Tag Archives: Self-defense

Self-Defense – The Paramount Right 

Posted on by

Self-defense is a God-given right. Self-defense is a natural right. And, in America, self-defense is a constitutional and legally-guaranteed right. 

After the right of life, which necessarily must be considered the first and foundational right, the right to defend life and all the things that make it meaningful – such as Liberty and property – is the paramount right. All other rights rely upon the right of self-defense for their protection. None of our rights are secure without the individual’s prerogative to safeguard them. 

Think of a few examples. Freedom of speech means little to nothing if you can’t defend yourself against those who would seek to silence or punish your speech. The right to own and use private property would be precarious at best without the right and means to defend said property against thieves and greedy tyrants. The right to worship as we please would be subject to the mob if we didn’t have a means of defending our beliefs. And the right of life, as noted, would be fragile without a means to preserve it. Choose almost any right that humans hold dear and you’ll see that its security, stability, and tenability depends heavily upon personal, private, and individual self-defense. 

I’m bold to state that self-defense is the cardinal right we possess as humans. It is the pinnacle in our canon of Liberties. It is our paramount and premier right. It is the very lynchpin of Freedom. 

The influential English statesman John Locke described the supreme importance of the right of self-defense. I quoted him at length in my article “The Natural Law of Self-Defense” and recommend you to read that piece for an enlarged understanding of these principles. But a few crucial lines bear repeating here: 

“This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else. And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i.e. kill him if I can. 

“. . . force, or a declared design of force, upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief, is the state of war: and it is the want of such an appeal gives a man the right of war even against an aggressor, tho’ he be in society and a fellow subject. Thus a thief, whom I cannot harm, but by appeal to the law, for having stolen all that I am worth, I may kill, when he sets on me to rob me but of my horse or coat; because the law, which was made for my preservation, where it cannot interpose to secure my life from present force, which, if lost, is capable of no reparation, permits me my own defence, and the right of war, a liberty to kill the aggressor, because the aggressor allows not time to appeal to our common judge, nor the decision of the law, for remedy in a case where the mischief may be irreparable. Want of a common judge with authority, puts all men in a state of nature: force without right, upon a man’s person, makes a state of war, both where there is, and is not, a common judge” (John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, Chapter 3, Sections 18-19). 

Did you catch that? Self-defense is permissible in any situation where an appeal to the courts and law is not immediately available. In situations when force, “or a declared design of force,” is used against you, a state of war has begun and you have a logical right to use force to stop the threat – yes, even to kill the threat. When someone illicitly tries to “get [you] in his power,” you may lawfully prevent it by destroying the threat. 

What if you’re merely being robbed? First of all, there’s nothing trivial about property theft or property damage. The death penalty has been the verdict for theft throughout much of history. Second of all, it doesn’t matter what the offense is; you may still kill the aggressor who is attempting to get you under his control or who is otherwise using, or threatening to use, force against you. 

Consider it logically. You don’t know what an aggressor’s intentions are. You don’t know, when a masked man jumps out at you on a dark street at midnight, whether he wants to rob, rape, or murder you. You don’t know, when someone busts down your front door while you’re sitting on the couch with your family, what the home invader’s intentions are. You don’t know when mobs chase you and try to put their hands on you what they want. You are justified in reacting aggressively to counter the “design of force” which is evident against you in all of these cases. 

Please note that I have yet to refer to firearms or the 2nd Amendment. Our right of self-defense doesn’t depend on the U.S. Constitution and it certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with guns. Let’s explore these truths a little. 

At the outset, I said that self-defense is not only a constitutional right, but a natural and God-given right. What are “natural rights”? The term was routinely used by our Founding Fathers. Natural rights are those prerogatives inherent in every person at birth. They belong to the individual because of his or her humanity and for no other reason. Each person is therefore born with these “natural rights” and does not receive them from government, society, one’s family, one’s church, popular consensus, or any other source. If you were born, you have natural rights. 

You may, in a sense, compare these natural rights, which are a part of natural law, with jungle law. In nature, lions, tigers, baboons, bears, bison, bees, etc., defend themselves, their territory, and their property (food, dens, nests, etc.). It’s not a societal convention – it’s hardwired in their natures. This is their most basic – and essential – right and idea. The only difference is that humans are even more important and valuable and have the seeds of godhood in them (Romans 8:16-17) by virtue of their Heavenly lineage (Psalm 82:6), thus giving them a greater prerogative to self-defense. 

Samuel Adams gave one of the greatest explanations of natural rights. He said: 

“Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature. . . . 

“When men enter into society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions and previous limitations as form an equitable original compact. 

“Every natural right not expressly given up, or, from the nature of a social compact, necessarily ceded, remains. 

“All positive and civil laws should conform, as far as possible, to the law of natural reason and equity. . . . 

“The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule. . . . 

“In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave” (Samuel Adams, The Rights of Colonists, 1772). 

Natural rights pre-existed before governments came into being. According to Samuel Adams, it’s “the greatest absurdity” to think that we even have the ability to “renounce [our] essential rights.” We do not. We were created with them and they’re ours by birthright. It’s tantamount to slavery to give up our rights. And, please note, that self-defense is identified as one of our “essential natural rights.” Specifically, Samuel Adams said that it’s absurd to renounce “the means of preserving those rights” and that the very purpose is the “defence of those very rights.” 

The Boston Independent Chronicle published an editorial in 1787 that linked self-defense with natural rights: 

“It was absolutely necessary to carry arms for fear of pirates, &c. and . . . their arms were all stamped with peace, that they were never to be used but in case of hostile attack, that it was in the law of nature for every man to defend himself, and unlawful for any man to deprive him of those weapons of self defence” (Les Adams, The Second Amendment Primer: A Citizen’s Guidebook to the History, Sources, and Authorities for the Constitutional Guarantee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 118) 

It was clear to the author of that statement that keeping arms was both “lawful” and “absolutely necessary.” It was also completely “unlawful” for anyone to take away private weapons. These weapons were to be kept to preserve peace, pursuant to the law of nature. 

Finally, the early American statesman Henry St. George Tucker explained: 

“The right of bearing arms – which with us is not limited and restrained by an arbitrary system of game laws as in England; but, is particularly enjoyed by every citizen, and is among his most valuable privileges, since it furnishes the means of resisting as a freeman ought, the inroads of usurpation” (Les Adams, The Second Amendment Primer, 105). 

Another time, he elaborated: 

“Now the natural right of self defence is nothing more than the liberty which the law of nature allows us of defending ourselves from an attack which is made upon our persons or of taking such measures as may guard against any injuries we are likely to suffer from another. . .  

“. . . [A]s the law of nature allows us to defend ourselves, and imposes no limit upon the right, the only limit we can impose is the necessity of the case. Whatever means are necessary must be lawful; for the rule is general, that where is a right is absolutely given, the mean to exercise it must also follow” (Les Adams, The Second Amendment Primer, 105). 

These are important clarifications. They explain that not only do individuals have a natural right of self-defense, but that it is unlimited and unlimitable. It is absolute. It is unimpeachable. If we have the right to defend ourselves, we must also have the absolute right to exercise it by any means. I’ve long argued that if Bob down the block thinks he needs a machine gun to defend his family, who am I to say no? If I feel I need hand grenades, what gives you the right to stop me? 

If you have authority to limit my right of self-defense in any way, then you can argue that you have the right to restrict it totally. In most cases, our rights are not given with stipulations. Certainly, as was argued above, the right of self-defense must be unlimited, or “absolutely given,” or it can’t truly be said to exist. This is the weight of natural rights – the rights upheld by the Constitution and claimed by all humans at birth. 

Now we move on to God-given rights. The concept relies upon one’s belief a higher power – a Creator. Those who acknowledge God’s creative power and authority also acknowledge that natural rights didn’t just pop into existence, but are part of God’s overarching Plan for mankind. Regardless of what you individually believe, Americans have collectively acknowledged God’s authority and in fact identify Him as the source of our natural rights. The Declaration of Independence clearly and firmly states that “all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” 

If you are a citizen of the United States, part of your political creed, canonized and codified and carrying the force of law, is the belief that humans are given their rights by God Almighty; including, specifically, life, Liberty, and the ability to work out their existence in happiness without interference. If you don’t believe this, I would say you’re not a true American and don’t belong here. At any rate, you repudiate the core of the Declaration of Independence and stand in defiance to the great men who created our Republic. 

Alexander Hamilton made this strong statement regarding our rights: 

“The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power” (Alexander Hamilton, “The Farmer Refuted,” February 23, 1775). 

It’s “self-evident,” as the Declaration says, that humans are endowed by God with their rights. It is the entire purpose of civil society and government to protect and secure these precious rights. But, in the ultimate sense, the power government has been delegated to protect rights comes from the individual who received his rights directly from his Creator. 

Thomas Jefferson reasoned this way: 

“And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?” 

John Adams affirmed that American Independence was achieved by implying the principles of Christianity – that conviction in the minds of the People that Liberty is from the Lord. Said he: 

“The general Principles, on which the Fathers Achieved Independence, were the only Principles in which, that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities Sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence. 

“Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God: and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System” (John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, June 28, 1813). 

The “only Principles” that united America in 1776 were the principles of Christianity. “Those principles of Liberty” that made America great were built on a foundation of the “general Principles of Christianity.” American Liberty and Christianity are therefore indissolubly linked, and the right of self-defense, therefore, comes from God Himself. 

It may surprise some to know that the right of self-defense is written into the Bible and, therefore, constitutes one of those general principles of Christianity referred to. Exodus 22:2 states: “If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.” God clearly justified the killing of a thief, let alone an attacker, rapist, murderer, etc. But perhaps I’m getting off track. The point is that the noble men who founded America believed that rights come from God and stand above the power of government. 

If rights are God-given – and I testify they absolutely are – it bears asking how He suggests we defend them. The Declaration of Independence says: 

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness . . . when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” 

What is being communicated here? Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and the rest of the fifty-six illustrious men who signed the Declaration proclaimed it to be a right and duty to take up arms to thwart those violating their rights. This includes the right and duty to rebel against and overthrow tyrannical or corrupt government. The means of doing this, of course, is the paramount right – self-defense. 

St. George Tucker expounded on this right and duty when he said of the 2nd Amendment: 

“This may be seen as the true palladium of liberty. The right of self defence is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally under the specious pretext of preserving the game” (Les Adams, The Second Amendment Primer, 104). 

Autocrats and despots hate the right of self-defense and always move to ban it. They know that their tyrannical aspirations would be impossible to get away with in the face of an armed citizenry. In a real sense, they acknowledge the preeminent place of the right of self-defense by focusing their attacks on it. 

Noah Webster agreed that self-defense is a remedy to oppression, stating: 

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States” (Les Adams, The Second Amendment Primer, 105-106). 

Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court chimed in, bolstering the argument that individual citizens may bear arms for self-defense and protection against tyrants: 

“The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons who have duly reflected upon this subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country. . . . The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a Republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them” (Les Adams, The Second Amendment Primer, 107). 

In his book Principles of Constitutional Law, Thomas M. Cooley debunked the erroneous idea that only “militias” can have guns: 

“The right is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent . . . The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose” (Les Adams, The Second Amendment Primer, 108). 

Finally, John Adams simply said: “Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion . . . in private self-defence” (Les Adams, The Second Amendment Primer, 98). 

Is it reasonable, in the face of this evidence and logic, to assume government has any right to take guns or restrict them in any manner? Of course not! The American People may use arms to overthrow oppressive government and the individual citizen may use them to defend his person and property. We have at least three sources to appeal to for this reasoning: The Constitution of the United States, which is the supreme law of the land; the law of nature which belongs to each human by right and supersedes the dictates of government; and the laws of God which trump them all. 

The reason I chose to write this article at this time is because of the ongoing Kyle Rittenhouse trial. As of the publication of this article, the jury is on day two of deliberation. Anyone who has bothered to watch the trial has witnessed the rampant lies, witness tampering, and evidence manipulation of the smarmy, bitter prosecutors. This case is one of the most clear-cut cases of self-defense I’ve ever seen. It should have never been brought to trial. The only reason Kyle Rittenhouse’s fate sits in the hands of some random people in his community is because of politics. More than an attack on him, this is an attack on the very idea of self-defense and Freedom. 

Kyle Rittenhouse must be freed. He used his constitutional, natural, and God-given right to defend himself against pedophiles, felons, and armed attackers who chased him, threatened him, and sought to do him bodily harm. If Kyle was not justified in shooting his attackers, then no one truly has a right to self-defense. Kyle Rittenhouse is a hero and I consider people who think otherwise enemies of the Republic and Constitution. 

The Second Amendment is a litmus test for a person’s true commitment or antagonism to Freedom. America became a nation – the greatest nation on earth – because her People believed God had explicitly endowed them with the right to defend themselves against oppression and to safeguard their Freedom by force if necessary. To abdicate their rights without a fight was to consent to slavery. To allow a criminal or aggressor to take your life without a fight is little more than suicide. To take the life of an attacker, by contrast, is justified by holy writ, natural law, and the U.S. Constitution. 

The right to keep and bear arms – to possess and use them – in our own personal defense and in the defense of our national Freedom, is our paramount right. Without it, Liberty is a lie. Without it, criminality rules. Without it, all hope is gone. 

Stand firm for your rights, fellow freeman. Draw a line in the sand. Hold that line. Don’t fear tyrannical laws, conniving despots, or traitorous enforcers. Be prepared to defend yourself, your family, and your country against criminals, predators, and oppressors at every level. At the end of the day, when we stand up for self-defense – both in a private and national capacity – we stand with George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and the other heroes of the Revolution. May God grant us the strength to defend our most paramount right so that we may more easily defend all of His sacred endowments! 

Zack Strong, 
November 17, 2021 

Kyle Rittenhouse – Hero

Posted on by

You may not yet know his name, but you have seen his story. On the night of August 25, Kyle Rittenhouse, a trained EMT, was in Kenosha, Wisconsin with a group of armed Libertarians to keep the peace, protect property, and offer medical help during a violent Black Lives Matter and Antifa riot staged after a justified, non-lethal police shooting days earlier. Kyle, a seventeen-year-old young man, was pepper sprayed in the face, yet still offered his medical services. In the course of the night, Kyle was chased by a repeat sex offender and, later, a bloodthirsty mob. In both situations, Kyle defended himself, leaving one pedophile and one criminal dead, and one felonious thug injured for life. Kyle Rittenhouse is a hero and epitomizes the true American spirit.

118571779_331339994900555_7616050742527009620_n

As noted, Kyle Rittenhouse was with a group of armed American citizens, wrongly called a “militia” by the media – as if that’s a bad thing. Ironically, this Libertarian group actually showed up in support of the rioters. They sided with their anti-government stance. However, they repeatedly clarified on video that the local shops, businesses, and residences were not fair game for destruction. After explaining his position in more depth, one of their number yelled to the mob of violent rioters: “I’m on your side as long as you’re against the cops, but you can’t burn down your local businesses!”

This was Kyle’s basic position as well. On video, before the shootings, Kyle said that he had been pepper sprayed by a rioter. He also said: “We’re protecting from the citizens.” He was then asked: “So, you guys are full-on ready to defend the property?” Kyle responded: “Yes we are.” He also explained:

“So, people are getting injured and our job is to protect this business. And part of my job is to also help people. If there’s somebody hurt, I’m running into harm’s way. That’s why I have my rifle because I need to protect myself obviously. I also have my med kit.”

That is Kyle Rittenhouse – a young man risking his own life to help injured people during a riot. His motive was not to shoot anyone. He was not there to “murder” people. He is not a racist or “white supremacist” as the media, and even traitors in government, has been screeching. Don’t believe the slander and libel being spewed by the controlled press, the same controlled press that brands anyone who opposes communism or loves America a “Nazi,” “fascist,” “white supremacist,” or “anti-Semite.”

Now that we know something of Kyle Rittenhouse, a hero by any other name, let’s talk about the incident and the criminals who met their fate at Kyle’s hands. At some point during the night, a conflict broke out. On video, we see Kyle running away from the conflict, trying to avoid a fight. He is pursued by Joseph Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum threw an object at him as they enter a parking lot – by some accounts, the object was an improvised Molotov cocktail in a bag.

EgeR3qSU8AA1OHC

Next, a shot rings out. This is a crucial detail. Kyle Rittenhouse did not fire the first shot. We still do not know who fired that first shot, though the video appears to show one of the rioters behind Kyle aiming a pistol in the air. A moment later, as Rosenbaum nears Kyle, Kyle shoots four times in self-defense, hitting Rosenbaum in the head. Then we hear several other shots, again from an unknown shooter.

Immediately, Kyle approached Rosenbaum, surveyed the situation, and pulled out his phone. He called the police and reported that he just shot someone. As enraged rioters began swarming into the area, Kyle, fearing for his life, fled the scene. It appears he was running to the police position down the street. As he ran towards the flashing lights, he had to pass through a mob. As he does, someone yells out that he’s the shooter. Others say, “Get him!”

At this point, one of the rioters tries to punch Kyle in the back of the head. As Kyle tries to turn around, he trips and falls on the ground. A black man then jumps on top of him, trying to stomp him on the face. It appears Kyle fired a shot. Then another man, Anthony Huber, struck Kyle in the head with a skateboard. Huber then attempted to wrestle Kyle’s gun from his hands. Kyle, who had just been attacked by Huber, fired at him, hitting him in the chest. A third man, Gaige P. Grosskreutz, approached. Grosskreutz was clearly holding a pistol. Kyle did not fire at him immediately. But when Grosskreutz rushed him, holding a pistol, Kyle fired again, striking Grosskreutz in the arm.

Kyle then got up, surveyed the scene, and began to retreat toward the police position. Then you can hear other gun shots break out. We do not know yet who fired those shots, just as we don’t know who fired the first shot earlier. But someone else shot first, before Kyle, fired again after Kyle first shot, then later shot some more at the end of the altercation. Kyle next walked to the police cars and turned himself in. Hardly the actions of a “murder”!

As a point of irony, the first thing these street thugs did when shots were fired was cry, “Call the police!” I thought they wanted to defund the police. I thought they’ve waged a running battle with police nationwide this summer, attacking them, occupying their precinct buildings, burning their cars, blinding them with lasers, and calling them all “bastards” who work for an “institutionally racist” system. Yet, the moment a real man stands up to their tyranny in the American tradition, they scatter and cry for the police to save them. Hypocrites!

Who were the three shooting “victims”? Let’s give a brief overview of these criminals. Joseph Rosenbaum was a level 3 pedophile for sex offenses against a child. He should not have been on the streets, but such is our “justice” system. Though being a sex offender should be enough to keep him behind bars or put him six feet under for the public’s safety, he also had a criminal record which included drug possession, arson, and assault if you include his attempt to harm Kyle Rittenhouse. Rosenbaum is deceased.

118178717_2622797394638822_8195524066764980667_n

The second man, Anthony Huber, likewise had a criminal record. He was convicted on two domestic abuse and battery cases, which included strangulation and suffocation. He was only sentenced to two years for his violent crimes. He was also a known druggie, apprehended in possession of drug paraphernalia. You can add attempted murder to the list when you consider his attack on Kyle Rittenhouse. He is also deceased.

Finally, Gaige P. Grosskreutz was a felon and house burglar. He also belongs to the Marxist group known as The People’s Revolution, which has rioted for more consecutive days since George Floyd died of a drug overdose while in police custody than any other radical group in the nation. Grosskreutz’s right bicep was nearly totally blown off. As one internet punster said, he will now always be a leftie – referring to the fact that he is a far-left radical and will probably never use his right arm again.

Anthony Huber, it appears, was Jewish. There is speculation that Rosenbaum was also Jewish, though the Jewish Chronicle published a story, which now only shows a 404 error message, claiming he was not from a “practicing Jewish family,” but that there “may be a mix of German and Jewish heritage in the past,” according to his cousin. There has also been a claim that Grosskreutz was a Jew, though I’ve yet to see evidence. I mention this because of how prevalent Jewish ethnicity is among communists. Antifa was founded by radical Marxist Jews. Karl Marx himself was a Jew. Most prominent communist revolutionaries in the Soviet Union, in fact, were Jews. Though this is not the right place to delve into the matter, the Judeo-communist connection is worth noting for context’s sake.

The thug Grosskreutz, who survived Kyle Rittenhouse’s defensive bullet to the arm, said that his only regret was not murdering the young man when he had the chance. Specifically, his revolutionary comrade stated:

“So, the kid shot Gaige as he drew his weapon and Gaige retreated with his gun in his hand. I just talked to [Gaige] too–his only regret was not killing the kid and hesitating to pull the gun before emptying the entire mag into him. Coward.”

Again, shooting someone who has a gun aimed at you is the very essence of justification! And more so when it’s a revolutionary communist in the act of rioting.

Because he defended his life against violent attackers with long criminals records, Kyle has been arrested and is being charged with first-degree intentional homicide. Yes, you read that correctly. He has been slapped with six separate charges, including first-degree intentional homicide. This is how our “justice” system works. This is how the courts, which are controlled by traitors and communist conspirators, operate. A young man can be chased, fired upon, attacked, kicked, hit, and then uses lethal force to defend himself, and yet he is charged with a crime. This is the epitome of injustice!

I call upon President Trump to immediately pardon Kyle Rittenhouse before this charade goes any farther. Any objective viewing of the videos and known facts in the case must yield the conclusion that Kyle is an innocent young man who did nothing more than defend his life against violent criminals, pedophiles, and insurrectionists. Even if the three casualties did not have criminal records for which they should have been behind bars already and not on the streets where they could riot, harm people, and endanger society, their vicious attacks on this young man would still have justified his level of self-defense.

118222148_340184454024979_5419352236025505438_n

I repeat a fact stated earlier: Kyle Rittenhouse did not fire the first shot. This is HUGE! When you are being pursued by a threatening individual during a violent riot, and you hear a gunshot go off right behind you, you have a perfectly reasonable fear that your life is in immediate danger. In that situation, you not only can, but should, in my opinion, err on the side of using lethal force to defend yourself. Any intelligent jury would agree that the context warranted a high level of defensive force.

Even an analyst from the socialist New York Times acknowledged that Kyle did not shoot first, but only fired his first shots after at least one other gunshot had been fired near him. As summarized by Paul Joseph Watson:

“Now new analysis of footage that preceded Rittenhouse discharging his AR-15 by New York Times Visual Investigations journalist Christiaan Triebert shows that the 17-year-old did not shoot first.

““At 23:19, Rittenhouse is seen in this YouTube livestream. He’s being chased into a parking lot. While he is being pursued, an unknown gunman fires the first shot into the air,” tweeted Triebert.

“The muzzle flash of the first shot can also be seen in the video from a different angle.

“Rittenhouse has been charged with 1st degree murder, presumably to satiate the Black Lives Matter mob, but all the evidence clearly shows he acted in self-defense.

“One wonders if the media will acknowledge that there were at least two gunmen involved in the confrontation and that the one pursuing Rittenhouse fired his weapon first.”

unnamed (97)

No, the controlled media won’t report the facts because these facts obliterate their concocted narrative. These facts would destroy their slander that Kyle Rittenhouse was a “white supremacist.” The known reality, if reported truthfully, would abolish the idea that Kyle was an evil-intentioned militiaman looking for a fight. In truth, Kyle did everything he could to avoid a confrontation, only firing when in immediate danger from a pedophile and from a mob. What honest, rational person can possibly condemn him?

Thankfully, attorney Lin Wood, who successfully defended Nick Sandmann against media defamation, has stepped in to defend Kyle from the vile deluge of lies being shoveled by the Marxist media. Mr. Wood correctly articulated the view all real Americans should take: “If Kyle cannot defend himself under the circumstances shown in videos, we are all at risk.” When communists control the courts and the media, any patriot who defends himself against the mob is liable to be punished – unless we force this treasonous element into retreat. Truly, if justice is not served for Kyle Rittenhouse, we cannot claim justice exists anymore in America.

Lastly, I’ll share an observation made online that is actually quite astute. In a Bitchute comment on a video related to the incident, someone said that Kyle Rittenhouse is America’s version of Greta Thunberg. The contrast is fitting. Whereas socialist Scandinavia is represented by a screaming, delusional girl promoting the Marxist global warming agenda and calling for government intervention in our lives, America is represented by a sharp, disciplined young man offering help in dangerous situations and ultimately using his God-given right of self-defense to kill pedophiles and felons and secure his Independence.

May God help the soul who sees Greta Thunberg as a hero while demeaning Kyle Rittenhouse as a villain. The inverse is the truth. Kyle Rittenhouse is a hero. He should be pardoned by President Trump and given a reward for his service to the country. He’s a symbol of American manhood, though technically still a boy. He’s the hero we need.

Will American men rise up, like Kyle, in defense of their communities against the communist tsunami of violence and insurrection? Will we do what is necessary to rid our society of Marxist traitors, impenitent pedophiles, and violent rioters? Will we allow an innocent young man like Kyle Rittenhouse to go to prison for life on ludicrous “homicide” charges when we have abundant evidence that he only acted in self-defense? Frankly, if we allow this to happen, we deserve the shackles of slavery the thugs in Kenosha, Chicago, Seattle, Portland, New York, and elsewhere, are trying slap on our wrists.

EgZe5yXXgAICEhx

God help us rise up as men. Rise up and defend your Faith, Families, and Freedom. Rise up against the communist cabal. Crush it. Rip to pieces the Marxist mob polluting our beautiful land. Free Kyle Rittenhouse. Prosecute attempted murderer Gaige Grosskreutz and every last one of the Black Lives Matter, Antifa, and communist protesters and those in positions of power who support and coddle them. Damn communism and all its advocates to their place in the pit of hell!

Zack Strong,

August 28, 2020

The Natural Law of Self-Defense

Posted on by

Man’s right of self-defense did not begin with the adoption of the Second Amendment. It has nothing to do with guns or with the U.S. Constitution. In fact, it has no connection whatsoever to any man-made law or technology. Self-defense by any means is a natural human right that each person enjoys by virtue of his or her humanity. It is the right which guarantees all others.

guns99

One of the most provocative statements ever made on how comprehensive our individual right of self-defense is was made by the famed English philosopher John Locke in his Second Treatise on Government. Locke, whose political philosophy greatly influenced our American Founding Fathers, explained how the natural law works and why the individual is justified in defending himself with lethal force when necessary:

“THE state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man’s life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other’s power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the common law of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.

“And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a design to take away every thing else, that freedom being the foundation of all the rest; as he that, in the state of society, would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth, must be supposed to design to take away from them every thing else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.

“This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else. And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i.e. kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.

“. . . force, or a declared design of force, upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief, is the state of war: and it is the want of such an appeal gives a man the right of war even against an aggressor, tho’ he be in society and a fellow subject. Thus a thief, whom I cannot harm, but by appeal to the law, for having stolen all that I am worth, I may kill, when he sets on me to rob me but of my horse or coat; because the law, which was made for my preservation, where it cannot interpose to secure my life from present force, which, if lost, is capable of no reparation, permits me my own defence, and the right of war, a liberty to kill the aggressor, because the aggressor allows not time to appeal to our common judge, nor the decision of the law, for remedy in a case where the mischief may be irreparable. Want of a common judge with authority, puts all men in a state of nature: force without right, upon a man’s person, makes a state of war, both where there is, and is not, a common judge” (Locke, Second Treatise on Government, Chapter 3, Sections 17-19).

Godfrey_Kneller_-_Portrait_of_John_Locke_(Hermitage)

Elsewhere in his Treatise, Locke explained:

“In transgressing the law of nature, the offender declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set to the actions of men, for their mutual security; and so he becomes dangerous to mankind, the tye, which is to secure them from injury and violence, being slighted and broken by him. Which being a trespass against the whole species, and the peace and safety of it, provided for by the law of nature, every man upon this score, by the right he hath to preserve mankind in general, may restrain, or where it is necessary, destroy things noxious to them, and so may bring such evil on any one, who hath transgressed that law, as may make him repent the doing of it, and thereby deter him, and by his example others, from doing the like mischief. And in the case, and upon this ground, MAN HATH A RIGHT TO PUNISH THE OFFENDER, AND BE EXECUTIONER OF THE LAW OF NATURE. . . .

“From these two distinct rights, the one of punishing the crime for restraint, and preventing the like offence, which right of punishing is in every body; the other of taking reparation, which belongs only to the injured party, comes it to pass that the magistrate, who by being magistrate hath the common right of punishing put into his hands, can often, where the public good demands not the execution of the law, remit the punishment of criminal offences by his own authority, but yet cannot remit the satisfaction due to any private man for the damage he has received. That, he who has suffered the damage has a right to demand in his own name, and he alone can remit: the damnified person has this power of appropriating to himself the goods or service of the offender, by right of self preservation, as every man has a power to punish the crime, to prevent its being committed again, by the right he has of preserving all mankind, and doing all reasonable things he can in order to that end: and thus it is, that every man, in the state of nature, has a power to kill a murderer, both to deter others from doing the like injury, which no reparation can compensate, by the example of the punishment that attends it from every body, and also to secure men from the attempts of a criminal, who having renounced reason, the common rule and measure God hath given to mankind, hath, by the unjust violence and slaughter he hath committed upon one, declared war against all mankind, and therefore may be destroyed as a lion or a tyger, one of those wild savage beasts, with whom men can have no society nor security: and upon this is grounded that great law of nature, Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed” (Locke, Second Treatise, Chapter 2, Sections 8 and 11).

Finally, Locke observed:

“Man being born, as has been proved, with a title to perfect freedom, and an uncontrouled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of nature, equally with any other man, or number of men in the world, hath by nature a power, not only to preserve his property, that is, his life, liberty and estate, against the injuries and attempts of other men; but to judge of, and punish the breaches of that law in others, as he is persuaded the offence deserves, even with death itself, in crimes where the heinousness of the fact, in his opinion, requires it” (Locke, Treatise, Chapter 7, Section 87).

Let’s recapitulate a few of the things we’ve learned from Mr. Locke. Locke explained that there exists a “fundamental law of nature” which gives the individual a right to “destroy that which threatens” him. When someone cuts the common ties, or laws, that bind a society together and protect its members, he becomes “noxious” and dangerous to the society. In fact, he enters into a “state of war” against those whose rights – whether their life, Liberty, and property – are threatened. Inasmuch as a person behaves like a “savage beast” and endangers those around him, he may be put down like a mad dog. This is not only common sense, but a right we each enjoy in the “state of nature.”

Some may argue, however, that we do not live in a “state of nature.” We can all admit that this is accurate. We live in a well-ordered society with laws, a police force, judges, systems of justice, mechanisms to redress grievances, and so forth. However, to deny our individual right of self-defense merely because we live in a society tramples on the very idea of natural rights and the most basic conception of Freedom.

1770745829-SamuelAdamsQuote1

Samuel Adams explained that we always retain our rights regardless of whether we enter into civil society. A person, if he chooses, may exist society at any time. When he does, he takes all his rights with him. We cannot, according to Mr. Adams, renounce our rights because they are endowments from Almighty God. He explained:

“All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they please; and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and enter into another.

“When men enter into society, it is by voluntary consent. . . .

“The natural liberty of man, by entering into society, is abridged or restrained, so far only as is necessary for the great end of society, the best good of the whole.

“In the state of nature every man is, under God, judge and sole judge of his own rights and of the injuries done him. By entering into society he agrees to an arbiter or indifferent judge between him and his neighbors; but he no more renounces his original right than by taking a cause out of the ordinary course of law, and leaving the decision to referees or indifferent arbitrators. . . .

“The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule. . . .

“In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave” (Samuel Adams, “The Rights of the Colonists,” November 20, 1772).

Please note that Adams said people do not “renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights” when they agree to live in society with others. These prerogatives – to enjoy one’s natural rights and to defend them – always remain with the individual. It is “the greatest absurdity” to say we do not have a right to defend and preserve our other essential rights.

We allow police and others to defend us because, on paper, this system operates more efficiently. However, law enforcement personnel have no inherent right to police our neighborhoods. They have no intrinsic power to stop criminals just as courts have no inborn authority to punish criminals. Every power and authority a police officer posses comes directly from you, the individual. And this authority is merely on loan and can be reclaimed at any time – such as when no police are present or when public servants abuse the authority you have loaned them. The same is true with any and all powers claimed by government. They belong, of right, to individuals first and foremost.

download (6)

Furthermore, there are many times in society when the individual does not have immediate access to society’s collective means of self-defense – whether law enforcement, the courts, or the nation’s armies – yet must immediately address a threat to his life, Liberty, or property. Such instances may include a woman walking down the road who needs to defend herself from sexual assault, a man defending his family from a home invader during the middle of the night, a store owner protecting his property and livelihood from arsonists or vandals, a person being carjacked by a criminal while driving to work, or a church-goer who suddenly find himself faced with a maniac attempting to shoot up his congregation. In these and myriad other scenarios, there is no possible way to reach out to society for help; there is no time to wait for the police to arrive, for the sheriff to investigate the matter, or for a jury to deliberate.

All of these instances share at least one thing in common; namely, that the victim’s rights are being violated. In the case of the woman, someone is trying to violate her body and free will or, in other words, her Liberty. In the case of the store owner, someone is trying to destroy his property. In the case of the church-goer, his and other innocent people’s right to life is threatened. In the case of the man defending his family or the person being carjacked, he doesn’t know the intention of the perpetrator is – kidnapping, murder, robbery, rape, etc., – and must act as if any of these is a distinct possibility.

Consider what John Locke said in the quote above: “He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one . . . must necessarily be supposed to have a design to take away every thing else, that freedom being the foundation of all the rest.” We don’t know the intention of someone who is attacking, robbing, or otherwise assaulting us. All we know for certain is that a person is trampling our precious rights and clearly has no respect for us, the law, or morality.

A person who would violate any of your cherished rights automatically shows that he holds all your other rights in contempt. Such a person, theoretically, is capable of any thing – including taking your life. Since you do not know his intention, but simply know that he is willing to violate your rights, you must treat him as an existential threat to all of your Liberties. Remember, Locke explained:

“This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else. And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i.e. kill him if I can.”

It is lawful, according to the law of nature, to kill one who attempts to violate your right to life, Liberty, or property. This is the most basic and fundamental principle in the book of Liberty. “In the state of nature every man is, under God, judge and sole judge of his own rights and of the injuries done him,” as Samuel Adams said. When a state of war and hostility is commenced against you by an assailant whose intentions are unknown, you become the “judge and sole judge” of your rights and have a just right to defend yourself, your life, your Freedom, your family, your dignity as a human being, and your property. I would even argue that you have a duty to defend your rights since they are gifts from Almighty God.

Self-defense is not a new concept – wherever there is Liberty, there exists the right to defend it and those who enjoy it. Self-defense is an eternal law recognized by enlightened people in all ages. Anciently, the Roman statesman Cicero explained:

“[T]here exists a law, not written down anywhere but inborn in our hearts; a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading but by derivation and absorption and adoption from nature itself; a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice, not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right. When weapons reduce them to silence, the laws no longer expect one to await their pronouncements. For people who decide to wait for these will have to wait for justice, too – and meanwhile they must suffer injustice first. Indeed, even the wisdom of the law itself, by a sort of tacit implication, permits self-defense, because it does not actually forbid men to kill; what it does, instead, is to forbid the bearing of a weapon with the intention to kill. When, therefore, an inquiry passes beyond the mere question of the weapon and starts to consider the motive, a man who has used arms in self-defence is not regarded as having carried them with a homicidal aim” (Stephen P. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right, 13).

I repeat: Self-defense is part of the “natural law.” The natural law written in our hearts by the finger of God permits us to defend ourselves against “plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies.” Literally “every method” and means to defend ourselves when endangered is “morally right.” Not only is it morally correct to defend ourselves, our lives, and our property, but the Declaration of Independence and Constitution both support the idea and enshrine it in the regal robes of legality.

download (11)

Let’s leave behind the realm of the hypothetical and discuss a real example. Two nights ago, in Hunter, Oklahoma, a man shot a woman who entered his property at 3 A.M. and attempted to steal a flag. The flag was the National Socialist flag bearing the swastika. Whether or not you think he should have been flying the flag is not on trial here. What is being discussed, however, is the actual situation – that is, an individual trespassing on someone’s property at 3 A.M., attempting a robbery, and being shot in the process of fleeing with stolen property.

Since the incident, the local “authorities” have confiscated the man’s fourteen firearms and have charged him with “shooting with the intent to kill and assault and battery with a deadly weapon.” They are holding him without bail despite the fact that he was compliant with police and has never caused any trouble. One anonymous individual, in fact, said the man was very nice and would mow neighbors’ lawns and smile and wave. In spite of all this, he is being treated as a murderer.

The woman, by the way, survived the incident and is being treated for her wounds. Amazingly, the district attorney has not yet decided whether to charge her with a crime despite the fact that no one denies she was trying to steal property from the man’s home! I doubt whether the criminals who previously stole the man’s flag’s were charged with theft or trespassing either.

If I was on the jury that will try this case, given the information we know at this point, my conscience would not allow me to convict the man of anything. I’m quite sure John Locke would also vote “not guilty.” It was he, after all, who said, that it is “lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life.” How can we refute his logic?

When you examine stories like this one from Oklahoma, don’t fall into the trap of asking whether the man should have fired his weapon. That’s not the point. That’s irrelevant, in fact. That is between him and his God. What you need to decide, rather, is whether or not the man had a right to defend himself and his property with force.

I contend that each of us has a natural right of self-defense which no earthly force, no government, no majority, no law, can ever erase. I hold it as sacrosanct that the laws of nature give me, the individual, a right to protect my life, my Liberty, and my property – and those of my family and innocent people – with lethal force whenever and wherever necessary. I further affirm that the benefit of the doubt should always be given to the victim of an illicit act, not to the criminal who was fortunately thwarted in his or her attempt to violate the victim’s sacred rights.

You may not care about swastika flags, but you should care very much about property rights. You may not agree with the personal viewpoints of the shooter in this case, but you should care about whether his right to defend his home and possessions is held inviolate. You may have sympathy for the woman who was shot, but you should never let your judgment become so clouded with emotion that you can’t label her a thief and a criminal. You will rarely go astray in your judgment if you always keep in mind the importance of our natural rights and our paramount right of self-defense. Self-defense, even when it means ending the life of an offender, is part of the “perfect freedom” with which man is born.

Zack Strong,

June 30, 2020

To Be Prepared for War

Posted on by

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.

Guns and God

Posted on by

“I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. – Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means.” – John Adams to Abigail Adams, July 3, 1776

Each mass shooting reminds us that we need more of two things: Guns and God. You have likely heard the saying that an armed society is a polite society. Years ago, I realized this concept needed to be amended thus: An armed and righteous society is a polite society. This article is a plea for us to add more guns and more God in our lives.

guns10

Guns or no guns, a God-fearing, decent, and righteous society will be one of peace, happiness, and security because “blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord” (Psalm 33:12). Yet, because both evil and free will exist, even good, “turn-the-other-cheek” Christians must sometimes reluctantly take up arms to defend their Faith, Families, and Freedom. It has always been this way and it will remain the status quo until the Lord returns and cleanses the earth.

For all of history, patriots and prophets alike have had to wield the sword in defense of eternal truth, God-given rights, political Freedom, public morality, and societal stability. In ancient times, it was Jehovah’s peace-proclaiming prophets and the most righteous followers of the Gospel who were the first to stand up and fight for their rights. Whether you look at Moses, Joshua, Gideon, Elijah, Josiah, or any number of righteous figures of olden times, you find men willing to fight and to risk everything in defense of their rights, relatives, and religion.

Our honorable Founding Fathers also abhorred war and bloodshed, but they did their duty to God and their countrymen. They were great lovers of peace and knew the horrors of conflict. Yet, they also understood that it is better to die on your feet than live on your knees. Patrick Henry voiced their rallying cry in these treasured words, “give me liberty or give me death!” Consequently, they waged a holy war of self-defense against the British monarchists trying to subjugate them. If we are to vouchsafe to our own children the rights handed down to use by our forefathers, we must be equally prepared to fight.

patriots3

The purpose of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was to plainly and publicly affirm that individuals possess the right of self-defense which no government can justly deprive them of. In truth, the Second Amendment is not even about guns – it is about self-defense. Whether you defend yourself with a club, machete, rifle, machine gun, or bazooka makes absolutely no difference. We focus on guns because they are the gold standard in personal self-defense, but we must never lose sight of the underlying principle of self-defense which existed before the Constitution was ratified and will exist for all eternity.

Our forefathers knew that a sure sign that a government had evil intentions to reduce its people to slavery was its attempts to disarm them. Accordingly, when the American colonists saw British Redcoats marching to Lexington and Concord to arrest Samuel Adams and confiscate their cache of firearms, they turned out with their rifles to defend their rights like real men. The “shot heard ‘round the world” happened because Christians with guns knew their rights and had the integrity to defend them at the risk of their own lives. Yes, American Liberty was won because a small band of armed Christians had enough valor to do what was required of them. They kept their guns close and their God closer.

guns11

Many Christians today believe that they cannot take up arms even in self-defense. They erroneously think it violates the Gospel of Jesus Christ to defend their rights against evil men. And they certainly do not agree with our Founding Fathers who believed that rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. Though “timid men . . . prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty” (Thomas Jefferson to Philip Mazzei, April 24, 1796), I, as a Christian constitutionalist, understand that there are times I must defend my Faith, Family, and Freedom even to bloodshed. In so doing, I stand with our Founding Fathers who proved their noble words by their valiant actions. And I stand with the laws of nature and of nature’s God.

One of the great exponents of natural law was John Locke. In his Second Treatise on Civil Government, Locke described the rationale behind the right of self-defense thus:

“Whosoever uses force without Right . . . puts himself into a state of War with those, against whom he so uses it, and in that state all former Ties are cancelled, all other Rights cease, and every one has a Right to defend himself, and to resist the Aggressor.”

Self-defense is the most natural of rights. It is the one right that ensures all the others. Our rights, emanating from God, cannot be justly taken from us. When an attempt is made to deprive us of any right, the right of self-defense becomes operative. We who have been wronged have every prerogative to resist aggressors and would-be tyrants. Yes, the surest way to protect our general Freedom is through self-defense. Therefore, when we see this precious gem assaulted, we know that we are in danger.

death to tyrants1

John Adams spoke of a People’s right of self-defense. As you read his words, please understand that a nation has no rights but those which are possessed also by the individual citizens comprising the nation. Every nation derives its powers, as The Declaration of Independence attests, “from the consent of the governed.” With that in mind, consider this statement:

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

The right of an individual to kill a tyrant, robber, or aggressor, in cases of necessity, cannot be doubted. Our inspired Constitution has safeguarded our right of self-defense and tens of millions of Americans stand armed and ready to defend their Faith, Families, and Freedom. Yet, do we possess the morality, honesty, integrity, goodness, and righteousness necessary to balance and temper our arms? John Adams made it clear that improved morals must go hand-in-hand with the capacity and willingness to wage defensive war against tyrants and aggressors.

Speaking of the tyrannical forces encroaching upon our Liberty, the venerable Ezra Taft Benson stated:

“If America is to withstand these influences and trends, there must be a renewal of the spirit of our forefathers, an appreciation of the American way of life, a strengthening of muscle and sinew and the character of the nation. America needs guts as well as guns. National character is the core of national defense.”

George Washington18

Yes, we not only need our guns, but we need our God even more. Our moral character must be improved and cultivated as both Mr. Adams and Mr. Benson affirmed. We must become an armed and righteous society. Unless we cultivate morality at least proportionate to the number of arms we have, I fear that we will be led to turn our arms on each other in a scene of anarchy and mobocracy unrivaled in human history.

As Christians, we must lead the way to a peaceful resolution of societal differences, yet without sacrificing principle. Ours should be the loudest voices calling for peace, encouraging morality, promoting goodness, exposing corruption, and championing the Constitution. As Christians, we must show the world through our personal righteousness that an armed society really is a polite society. And, finally, Christians we must be the first to stand up in defense of Freedom – even, and perhaps especially, when it requires drawing the sword.

The Lord has not presently called His people, as a collective group, to wage war against the wicked. In fact, He tells us to proclaim peace. Yet, it is equally sure that Christians must be prepared to fight when the time comes. The moment of action may or may not come in the shape of a formal war. But it very well may come during the night as a thief attempts to plunder your home; during a worship service when a hate-filled assassin attempts to shoot up your congregation; in the office when a disgruntled employee seeks revenge; in the back alley when a rapist attempts to deprive you of your virtue; or on your drive home from work when a thug tries to victimize you. The point is that you never know when you will need to exercise your God-given right of self-defense; and you should always be prepared.

Millions of lives are saved each year because people care enough about themselves and their loved ones to keep and bear arms. How many more lives would be saved if more Americans carried weapons for their personal defense? How many families would today be enjoying the company of a loved one if they had only been prepared to defend themselves? How many more people have to die needlessly because employers and school administrators force their employees and students to be defenseless and helpless in the workplace and in the classroom? How long will America sit idly by as a small, ruthless clique campaigns to deprive us of our most important right, our right of self-defense?

guns9

In 1833, the great Joseph Story wrote that “the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a Republic” (see Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States). As the palladium, or safeguard, of our rights, the Second Amendment should hold a place of preeminence in our hearts. If it goes, our Freedom goes. And in order to properly wield the great power of arms placed in our hands, we must turn our hearts to God.

To counter criminals, evil people, and tyrants, we need more guns. We need more weapons in the workplace, in schools, in public, and everywhere there are people to be defended. And we need people trained in their competent use. Training at an early age breeds respect for the power and proper use of guns. The message that “guns are evil” only breeds fear and incompetence and, ultimately, leads to greater casualties and suffering.

Yes, I say that we need more guns in America! Yet, the proliferation of guns in our society will turn into a sore curse if we do not follow the commandments of Jesus Christ. If we are an immoral People, we will eventually be led to turn our firearms on each other in a fratricidal war. History proves this pattern as clear as any other. However, if we once again become a moral nation, our firearms will prove an extra safeguard on the evil passions and proclivities of unscrupulous men.

While most of us may not need to use our guns, doesn’t it give peace of mind to have them just in case? Which husband or father, or even wife or mother, would not rush to defend a beloved family member rather than watch them gunned down by the hand of evil? Who, in hindsight, would choose to be a helpless witness than a defender of innocence? Ezra Taft Benson once said something of the Lord’s law of chastity that is applicable to our conversation: “It is better to prepare and prevent than it is to repair and repent.”

Thankfully, we live in a nation established by Almighty God – a nation whose founding documents clearly safeguard our rights. Thankfully, we have a heritage of Freedom and can distinctly see the path marked by our forefathers. We have been given the right of self-defense, along with all other rights, and it is our solemn duty to make good use of it. How shameful it would be if we who have been given so many blessings, so much prosperity, and so much individual Liberty, threw it all away because we were not brave enough to defend ourselves and our families! Stand up and be men. Stand up and be Christians. Stand up for your rights!

guns4

In the wake of each new gun-related tragedy, the Establishment batters us with anti-rights propaganda in hopes will we grow so weary that we will surrender. The media flashes images of dead bodies and blood on our TV screens in order to shock and scare us into submission. Don’t fall for it. Don’t be victimized. Don’t be deceived by the masters of deceit. Stand for your Liberty no matter what pretext is used to persuade you to accept your chains. Know that you stand on the moral high ground when you stand with the Constitution. And keep your guns close and God even closer.

I leave you with these immortal words of Samuel Adams. It was a frank challenge to his countrymen at the outset of the War for Independence. Though he spoke more than 200 years ago, he might as well have been speaking to you and me. Ponder the words and decide once and for all whose side you’re on:

“Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices? Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plow, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom—go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”

Zack Strong,

June 1, 2019

“Rise with Fury”

Posted on by

In the aftermath of the horrific shooting in Las Vegas last night, despots, shills, and ignorant people of all stripes came out of the woodwork – as they always do – to blame guns, gun laws, “rednecks,” and conservatives. According to script, these talking heads made a hue and a cry for stricter gun laws, gun bans, tighter security, more intrusive surveillance, etc. Before the victims’ bodies were even cold, the controlled media immediately paraded so-called “experts” in front of the public – “experts” citing false statistics, making demonstrably false allegations about past shootings, expressing anti-Constitution viewpoints about our God-given right to self-defense, and gushing pure emotion in opposition to all those “evil” inanimate guns.

Senator Richard Blumenthal was one such ignorant shill who publicly called for stricter gun laws. Sen. Blumenthal told CBS News that he expects Americans to “rise with fury” in opposition to our current gun laws. “Rise with fury” – strong words from a spineless man who wants to destroy our God-given rights so clearly enshrined in the Constitution. My article today is devoted to explaining just what Americans would be “rising with fury” against if they let their emotions trick them into supporting the Establishment’s anti-gun script.

Since the incredibly suspicious Sandy Hook shooting five years ago, the socialist Senator Blumenthal from Connecticut has been pushing gun control legislation in Congress. Thank God his efforts have hitherto failed. Yes, thank God! Why do I thank the Lord that his rabid efforts to restrict my right to defend my family have failed? Let me explain.

The real issue here isn’t guns. Let me repeat that: The real issue in this debate is not guns. Guns are an irrelevant detail. A gun is an instrument, a tool, a device to be manipulated by its user. Guns should be classified in the same category as swords, knives, spears, hammers, wrenches, shovels, and ice picks. Each one of these instruments can inflict death, and each can serve useful purposes. Each one has been used by a deranged person to commit crimes in the past, and each has been used harmlessly by countless others. Each one of them is, simply, an instrument. How an instrument behaves depends on how a person uses his free will.

If guns are not the issue at hand, what is? The issue, my friends, is self-defense. Do you and I have a right to self-defense, or not? That, and that alone, is the question. If we have a right to self-defense, then the means are wholly irrelevant. If we have a natural right to defend ourselves, then no government, agency, or voting bloc can justly or lawfully limit or restrict that right. Period. Logic and reason permit no other line of thinking.

Arguments about the “common good” or “national defense” are also irrelevant. Individual rights do not bow to the collective will. America is not a democracy in which the majority’s will reigns supreme and rides roughshod over individual rights. Democracy is little more than mobocracy. No one’s individual rights are secure in such a system, and there can never be any stability so long as 51% of the population can dictate to the other 49%

Likewise, America is not a collectivist or communist state where the government controls and dictates everything and everyone. Perhaps I ought to say that we should not be a communist state. In fact, that is exactly what we are – a communistic monstrosity controlled by a Luciferian clique that has a death grip on the financial, media, entertainment, educational, political, and religious sectors of our national life. This cabal, along with its “useful idiots” and fellow travelers, has become the dominant force in our culture.

In opposition to these despotic systems, our honorable Founding Fathers established a confederated Republic bound together by common principles enshrined in a national Constitution. This system guaranteed to the individual the free and full exercise of his God-given rights, while heavily restricting the power and scope of government. The Bill of Rights was, in all reality, a list of “thou shalt nots” directed at the federal government. The individual was to be exalted, while the collective will was kept in check by the Constitution, which, despite being ignored and twisted by scheming groups and an ignorant public, remains to this day the “supreme law of land.”

It is crucial to recognize that personal rights cannot, and must not, be sacrificed for any reason – let alone for so-called “national defense.” All sides must agree on this point if there is to ever be legitimate Freedom in America.

Furthermore, I want to highlight the fact that there is zero difference between the right to life and the right to defend that life. Indeed, if we admit that we have a right to life, then we must logically admit that we also inherently have the right to defend that life. And who can realistically stand in judgment of which means you need to defend your life and the lives of your precious family?

Additionally, if we have a right to private property, as I attest we do, then it logically follows that we have a right to defend that property. The means of defense – whether by machine gun, handgun, sword, machete, landmine, or Sherman Tank – are irrelevant. Without the right to own and use private property, there is no Liberty. And without the right to defend our property, our lives, or our Liberty, none is secure.

Again, I repeat: The question at hand is whether we have a right to defend ourselves, or whether we are defenseless. I declare that we do have that right, that it is an inherent, natural, and God-given right, and that we must never allow any government to restrict, erode, or regulate it.

Whether the fantastical mainstream narrative that a “lone gun” 64-year-old retiree with no formal arms training managed to sneak 19 guns into the Mandalay Bay Hotel and, from two separate 32nd-floor windows, shoot nearly 600 people in a matter of a few minutes, is true or not, makes little difference to the central question we must deal with. The wicked acts of one person can never be justification for destroying the God-given rights of millions. And false flag attacks perpetrated by our government, or shadowy factions of the elite cabal, are even less justification.

At the end of the day, we must stand with Freedom. We must defend the Constitution. We must safeguard our individual rights and the constitutionalist philosophy bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers.

We must never forget that scheming and ignorant people want you to have a knee-jerk response to last night’s tragedy, and “rise with fury” against your own natural rights. Will you follow their script? Will you be pawns in their game? Will you bow to their proposed tyranny? Will you conform to the popular opinion (or, at least, the opinion the media makes appear popular)?

I ask you to take a deep breath, step back from watching the controlled news media, and remember who you are. You are an individual with inherent rights, inherent worth, and constitutional guarantees – including the right to self-defense, the right to own private property, and the right to live unmolested by the government. Do not let politicians, elitists, conspirators, and their media gatekeepers, rob you of your birthright of Liberty. Do not “rise with fury” against our rights because of the acts of a “lone gunman,” or of any group or segment of society. Do not succumb to the machinations and intrigue of those who lord over you and pretend they are your superiors. Rise up, but against those who have so maliciously targeted and threatened your rights and your ability to defend your family.

Zack Strong

October 2, 2017.