never to let those who would destroy freedom dictate the future course of life on this planet” (Ronald Reagan, Republican National Convention acceptance speech, July 17, 1980).

Is America today up to the task of being great and exceptional? Are we prepared to increase our unique national strength by fortifying our Faith, Families, and Freedom? And are we prepared to defend these fundamental institutions, and this Promised Land with her unsurpassed resources and beauty and potential, with the strength of arms and military might if necessary? Are we truly prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice to ensure that the blessings of Liberty we take for granted will extend to our posterity? If today we are not prepared for war to safeguard our peace, our rights, and our homes, we are not worthy of the title American.

General George Washington’s wise words of encouragement to his fighting men should pound once more in our ears. Two days before America formally declared Independence from British tyranny, General Washington wrote to his patriot soldiers to embolden them in their fight. He reminded them what was at stake – slavery or Freedom. He explained that all eyes were fixed on them and that they would decide whether tyranny or Freedom was to reign in America. And he explained the eternal truth that freemen motivated by the just cause of Liberty and aided by the God of Heaven are more fearsome than any conquering army ever can be. General Washington declared:

“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their Houses, and Farms, are to be pillaged and destroyed, and they consigned to a State of Wretchedness from which no human efforts will probably deliver them. The fate of unborn Millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this army—Our cruel and unrelenting Enemy leaves us no choice but a brave resistance, or the most abject submission; this is all we can expect—We have therefore to resolve to conquer or die: Our own Country’s Honor, all call upon us for a vigorous and manly exertion, and if we now shamefully fail, we shall become infamous to the whole world. Let us therefore rely upon the goodness of the Cause, and the aid of the supreme Being, in whose hands Victory is, to animate and encourage us to great and noble Actions—The Eyes of all our Countrymen are now upon us, and we shall have their blessings, and praises, if happily we are the instruments of saving them from the Tyranny meditated against them. Let us therefore animate and encourage each other, and shew the whole world, that a Freeman contending for LIBERTY on his own ground is superior to any slavish mercenary on earth” (George Washington, General Orders, July 2, 1776).

America106

Today, the eyes of the weary world are upon America. For years we have let them down. Our example has been less than exceptional, not particularly notable, and, in recent times, not worthy of duplication. We have allowed the communist cancer to eat away at our vitals until now we stand on the brink of civil war, mobocracy, economic collapse, open persecution of Christians and constitutionalists, and full-scale societal breakdown.

Notwithstanding how far we’ve fallen through our own neglect and rejection of God’s eternal laws, we have it within our power to step forward, do our duty, and restore our Republic. There will be sacrifices to make – and some patriots will lose their lives because Freedom is never won except at the price of blood – but we must make them for our sake, the sake of our posterity, and the sake of a beleaguered world that desperately needs us to lead.

I close with the rousing words of Ronald Reagan. Each syllable is true. Every vowel applies to me and to you in our present situation. The burden for the future rests squarely on our shoulders. If we shirk our duty now when it matters most, history will hold us in contempt. Let us be real men and real Americans. Let us honor the American tradition of preserving peace through strength and in always being prepared for war in order to secure an honorable peace. Let us be freemen worthy to be mentioned in the same breath as General Washington and his patriot army. God bless us and God bless America!

“If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth. . . .

“Alexander Hamilton said, “A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” Let’s set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace — and you can have it in the next second — surrender.

“Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face — that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight and surrender . . . And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don’t speak for the rest of us. You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. . . .

America104

“You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness.” (Ronald Reagan, “A Time for Choosing,” October 27, 1964).

Zack Strong,

August 28, 2019.

Women Should Not Be Allowed in the Military

Many people justifiably oppose the idea of women in combat, but you find far fewer who believe that women should be officially barred from military service in any capacity. I fall into the latter category. This article is written to explain my reasons, both scientific and moral, for holding this view. It is also written to encourage women who are interested in military service to reconsider.

First things first: Let’s dispense with the myth that men and women are the same. Men and women are not the same. They never have been, and they never will be. “But all people are equal!” a feminist might screech in return. Not so. Equality is one of the biggest myths ever foisted upon thinking people.

People are only equal in two ways: 1) in the eyes of God, and 2) under the law. In all other ways, people are unequal, different, and unique. Because men and women are equal in their rights and in the eyes of God, we should not extrapolate this equality to mean sameness or equivalency in other aspects of life. Just because two men are equal does not mean they are the same or have equivalent skill levels or even equivalent capacities. If two men do not even match one another’s skill level, then who can honestly claim that members of “the weaker sex” can match the skill level of men in the physical arena that defines military service?

Place any two people side-by-side, male or female, and you will find them to be different in their physical strength, their stamina, their work ethic, their proclivities and desires, their enthusiasm and attitude, their range of experience, their skills, their instincts, their comprehension abilities, their modes of learning, and their IQs. No two people are the same. Admitting this fact to be true, it should not be hard for people to then admit that it is not an injustice for men and women to be unequal to one another. It is just a fact of life.

Indeed, some men are unequal to other men, just as some women are unequal to other women. No one will dispute that. Extending this logic further, we find that women are unequal to men in many ways, and men are unequal to women in others. Women, for instance, are usually gentler, more compassionate, and more interested in the welfare of others. These qualities make them infinitely better at raising small children. Should men be jealous of a woman’s natural abilities? Of course not. These are the capabilities and skills God has fitted women with. Why? Because women were designed to fill certain roles, foremost among which is motherhood. There is absolutely nothing inappropriate with this inequality. It is right, good, and natural. And, by the same token, men have been appointed to be protectors and providers, and have been endowed with the physical and mental qualities necessary to fulfill these roles.

military

Before we delve into facts, figures, and moral arguments, let’s discuss the purpose of war and military service. Understanding this purpose will highlight the poignancy of men’s and women’s inequality – particularly their physical inequalities.

Why do nations have militaries? What is a military’s purpose? In a word, a military’s purpose is to destroy, to kill, to maim, to obliterate, and to defeat any enemy that threatens its people. War is hell, as has often been noted. It is ugly, savage, and unmerciful. It is fast-passed and high-stress. War is founded on force and aggression, and sheer strength, power, and brutality. A military’s aim is to destroy its nation’s enemies as quickly and completely as possible, so as to protect their own people. War is not a game, nor a social experiment. Only the most violent and efficient warriors should be involved.

Keeping in mind the fact that the purpose of war is to crush an enemy threat as quickly and effectively as possible, it is obvious that men make the best soldiers. Anyone who has ever watched little boys and little girls play, knows that males, by nature, are far better at breaking and destroying things. They are more rambunctious and are inclined to take risks and to do dangerous things. Observers also know that boys are inherently tougher than girls, and can endure a worse physical pounding. They observe that a boy’s mind works differently than a girl’s. Boys like sticks and mud and frogs and slingshots and knives and to play cowboys and Indians, whereas girls like dolls and flowers and tea cups and dresses and shoes and pretty things. Little boys are also more likely to end up in physical altercations than girls, and they have a knack for fighting, and an instinct for war, that girls lack.

One might counter with the absurd allegation that these differences are a social construct. Anyone with any shred of honesty, however, knows this to be false. And study after study has confirmed that boys and girls are different, that they like different things, and that they instinctively behave differently. For instance, multiple studies have shown that, when placed in a neutral environment away from parents, boys will choose to play with toys that we traditionally think of as boys’ toys (trucks, balls, etc.), whereas girls will naturally gravitate towards girly toys (stuffed animals, ponies, etc.). In a word, boys and girls have different natures. Our male microchip is coded differently than a female’s. And that is how our All-Wise Creator intended it.

military3

Recognizing these inherent personality differences, let’s now discuss basic biology. Men are taller than women. Men are larger. Men are stronger. Men are faster. Men can lift more weight. Men jump higher and farther. Men have more stamina. Men can run for longer distances. Men have a firmer grip. Men hit harder. Men have more muscle mass and less overall body fat than women. Men have greater lung capacity. I could go on and on. Simply put, men are better physical specimens and excel more than women do in physical feats. And war is inherently physical. Thus, who makes the best soldiers? Biology dictates that men should fight, not women.

A clipping from the June/July 2000 edition of The Veterans of Foreign Wars magazine recently fell into my possession. It is from a blurb entitled “Is the Warrior Spirit Outmoded?” It reads:

“According to some women military officers, masculine traits are no longer necessary in the armed forces. “The muscle we use in combat today is between our ears,” claims Navy Capt. Barbara L. Brehn.

“That may be true when one is dropping bombs from 15,000 feet, but on the ground strength and aggression are still essential assets. Of course, with precious little ground combat experience for GIs in the past 28 years, such nonsense goes unchallenged.”

In actual combat, brute strength and savage competitiveness are indeed “essential assets,” and men possess these traits in abundance, whereas women do not.

While there are individual exceptions, your average man will beat your average woman in any physical feat of strength. Name any sport, and men excel beyond women. This is even true in sports generally considered female, such as volleyball. There is a reason why we normally segregate men and women in sports – because to put women in a man’s league would be inherently unfair to women. Everyone knows that.

Having played in multiple co-ed sports, and having coached both boys and girls, I can personally attest that men excel beyond women. Among other sports, I played four years of co-ed volleyball in Alaska during high school, and was quite successful, leading my team to a state championship in my junior year. It is interesting to note that the volleyball net is almost a foot higher in co-ed volleyball than in woman’s volleyball. Why? It is an attempt to lessen the physical advantages men have over women. To keep the net lower would have been ridiculously unfair for the women who would have to bear the brunt of hard spikes from male players.

Continuing with this point, I challenge you to name one woman, no matter how good by female standards, who can play basketball competitively with all-star NBA players. You can’t do it. The same is true in any sport. The matchups are inherently unfair, because men are inherently more physical, aggressive, competitive, and are biologically equipped for physical feats in ways that women are not. This natural inequality was recently brought into the news by the legendary tennis player John McEnroe, who said that Serena Williams, the #1 female tennis player in the world, would only play at about a 700th ranked level if she were in a men’s league. While the collective feminist blood pressure skyrocketed because of McEnroe’s comments, the fact is he was simply telling the truth. It is politically incorrect to say that women cannot compete with men, but it is nonetheless eternally true.

While your average man is better than your average woman at physical feats, it is even more poignant that your best man will beat your best woman in the physical realm. Military men traditionally are the cream of the crop. And in war, these men go up against the best men from other nations. Can a woman, no matter how good, expect to compete against the best men other nations have to throw into the fray? Of course not!

military5

One of the best articles I’ve ever read about the drawbacks of women in the military was written by a retired female Marine gunnery sergeant with 20 years of experience. I suggest reading the entire article, but here I want to quote just a small segment. This woman wrote:

“The military isn’t being honest with women. All data shows that women are injured at twice the rate of men. Yes – TWICE the rate. In Army basic combat training women were injured 114 percent higher rate than men. These statistics are just in present combat support roles, not the combat/infantry units. Is the military disclosing this injury rate to women? Of course not, because it doesn’t fit the narrative. Even as engineers and military police, women have 108 percent higher injury ratings.

“Women are not as fast or strong as men. This is not a disputed fact, it’s basic biology. If a woman is able to even get through the training, what are the long term physical hardships they’ll face? Attrition rates are already higher for women than men – so what are the odds of a woman performing in the infantry for 20 years? Probably zero.

“Sustained combat operations are physical. Even if a female can meet the standards men currently have in place, she will always be in the bottom percentile physically. Women have less muscle mass and less lung capacity – this is common knowledge. So even the most physically fit women are not going to be competitive with physically fit men. And after serving 20 years in the Marines, I can assure you, Marines are physically fit. One of the greatest areas emphasized by the Corps is physical fitness for the simple reason: to sustain long term combat operations, a Marine must be in top physical shape. Bodies break that can’t maintain the immense stress and physical requirements carrying gear and weapons for long periods of time.”

There you have it, an honest analysis from a woman with experience in this field. Women cannot, and should not, compete with men. It’s just that simple.

military4

Let’s now go over a few other facts that demonstrate the insanity of letting women serve in the military.

Fact: Women are more injury prone than men. Women are more fragile. Women’s bodies break down easier. And women have a lower pain tolerance than men. How many times have we all heard a woman bemoan breaking a nail? How many times has a woman asked us to open the pickle jar she can’t manage to open? How many times has a woman asked us to reach something from the top shelf because she can’t reach it? How many times has a woman run in fright from a bee or a spider? Training a woman who is physically weaker, and who is, thus, exponentially more likely to get injured than a man is a colossal waste of money, not to mention a very inefficient and short-sighted system. It is also not fair for a woman to put her fellow soldiers in a situation where a greater burden is placed upon their shoulders because of the high likelihood that she will be injured at some future date.

Fact: Women develop UTIs and cysts and other diseasesUTIs and cysts and other diseases that men normally do not, which restricts their effectiveness and reliability. While it is possible for men to develop UTIs, it is exponentially more likely for a woman to develop them. And in war time situations where soldiers have to crawl through muck and grime, and where sanitation and hygiene are not first on the priority list, a woman’s likelihood of developing said diseases and infections is far greater. In comparable situations, men are less likely to contract a UTI or similar malady. And it goes without saying that a soldier riddled with infections or diseases is less efficient than a healthy soldier.

Fact: Women get periods, men do not. We have all been around women who seemingly malfunction when they are on their periods. They often don’t think straight, get sick, have cramps, have bad attitudes, burst into tears for no reason, and have numerous physical and emotional limitations during that time. Now let’s use some logic. If you had a piece of hardware that you knew was going to break down and malfunction for several days each and every month, would you continue to use it? Would you invest in it? Would you trust your life with it? Would you use it for important jobs? Of course not. You would be foolish to do so. Yet, we are expected to believe that women on their periods can perform at peak levels! It is a feminist pipe dream. We might as well claim the sun isn’t shining while we’re looking straight at it. Women on their periods can’t perform at optimum levels. Period.

Fact: Women can get pregnant, men cannot. To ask a similar rhetorical question as in the previous paragraph, if you had a tool that you knew could potentially be out of commission for 9 months out of the year, would you invest in it and take the risk of losing your investment? Of course not. Yet, we put men and women together and apparently expect pregnancies not to happen. I am in full support of the Lord’s prohibition of sex before, and outside of, marriage. But in our fallen world, we understand that people don’t obey the Lord’s commandments against fornication – especially young testosterone-filled men and women of childbearing age. Sexual immorality is so rampant in the military that I once read an article, though I do not now recall the source, where a sailor in the Navy reported that ships with women on them are essentially floating brothels. And so it is that sexual relations damage cohesion within units, and inevitably lead to unwanted pregnancies, which further impair a unit’s effectiveness.

Therefore, to place women in a situation where, if they do become pregnant, they will be a burden on their comrades, and on taxpayers who wasted money for her to be trained as a soldier, is simply wrong and irresponsible. It is also wrong because these children all too often become wards of the state, and are educated by outsiders instead of by their own mothers as God intended. To avoid these complications, including the serious immorality that is so prevalent, it would be best for women to not be in the military at all.

Fact: I know this will be surprising, but men love women. Men have always provided for and protected their women. Millions of men have sacrificed their lives for their women. A man’s supreme motivation in life is women. Women are also a man’s greatest weakness. To place women alongside men – not only in combat, but in regular service – is distracting. The last thing any military wants or needs is to have distracted soldiers, or soldiers with divided loyalties. Yet, with women nearby, a man’s natural, inherent, God-instilled desire to protect and defend and take care of women, will kick in and a man will lose focus on his main objective, which should be to kill the enemy.

Imagine a firefight with bullets whizzing overhead. Suddenly, over the din of battle, an injured woman’s cries for help are heard. What is a man going to do? Is he going to sit there and listen to a woman cry in pain? No. He is going to risk his life, perhaps even abandon his mission, to save her. And this result is doubly assured if there had been previous sexual liaisons between the pair. However, if it was the cry of a man in pain, the urgency would be much less to go to his aid, and the focus would be, where it ought to be, on completing the mission at hand. Men do not have the same protective instincts toward other men that they do for women. This can be abundantly seen in mundane situations every day. A boy drops his books in school, who cares? A girl drops her books, fifteen men drop what they’re doing to pick up the books and escort her to class. Try as they might, the social engineers will never eliminate our natural gender-determined instincts.

Fact: To accommodate women, the military has been forced to lower its entrance standards. Because women cannot pass the basic physical standards that men have had to master for decades, the military has quietly lowered its standards for both sexes. Besides the fact that lowering your standards just so that you can pretend you accomplished something is a poor way to live life, of greater importance is that fact that lowering standards hurts overall efficiency. If the military continues to accept into its ranks both men and women who can only meet continuously lowering standards, it will not be long before the military is weakened to a danger point. Are women willing to weaken the military and thus endanger the nation, just to make a political point or to selfishly pursue a career? Yet, every woman who enlists in the military contributes to the overall lowering of military standards.

Fact: Women require different, and separate, logistics than men. Women require an amount of privacy that men do not. To guard this privacy, they require separate facilities, which requires additional manpower and resources to build and manage, which in turn is a greater drain on taxpayers who fund the military. From a purely economic point of view, women are a massive liability. Apart from forking out money for their injuries, infections, pregnancies, and child care, we now have to spend additional money to build female-oriented barracks, latrines, and medical facilities, hire trainers specifically for the female recruits, etc. Throwing women into the military upsets the tried and true dynamic that has worked for thousands of years.

Fact: Over 1/3 of women get raped during their military service. This is a conservative estimate. I have read official Pentagon statements that admit at least 25% of military women get raped – that’s one in four. However, all independent investigations conclude that the number is, as a minimum, one in three. Some studies suggest the number is as high as 70%. No decent person would want their wife, sister, daughter, or mother to be in an environment where the chances of them getting raped were greater than one in three.

If you are a woman contemplating joining the military, take note – your odds of being raped or otherwise sexually assaulted are greater than 33%. Is that a risk you are willing to take? Are you prepared, emotionally or otherwise, to deal with being raped or sexually assaulted? Are you prepared to be raped, and then to have no one care, and to have your superiors attempt to conceal this information from the public? And what if it was your superior officer who did this to you? What would be your recourse then? If you go AWOL, you could be arrested and tried. Or you might be discharged and accused of lying.

This is not a scare tactic on my part; this is reality. While, as I mentioned earlier, a man’s natural instinct is to protect women, as a society forsakes God, as ours is doing, more and more people will abandon all moral restraints and will indulge in every heinous crime imaginable. And, in a military that has officially banned God, and that punishes Christians, the rate of rape and other crimes will only increase. You have to ask yourself if that is a risk you are willing to take. Please don’t naively think that it can’t happen to you – because odds are one in three that it will.

military1

Many other points could be raised to demonstrate that women are a liability and a distraction, but I want to shift gears to the moral and religious aspects of this question. But before I do, I will quote from Jude Eden, a female Marine who served in Iraq, by way of summary. She wrote:

“Even on lower fitness standards, women have far higher rates of injury, illness, non-availability, non-deployability and attrition than men. Commanders of coed units know too well the added burdens of trying to juggle sexual dynamics, accommodations, relationships, fraternization, rape, pregnancy, hygiene and much more while maintaining troop welfare and good order and discipline, let alone mission accomplishment. These are liabilities that can result in mission failure and high casualties in the combat units, all to satisfy a tiny group of women selfishly petitioning for their own career advancement.

“ISIS doesn’t care that our military has met its diversity quota and broken the so-called brass ceiling. They will see our self-imposed weaknesses and exploit them to cause as much damage as possible. That’s precisely what happened to the group of female Marines who served on entry checkpoint duty two months before I did in Fallujah in June, 2005. Insurgents targeted their convoy almost certainly because they were transporting females. They laid an ambush that began with a bomb and ended in a firefight. Three American servicewomen died (one was a single mother) and several others suffered horrendous injuries. They hadn’t made and maintained the infantry standards to be there — they were just attached to the infantry by day. Women are targeted as easy marks because their capture and torture devastate American morale, further hindering our ability to fight our enemies.”

Indeed, it throws off the delicate dynamics of military effectiveness, wastes precious taxpayer dollars, and shatters morale to have women anywhere near a combat zone. It is a supreme distraction, as I stated above, for men to have women nearby when they should be concentrating on killing the enemy. Women serving in the military makes men more vulnerable, for the reasons states above, and is inherently selfish on the part of women. Finally, it is also terribly detrimental for women to expose themselves to an environment where their odds of their being raped and assaulted is over 33%, where they will suffer a multitude of injuries in the course of everyday life, and where they will be at a gross disadvantage to their male counterparts.

In the end, the question brings us back to morals and values. Even if the statistics did not show that women get raped 33% of the time during their service, and even if the numbers did not conclusively prove that millions of taxpayer dollars are wasted in training women who get injured at high rates, and even if the reality was not that women cannot effectively compete with men, I would still oppose women entering the military on religious and moral grounds. It is unChristian for women to serve in the military. And it is unChristian for men to allow it.

Only a cowardly, degenerate, spineless, effeminate nation allows its women to go to war. From the beginning, God has appointed men to provide for, take care of, and protect their women and their children. Men are the patriarchs and the heads of their homes, and, as such, the duty for their family’s defense and upkeep rests on their shoulders. It is the man’s role to defend his family.

A woman has a complementary role; namely, to manage the home in her husband’s absence, to bear offspring, and to nurse and train her children. A woman’s entire mortal duty can be summed up in one precious word: motherhood. Motherhood is a holy calling, a sacred duty, a divine responsibility. A woman’s greatest influence is in the home – not in the workplace, and certainly not in the military. Numerous verses from the Bible could be cited to show that a woman’s place is in the home, such as Titus 2:5. And all of human history demonstrates that God’s way works best.

While exceptions to rules abound, particularly in a broken society like ours, it is important to note that in God’s economy, gender roles are fairly regimented. Heavenly Father’s laws are like guardrails to protect us from figuratively going over the cliff during our often winding and tumultuous earthly journey. When we leave the path He has outlined for us, we risk serious danger to ourselves and others. One of the greatest tools Satan employs to deceive women is pride. He whispers in their ear, “Men are oppressing you and holding you back. Go out there and show them you are an independent woman, and that you can do anything they can do.” Women thus walk around with a chip on their shoulder trying to be like men, all the while ignoring the fact that God did not create men and women to be the same. He drew careful distinctions between the sexes. It is when we attempt to abrogate His standards that we put ourselves in danger; in this case, physical danger from outside enemy forces.

military2

In conclusion, the evidence clearly shows that women cannot compete at the same level as men do in military situations, nor in any physically-laborious setting in general. As such, they prove a liability not only to their comrades who cannot truly rely on them, but to our entire nation, which relies upon our servicemen to defend us. When Russia and China eventually attack us, as I promise you they will, do you want women in our military? Of course not. Nor will you want a military full of men who are distracted by women. And women themselves should not want to place themselves in the way of communist hordes who, historically, have committed the most horrific mass rapes on record. During the final days of WWII, and for years afterward, the communists literally raped millions of German women. I consider that dastardly act the greatest atrocity of the Second World War. Surely, if we Americans were pitted in a world war against the communists, we could expect to receive similar treatment. And women, as usual, will bear the brunt of this savagery – and none more so than women who wear the uniform.

I repeat, it is a cowardly and godless nation that allows its women to suffer the harsh realities of military service. It is a degenerate and wicked nation that lets women fight – and an even more debauched people that mandates, via the draft, that its daughters endure the hell of war. Thanks to delusional feminists, and the spineless men who acquiesced to their dangerous demands, women are allowed to wear our nation’s uniform. Thanks to feminists, at least 33% of military women get raped, while others are exposed to indecency of a thousand types, highlighted by the recent military’s “nude photo” and pornography scandal. Thanks to feminists and their ilk, our women will provide our enemies’ men with an outlet for their rage and sexual depravity in the next major war we fight. Mark my words.

When you really stop and consider the facts, it becomes abundantly obvious that we do ourselves a huge disservice to allow our women in the military. It is unfair to women, it is unfair to the children they bear which will grow up without a mother’s influence, it is unfair to other soldiers, and it is unfair to our society which is put in danger from having a feminized military. I urge any woman who might be interested in joining the military to stop and consider the detriment she will be doing not only to herself, but to her country. And I encourage men to man up and fight the feminist politically correctness which has allowed women to worm their way into the military. May God help us repair the damages that have been done to our military by the integration of women, and may we once more become the world’s leading fighting force.

By Zack Strong

July 1, 2017.