VIDEO Republics and Democracies – Think the Unthinkable and Accept That – The Pit

 by Robert Welch May 14, 2013

Republics and Democracies

Robert Welch (1899-1985), founder of the John Birch Society, wrote what is arguably the best description ever of the fundamental differences between a government based upon law and one based upon men. His classic “Republics and Democracies,” slightly condensed below, was first delivered as a speech on September 17 (Constitution Day), 1961.

The first scene in this drama on which the curtain clearly lifts is Greece of the sixth century BC. The city of Athens was having so much strife and turmoil, primarily as between its various classes, that the wisest citizens felt something of a more permanent nature, rather than just a temporary remedy, had to be developed to make possible that stability, internal peace, and prosperity which they had already come to expect of life in a civilized society. And through one of those fortunate accidents of history, which surprise us on one side by their rarity and on the other side by ever having happened at all, these citizens of Athens chose an already distinguished fellow citizen named Solon to resolve the problem for both their present and their future. They saw that Solon was given full power over every aspect of government and of economic life in Athens. And Solon, applying himself to the specific job, time, and circumstances, and perhaps without any surmise that he might be laboring for lands and centuries other than his own, proceeded to establish in “the laws of Solon” what amounted to, so far as we know, the first written regulations whereby men ever proposed to govern themselves.

Undoubtedly even Solon’s decisions and his laws were but projections and syntheses of theories and practices which had already been in existence for a long time. And yet his election as archon of Athens in 594 BC can justly be considered as the date of a whole new and huge approach to man’s eternal problem of government.

There is no question that the laws and principles which Solon laid down both foreshadowed and prepared the way for all republics of later ages, including our own. He introduced, into the visible record of man’s efforts and progress, the very principle of “government by written and permanent law” instead of “government by incalculable and changeable decrees.” (Will Durant) And he himself set forth one of the soundest axioms of all times, that it was a well-governed state “when the people obey the rulers and the rulers obey the laws.” This concept, that there were laws which even kings and dictators must observe, was not only new; I think it can be correctly described as “Western.”

Here was a sharp and important cleavage at the very beginning of our Western civilization from the basic concept that always had prevailed in Asia, which concept still prevailed in Solon’s day, and which in fact remained unquestioned in the Asiatic mind and empires until long after the fall of the Roman Empire of the East, when Solon had been dead two thousand years.

Tyrants of Democracy

Unfortunately, while Solon’s laws remained in effect in Athens in varying degrees of theory and practice for five centuries, neither Athens nor any of the Greek city-states ever achieved the form of a republic, primarily for two reasons. First, Solon introduced the permanent legal basis for a republican government, but not the framework for its establishment and continuation. The execution, observance, and perpetuation of Solon’s laws fell naturally and almost automatically into the hands of tyrants, who ruled Athens for long but uncertain periods of time, through changing forms and administrative procedures for their respective governments. And second, the Greek temperament was too volatile, the whole principle of self-government was too exciting — even through a dictator who might have to be overthrown by force — for the Athenians ever to finish the job Solon had begun, and bind themselves as well as their rulers down to the chains of an unchanging constitution. Even the authority of Solon’s laws had to be enforced and thus established by successive tyrants like Pisistratus and Cleisthenes, or they might never have amounted to anything more than a passing dream. The ideal was there, of rule according to written laws; and the fact that those laws were at times and to some extent honored or observed constituted one huge step towards — and fulfilled one prerequisite of — a true republic.

But the second great step of a government framework as fixed and permanent as the basic laws were supposed to be remained for the Romans and other heirs of Greece to achieve. As a consequence Athens — and the other Greek city-states which emulated it — remained politically as democracies, and eventually learned from their own experiences that it was probably the worst of all forms of government.

But out of the democracies of Greece, as tempered somewhat by the laws of Solon, there came as a direct spiritual descendant the first true republic the world knew. This was Rome in its earlier centuries after the monarchy had been replaced. The period is usually given as from 509 BC to 49 BC, Rome having got rid of its kings by the first of those dates, and having turned to the Caesars by the second.

But the really important early date is 454 BC, when the Roman Senate sent a commission to Greece to study and report on the legislation of Solon. The commission, consisting of three men, did its work well. On its return the Roman Assembly chose ten men — and hence called the Decemviri — to rule with supreme power while formulating a new code of laws for Rome. And in 454 BC they proposed, and the Assembly adopted, what were called The Twelve Tables. This code, based on Solon’s laws, became the written constitution of the Roman Republic.

The Twelve Tables, “amended and supplemented again and again — by legislation, praetorial edicts, senatus consulta, and imperial decrees — remained for nine hundred years the basic law of Rome.” (Durant) At least they were in theory, and always to some extent in practice, even after Julius Caesar had founded the empire which was recognized as an empire from the time of Augustus. What was equally important, even before the adoption of The Twelve Tables, Rome had already established the framework, with firm periodicity for its public servants, of a republic in which those laws could be, and for a while would be, impartially and faithfully administered.

For, as a Roman named Gaius (and otherwise unknown) was to write in about 160 AD, “All law pertains to persons, to property, and to procedure.” And for a satisfactory government you need as much concern about the implementation of those laws, the governmental agencies through which they are to be administered, and the whole political framework within which those laws form the basis of order and of justice, as with the laws themselves which constitute the original statute books. And the Romans contrived and — subject to the exceptions and changes inflicted on the pattern by the ambitions and cantankerous restlessness of human nature — maintained such a framework in actual practice for nearly five hundred years.

The Romans themselves referred to their government as having a “mixed constitution.” By this they meant that it had some of the elements of a democracy, some of the elements of an oligarchy, and some of those of an autocracy; but they also meant that the interests of all the various classes of Roman society were taken into consideration by the Roman constitutional government, rather than just the interests of some one class. Already the Romans were familiar with governments which had been founded by, and were responsible to, one class alone: especially democracies, as of Athens, which at times considered the rights of the proletariat as supreme; and oligarchies, as of Sparta, which were equally biased in favor of the aristocrats. Here again the Roman instinct and experience had led them to one of the fundamental requisites of a true republic.

Checks and Balances

In summary, the Romans were opposed to tyranny in any form; and the feature of government to which they gave the most thought was an elaborate system of checks and balances. In the early centuries of their republic, whenever they added to the total offices and officeholders, as often as not they were merely increasing the diffusion of power and trying to forestall the potential tyranny of one set of governmental agents by the guardianship or watchdog powers of another group.

When the tribunes were set up, for instance, around 350 BC, their express purpose and duty was to protect the people of Rome against their own government. This was very much as our Bill of Rights was designed by our Founding Fathers for exactly the same purpose. And other changes in the Roman government had similar aims. The result was a civilization and a government which, by the time Carthage was destroyed, had become the wonder of the world, and which remained so in memory until the nineteenth century — when its glories began receding in the minds of men, because they were surpassed by those of the rising American republic.

Now it should bring more than smiles, in fact it should bring some very serious reflections, to Americans to realize what the most informed and penetrating Romans, of all eras, thought of their early republic.

It is both interesting, and significantly revealing, to find exactly the same arguments going on during the first centuries BC and AD about the sources of Roman greatness that swirl around us today with regard to the United States. Cicero spoke of their “mixed constitution” as “the best form of government.” Polybius, in the second century BC, had spoken of it in exactly the same terms; and, going further, had ascribed Rome’s greatness and triumphs to its form of government.

Livy, however, during the days of Augustus, wrote of the virtues that had made Rome great before the Romans had reached the evils of his time, when, as he put it, “We can bear neither our diseases nor their remedies.” And those virtues were, he said, “the unity and holiness of family life, the pietas [or reverential attitude] of children, the sacred relation of men with the gods at every step, the sanctity of the solemnly pledged word, the stoic self-control and gravitas [or serious sense of responsibility].” Doesn’t that sound familiar?

But while many Romans gave full credit to both the Roman character and their early environment exactly as we do with regard to American greatness today, the nature and excellence of their early government, and its contribution to the building of Roman greatness, were widely discussed and thoroughly recognized. And the ablest among them knew exactly what they were talking about. “Democracy,” wrote Seneca, “is more cruel than wars or tyrants.” “Without checks and balances,” Dr. Will Durant summarizes one statement of Cicero, “monarchy becomes despotism, aristocracy becomes oligarchy, democracy becomes mob rule, chaos, and dictatorship.” And he quotes Cicero verbatim about the man usually chosen as leader by an ungoverned populace, as “someone bold and unscrupulous … who curries favor with the people by giving them other men’s property.” (Emphasis added.)

If that is not an exact description of the leaders of the New Deal, the Fair Deal, and the New Frontier, I don’t know where you will find one. What Cicero was bemoaning was the same breakdown of the republic, and of its protection against such demagoguery and increasing “democracy” as we have been experiencing. This breakdown was under exactly the same kind of pressures that have been converting the American republic into a democracy, the only difference being that in Rome those pressures were not so conspiratorially well organized as they are in America today. Virgil and many great Romans like him were, as Will Durant says, well aware that “class war, not Caesar, killed the Roman Republic.” In about 50 BC, for instance, Sallust had been charging the Roman Senate with placing property rights above human rights. And we are certain that if Franklin D. Roosevelt had ever heard of Sallust or read one of Sallust’s speeches, he would have told somebody to go out and hire this man Sallust for one of his ghost writers at once.

About thirty years ago a man named Harry Atwood, who was one of the first to see clearly what was being done by the demagogues to our form of government, and the tragic significance of the change, wrote a book entitled Back to the Republic. It was an excellent book except for one shortcoming. Atwood insisted emphatically, over and over, that ours was the first republic in history; that American greatness was due to our Founding Fathers having given us something entirely new in history, the first republic — which Atwood described as the “standard government,” or “the golden mean,” towards which all other governments to the right or the left should gravitate in the future.

Now the truth is that by merely substituting the name Rome for the name United States, and making similar changes in nomenclature, Atwood’s book could have been written by Virgil or by Seneca, with regard to the conversion of the Roman republic into a democracy. It is only to the extent we are willing to learn from history that we are able to avoid repeating its horrible mistakes. And while Atwood did not sufficiently realize this fact, fortunately our Founding Fathers did. For they were men who knew history well and were determined to profit by that knowledge.

Antonyms, Not Synonyms

Also, by the time of the American Revolution and Constitution, the meanings of the words “republic” and “democracy” had been well established and were readily understood. And most of this accepted meaning derived from the Roman and Greek experiences. The two words are not, as most of today’s liberals would have you believe — and as most of them probably believe themselves — parallels in etymology, or history, or meaning. The word “democracy” (in a political rather than a social sense, of course) had always referred to a type of government, as distinguished from monarchy, or autocracy, or oligarchy, or principate. The word “republic,” before 1789, had designated the quality and nature of a government, rather than its structure. When Tacitus complained that “it is easier for a republican form of government to be applauded than realized,” he was living in an empire under the Caesars and knew it. But he was bemoaning the loss of that adherence to the laws and to the protections of the constitution which made the nation no longer a republic; and not to the fact that it was headed by an emperor.

The word “democracy” comes from the Greek and means literally “government by the people.” The word “republic” comes from the Latin res publica and means literally “the public affairs.” The word “commonwealth,” as once widely used, and as still used in the official title of my state, “the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,” is almost an exact translation and continuation of the original meaning of res publica. And it was only in this sense that the Greeks, such as Plato, used the term that has been translated as “republic.” Plato was writing about an imaginary “commonwealth,” and while he certainly had strong ideas about the kind of government this Utopia should have, those ideas were not conveyed nor foreshadowed by his title.

The historical development of the meaning of the word republic might be summarized as follows. The Greeks learned that, as Dr. Durant puts it, “man became free when he recognized that he was subject to law.” The Romans applied the formerly general term republic specifically to that system of government in which both the people and their rulers were subject to law. That meaning was recognized throughout all later history, as when the term was applied, however inappropriately in fact and optimistically in self-deception to the “Republic of Venice” or to the “Dutch Republic.”

The meaning was thoroughly understood by our Founding Fathers. As early as 1775 John Adams had pointed out that Aristotle (representing Greek thought), Livy (whom he chose to represent Roman thought), and Harington (a British statesman) all “define a republic to be … a government of laws and not of men.” And it was with this full understanding that our constitution-makers proceeded to establish a government which, by its very structure, would require that both the people and their rulers obey certain basic laws — laws which could not be changed without laborious and deliberate changes in the very structure of that government.

When our Founding Fathers established a republic, in the hope, as Benjamin Franklin said, that we could keep it, and when they guaranteed to every state within that republic a republican form of government, they well knew the significance of the terms they were using. And they were doing all in their power to make the features of government signified by those terms as permanent as possible.

They also knew very well indeed the meaning of the word democracy, and the history of democracies; and they were deliberately doing everything in their power to avoid for their own times, and to prevent for the future, the evils of a democracy.

Let’s look at some of the things they said to support and clarify this purpose. On May 31, 1787, Edmund Randolph told his fellow members of the newly assembled Constitutional Convention that the object for which the delegates had met was “to provide a cure for the evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and trials of democracy.”

The delegates to the convention were clearly in accord with this statement. At about the same time another delegate, Elbridge Gerry, said: “The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy. The people do not want [that is, do not lack] virtue; but are the dupes of pretended patriots.” And on June 21, 1788, Alexander Hamilton made a speech in which he stated:

It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience had proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.

At another time Hamilton said: “We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy.” And John Adams warned: “Remember, Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself! There never was a democracy that ‘did not commit suicide.’”

James Madison, one of the members of the convention who was charged with drawing up our Constitution, wrote as follows:

Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

Establishing a Republic

Madison and Hamilton and Jay and their compatriots of the convention prepared and adopted a constitution in which they nowhere even mentioned the word democracy, not because they were not familiar with such a form of government, but because they were. The word democracy had not occurred in the Declaration of Independence, and does not appear in the constitution of a single one of our fifty states — which constitutions are derived mainly from the thinking of the Founding Fathers of the Republic — for the same reason. They knew all about democracies, and if they had wanted one for themselves and their posterity, they would have founded one. Look at all the elaborate system of checks and balances which they established; at the carefully worked-out protective clauses of the Constitution itself, and especially of the first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights; at the effort, as Jefferson put it, to “bind men down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution,” and thus to solidify the rule not of men but of laws. All of these steps were taken deliberately to avoid and to prevent a democracy, or any of the worst features of a democracy, in the United States of America.

And so our republic was started on its way. And for well over a hundred years our politicians, statesmen, and people remembered that this was a republic, not a democracy, and knew what they meant when they made that distinction. Again, let’s look briefly at some of the evidence.

Washington, in his first inaugural address, dedicated himself to “the preservation … of the republican model of government.” Thomas Jefferson, our third president, was the founder of the Democratic Party; but in his first inaugural address, although he referred several times to the Republic or the republican form of government, he did not use the word “democracy” a single time. And John Marshall, who was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, said: “Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.”

Throughout all of the nineteenth century and the very early part of the twentieth, while America as a republic was growing great and becoming the envy of the whole world, there were plenty of wise men, both in our country and outside of it, who pointed to the advantages of a republic, which we were enjoying, and warned against the horrors of a democracy, into which we might fall. Around the middle of that century, Herbert Spencer, the great English philosopher, wrote, in an article on “The Americans”: “The Republican form of government is the highest form of government; but because of this it requires the highest type of human nature — a type nowhere at present existing.” And in truth we have not been a high enough type to preserve the republic we then had, which is exactly what he was prophesying.

Famous Prophecies

Thomas Babington Macaulay said: “I have long been convinced that institutions purely democratic must, sooner or later, destroy liberty or civilization, or both.” And we certainly seem to be in a fair way today to fulfill his dire prophecy. Nor was Macaulay’s contention a mere personal opinion without intellectual roots and substance in the thought of his times. Nearly two centuries before, Dryden had already lamented that “no government had ever been, or ever can be, wherein time-servers and blockheads will not be uppermost.” And as a result, he had spoken of nations being “drawn to the dregs of a democracy.” While in 1795 Immanuel Kant had written: “Democracy is necessarily despotism.”

In 1850 Benjamin Disraeli, worried as was Herbert Spencer at what was already being foreshadowed in England, made a speech to the British House of Commons in which he said:

If you establish a democracy, you must in due time reap the fruits of a democracy. You will in due season have great impatience of public burdens, combined in due season with great increase of public expenditure. You will in due season have wars entered into from passion and not from reason; and you will in due season submit to peace ignominiously sought and ignominiously obtained, which will diminish your authority and perhaps endanger your independence. You will in due season find your property is less valuable, and your freedom less complete.

Disraeli could have made that speech with even more appropriateness before a joint session of the American Congress in 1935. And in 1870 he had already come up with an epigram which is strikingly true for the United States today. “The world is weary,” he said, “of statesmen whom democracy has degraded into politicians.”

But even in Disraeli’s day there were similarly prophetic voices on this side of the Atlantic. In our own country James Russell Lowell showed that he recognized the danger of unlimited majority rule by writing: “Democracy gives every man the right to be his own oppressor.”

W. H. Seward pointed out that “democracies are prone to war, and war consumes them.” This is an observation certainly borne out during the past fifty years exactly to the extent that we have been becoming a democracy and fighting wars, with each trend as both a cause and an effect of the other one. And Ralph Waldo Emerson issued a most prophetic warning when he said: “Democracy becomes a government of bullies tempered by editors.” If Emerson could have looked ahead to the time when so many of the editors would themselves be a part of, or sympathetic to, the gang of bullies as they are today, he would have been even more disturbed. And in the 1880s, Governor Seymour of New York said that the merit of our Constitution was not that it promotes democracy, but checks it.

Across the Atlantic again, a little later, Oscar Wilde once contributed this epigram to the discussion: “Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people, by the people, for the people.” While on this side, and after the First World War had made the degenerative trend in our government so visible to any penetrating observer, H.L. Mencken wrote: “The most popular man under a democracy is not the most democratic man, but the most despotic man. The common folk delight in the exactions of such a man. They like him to boss them. Their natural gait is the goose step.” While Ludwig Lewisohn observed: “Democracy, which began by liberating man politically, has developed a dangerous tendency to enslave him through the tyranny of majorities and the deadly power of their opinion.”

Prerequisite for Revolution

But it was a great Englishman, G.K. Chesterton, who put his finger on the basic reasoning behind all the continued and determined efforts of the Communists to convert our republic into a democracy. “You can never have a revolution,” he said, “in order to establish a democracy. You must have a democracy in order to have a revolution.”

And in 1931 the Duke of Northumberland, in his booklet The History of World Revolution, stated: “The adoption of Democracy as a form of Government by all European nations is fatal to good Government, to liberty, to law and order, to respect for authority, and to religion, and must eventually produce a state of chaos from which a new world tyranny will arise.”

While an even more recent analyst, Archibald E. Stevenson, summarized the situation as follows:

De Tocqueville once warned us that: “If ever the free institutions of America are destroyed, that event will arise from the unlimited tyranny of the majority.” But a majority will never be permitted to exercise such “unlimited tyranny” so long as we cling to the American ideals of republican liberty and turn a deaf ear to the siren voices now calling us to democracy. This is not a question relating to the form of government. That can always be changed by constitutional amendment. It is one affecting the underlying philosophy of our system — a philosophy which brought new dignity to the individual, more safety for minorities and greater justice in the administration of government. We are in grave danger of dissipating this splendid heritage through mistaking it for democracy.

And there have been plenty of other voices to warn us.

So how did it happen that we have been allowing this gradual destruction of our inheritance to take place? And when did it start? The two questions are closely related.

For not only every democracy, but certainly every republic, bears within itself the seeds of its own destruction. The difference is that for a soundly conceived and solidly endowed republic it takes a great deal longer for those seeds to germinate and the plants to grow. The American republic was bound — is still bound — to follow in the centuries to come the same course to destruction as did Rome. But our real ground of complaint is that we have been pushed down the demagogic road to disaster by conspiratorial hands far sooner and far faster than would have been the results of natural political evolution.

Fabian Deception

These conspiratorial hands first got seriously to work in this country in the earliest years of the twentieth century. The Fabian philosophy and strategy was imported to America from England, as it had been earlier to England from Germany. Some of the members of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society, founded in 1905, and some of the members of the League for Industrial Democracy into which it grew, were already a part of, or affiliated with, an international Communist conspiracy planning to make the United States a portion of a one-world communist state. Others saw it as possible and desirable merely to make the United States a separate socialist Utopia. But they all knew and agreed that to do either they would have to destroy both the constitutional safeguards and the underlying philosophy which made it a republic. So from the very beginning the whole drive to convert our republic into a democracy was in two parts. One part was to make our people come to believe that we had, and were supposed to have, a democracy. The second part was actually and insidiously to be changing the republic into a democracy.

The first appreciable and effective progress in both directions began with the election of Woodrow Wilson. Of Wilson it could accurately have been said, as Tacitus had said of some Roman counterpart: “By common consent, he would have been deemed capable of governing had he never governed.” Since he did become the president of the United States for two terms, however, it is hard to tell how much of the tragic disaster of those years was due to the conscious support by Wilson himself of communist purposes, and how much to his being merely a dupe and a tool of Colonel Edward Mandell House. But at any rate it is under Wilson that, for the first time, we see the power of the American presidency being used to support communist schemers and communist schemes in other countries — as especially, for instance, in Mexico, and throughout Latin America.

It was under Wilson, of course, that the first huge parts of the Marxian program, such as the progressive income tax, were incorporated into the American system. It was under Wilson that the first huge legislative steps to break down what the Romans would have called our “mixed constitution” of a republic, and convert it into the homogenous jelly of a democracy, got under way with such measures as the direct election of senators. And it was under Wilson that the first great propaganda slogan was coined and emblazoned everywhere to make Americans start thinking favorably of democracies and forget that we had a republic. This was, of course, the slogan of the first World War: “To make the world safe for democracy.” If enough Americans had, by those years, remembered enough of their own history, they would have been worrying about how to make the world safe from democracy. But the great deception and the great conspiracy were already well under way.

The conspirators had to proceed slowly and patiently, nevertheless, and to have their allies and dupes do the same. For in the first place, the American people could not have been swept too fast and too far in this movement without enough alarms being sounded to be heard and heeded. And in the second place, after the excitement of World War I had sunk into the past, and America was returning to what Harding called “normalcy,” there was a strong revulsion against the whole binge of demagoguery and crackpot idealism which had been created under Woodrow Wilson, and which had been used to give us this initial push on the road towards ultimate disaster.

And during this period from 1920 until the so-called great depression could be deliberately accentuated, extended, and increased to suit the purposes of the Fabian conspirators, there was simply a germination period for the seeds of destruction which the conspirators had planted. Not until Franklin D. Roosevelt came to power in 1933 did the whole Communist-propelled and Communist-managed drive again begin to take visible and tangible and positive steps in their program to make the United States ultimately succumb to a one-world communist tyranny.

Most conservative Americans are today well aware of many of those steps and of their significance. But there are still not enough who realize how important to communist plans was the two-pronged drive to convert the American republic into a democracy and to make the American people accept the change without even knowing there had been one. From 1933 on, however, that drive and that change moved into high gear, and have been kept there ever since.

Let’s look briefly at just two important and specific pieces of tangible evidence of this drive, and of its success in even those early years.

Changing Definition

In 1928 the U.S. Army Training Manual, used for all of our men in army uniform, gave the following quite accurate definition of a democracy:

A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any form of “direct” expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic — negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

That was in 1928. Just when that true explanation was dropped, and through what intermediate changes the definition went, I have not had sufficient time and opportunity to learn. But compare that 1928 statement with what was being said in the same place for the same use by 1952. In The Soldiers Guide, Department of the Army Field Manual, issued in June 1952, we find the following:

Meaning of democracy. Because the United States is a democracy, the majority of the people decide how our government will be organized and run — and that includes the Army, Navy, and Air Force. The people do this by electing representatives, and these men and women then carry out the wishes of the people. [Emphasis added.]

Now obviously this change from basic truth to superficial demagoguery, in the one medium for mass indoctrination of our youth which has been available to the federal government until such time as it achieves control over public education, did not just happen by accident. It was part of an overall design, which became both extensive in its reach and rapid in its execution from 1933 on. Let’s look at another less important but equally striking illustration.

Former Governor Lehman of New York, in his first inaugural message in 1933, did not once use the word democracy. The poison had not yet reached into the reservoirs from which flowed his political thoughts. In his inaugural message of 1935 he used the word democracy twice. The poison was beginning to work. In his similar message of 1939 he used the word democracy, or a derivative thereof, 25 times. And less than a year later, on January 3, 1940, in his annual message to the New York legislature he used it 33 times. The poison was now permeating every stream of his political philosophy.

By today that same poison has been diffused in an effective dosage through almost the whole body of American thought about government. Newspapers write ringing editorials declaring that this is and always was a democracy. In pamphlets and books and speeches, in classrooms and pulpits and over the air, we are besieged with the shouts of the liberals and their political henchmen, all pointing with pride to our being a democracy. Many of them even believe it. Here we have a clear-cut sample of the Big Lie which has been repeated so often and so long that it is increasingly accepted as truth. And never was a Big Lie spread more deliberately for more subversive purposes.

What is even worse, because of their unceasing efforts to destroy the safeguards, traditions, and policies which made us a republic, and partly because of this very propaganda of deception, what they have been shouting so long is gradually becoming truth. Despite Warren and his Supreme Court and all of their allies, dupes, and bosses, we are not yet a democracy. But the fingers in the dike are rapidly becoming fewer and less effective. And a great many of the pillars of our republic have already been washed away.

Since 1912 we have seen the imposition of a graduated income tax, as already mentioned. Also, as mentioned, the direct election of senators. We have seen the Federal Reserve System established and then become the means of giving our central government absolute power over credit, interest rates, and the quantity and value of our money; and we have seen the federal government increasingly use this means and this power to take money from the pockets of the thrifty and put it in the hands of the thriftless, to expand bureaucracy, increase its huge debts and deficits, and to promote socialistic purposes of every kind.

We have seen the federal government increase its holdings of land by tens of millions of acres, and go into business as a substitute for and in competition with private industry to the extent that in many fields it is now the largest — and in every case the most inefficient — producer of goods and services in the nation. And we have seen it carry the socialistic control of agriculture to such extremes that the once vaunted independence of our farmers is now a vanished dream. We have seen a central government taking more and more control over public education, over communications, over transportation, over every detail of our daily lives.

Gradual Destruction

We have seen a central government promote the power of labor union bosses, and in turn be supported by that power, until it has become entirely too much a government of and for one class, which is exactly what our Founding Fathers wanted most to prevent.

We have seen the firm periodicity of the tenure of public office terrifically weakened by the four terms as president of Franklin D. Roosevelt, something which would justly have horrified and terrified the Founders of our Republic. It was the fact that in Greece the chief executive officer stayed in power for long periods which did much to prevent the Greeks ever achieving a republic. In Rome it was the rise of the same tendency, under Marius and Sulla and Pompey, and as finally carried to its logical state of life rule under Julius Caesar, which at last destroyed the republic even though its forms were left. And that, of course, is precisely one reason why the Communists and so many of their liberal dupes wanted third and fourth terms for FDR. They knew they were thus helping to destroy the American republic.

We have seen both the executive department and the Supreme Court override and break down the clearly established rights of the states and state governments, of municipal governments, and of so many of those diffusers of power so carefully protected by the Constitution. Imagine, for instance, what James Madison would have thought of the federal government telling the city of Newburgh, New York, that it had no control over the abuse by the shiftless of its welfare handouts.

We have seen an utterly unbelievable increase in government by appointive officials and bureaucratic agencies — a development entirely contrary to the very concept of government expounded and materialized by our Constitution. And we have seen the effective checking and balancing of one department of our government by another department almost completely disappear.

James Madison, in trying to give us a republic instead of a democracy, wrote that “the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judicial, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be denounced as the very definition of tyranny.” The whole problem for the liberal establishment that runs our government today, and has been running it for many years regardless of the labels worn by successive administrations, has not been any divergence of beliefs or of purposes between the controlling elements of our executive, legislative, or judicial branches. For twenty years, despite the heroic efforts of men like [Robert] Taft to stop the trend, these branches have been acting increasingly in complete accord, and obviously according to designs laid down for them by the schemers and plotters behind the scenes. And their only question has been as to how fast the whole tribe dared to go in advancing the grand design. We do not yet have a democracy simply because it takes a lot of time and infinite pressures to sweep the American people all of the way into so disastrous an abandonment of their governmental heritage.

Centralized Power

In the Constitution of the American republic there was a deliberate and very extensive and emphatic division of governmental power for the very purpose of preventing unbridled majority rule. In our Constitution, governmental power is divided among three separate branches of the national government, three separate branches of state governments, and the peoples of the several states. And the governmental power, which is so divided, is sometimes exclusive, sometimes concurrent, sometimes limited, at all times specific, and sometimes reserved. Ours was truly, and purposely, a “mixed constitution.”

In a democracy there is a centralization of governmental power in a simple majority. And that, visibly, is the system of government which the enemies of our republic are seeking to impose on us today. Nor are we “drifting” into that system, as Harry Atwood said in 1933, and as many would still have us believe. We are being insidiously, conspiratorially, and treasonously led by deception, by bribery, by coercion, and by fear to destroy a republic that was the envy and model for all of the civilized world.

Finally, let’s look briefly at two or three important characteristics of our republic, and of our lives under the republic, which were unique in all history up to the present time.

First, our republic has offered the greatest opportunity and encouragement to social democracy the world has ever known. Just as the Greeks found that obedience to law made them free, so Americans found that social democracy flourished best in the absence of political democracy. And for sound reasons. For the safeguards to person and property afforded by a republic, the stable framework which it supplied for life and labor at all levels, and the resulting constant flux of individuals from one class into another made caste impossible and snobbery a joke.

In the best days of our republic, Americans were fiercely proud of the fact that rich and poor met on such equal terms in so many ways, and without the slightest trace of hostility. The whole thought expressed by Burns in his famous line “a man’s a man for a’ that” has never been accepted more unquestioningly, nor lived up to more truly, than in America in those wonderful decades before the intellectual snobs and power-drunk bureaucrats of our recent years set out to make everybody theoretically equal (except to themselves) by legislation and coercion. And I can tell you this. When you begin to find that Jew and Gentile, white and colored, rich and poor, scholar and laborer, are genuinely and almost universally friendly to one another again — instead of going through all the silly motions of a phony equality forced upon them by increasing political democracy — you can be sure that we have already made great strides in the restoration of our once glorious republic.

And for a very last thought, let me point out what seems to me to be something about the underlying principles of the American Republic which really was new in the whole philosophy of government. In man’s earlier history, and especially in the Asiatic civilizations, all authority rested in the king or the conqueror by virtue of sheer military power. The subjects of the king had absolutely no rights except those given them by the king. And such laws or constitutional provisions as did grow up were concessions wrested from the king or given by him out of his own supposedly ultimate authority. In more modern European states, where the complete military subjugation of one nation by another was not so normal, that ultimate authority of the ruler came to rest on the theory of the divine right of kings, or in some instances and to some extent on power specifically bestowed on rulers by a pope as the representative of divinity.

In the meantime the truly Western current of thought, which had begun in Greece, was recurrently, intermittently, and haltingly gaining strength. It was that the people of any nation owed their rights to the government which they themselves had established and which owed its power ultimately to their consent. Just what rights any individual citizen had was properly determined by the government which all of the citizens had established, and those rights were subject to a great deal of variations in different times and places under different regimes. In other words, the rights of individuals were still changeable rights, derived from government, even though the power and authority and rights of the government were themselves derived from the total body of the people.

God’s Ultimate Authority

Then both of these basic theories of government, the Eastern and the Western, were really amended for all time by certain principles enunciated in the American Declaration of Independence. Those principles became a part of the very foundation of our republic. And they said that man has certain unalienable rights which do not derive from government at all. Under this theory not only the sovereign conqueror, but the sovereign people, are restricted in their power and authority by man’s natural rights, or by the divine rights of the individual man. And those certain unalienable and divine rights cannot be abrogated by the vote of a majority any more than they can by the decree of a conqueror. The idea that the vote of a people, no matter how nearly unanimous, makes or creates or determines what is right or just becomes as absurd and unacceptable as the idea that right and justice are simply whatever a king says they are. Just as the early Greeks learned to try to have their rulers and themselves abide by the laws they had themselves established, so man has now been painfully learning that there are more permanent and lasting laws which cannot be changed by either sovereign kings or sovereign people, but which must be observed by both. And that government is merely a convenience, superimposed on Divine Commandments and on the natural laws that flow only from the Creator of man and man’s universe.

Now that principle seems to me to be the most important addition to the theory of government in all history. And it has, as I said, at least tacitly been recognized as a foundation stone and cardinal tenet of the American Republic. But of course any such idea that there are unchangeable limitations on the power of the people themselves is utterly foreign to the theory of a democracy, and even more impossible in the practices of one. And this principle may ultimately be by far the most significant of all the many differences between a republic and a democracy. For in time, under any government, without that principle slavery is inevitable, while with it slavery is impossible. And the American Republic has been the first great example of that principle at work.

In summary, I personally think that, as I said in the Blue Book of the John Birch Society, democracy is a weapon of demagoguery and a perennial fraud. I think that a constitutional republic is the best of all forms of government man has yet devised. Our Founding Fathers thought so too, and the wisest Romans had already come to that same conclusion. So I am in excellent company. It is company which we hope more and more Americans will join. To that end we are saying everywhere we can, and asking all of you and tens of thousands to say with us: This is a Republic, not a Democracy. Let’s keep it that way!

Neil Oliver, Think the Unthinkable and Accept That is the Better Reference Point

August 13, 2022 by Sundance

Neil Oliver returns from a vacation to deliver one of his best contemplative monologues to date.  Mr. Oliver rightly says that if you reset your historic reference points, and you begin to recognize that thinking the unthinkable is actually the best reference point for your current state, it is like a key that unlocks the answers.

We are the battered spouses in an abusive relationship with government. Nothing we can do is going to appease the abuser, it is the inherent state of their disposition. WATCH:

[Transcript] – It is hard to think the unthinkable – but there comes a time when there’s nothing else for it. People raised to trust the powers that be – who have assumed, like I once did, that the State, regardless of its political flavour at any given moment, is essentially benevolent and well-meaning – will naturally try and keep that assumption of benevolence in mind when trying to make sense of what is going on around them.

People like us, you and me, raised in the understanding that we are free, that we have inalienable rights, and that the institutions of this country have our best interests at heart, will tend to tie ourselves in knots rather than contemplate the idea those authorities might actually be working against us now. I took that thought of benevolent, well-meaning authority for granted for most of my life, God help me. Not to put too fine a point on it, I was as gullible as the next chump.

A couple of years ago, however, I began to think the unthinkable and with every passing day it becomes more and more obvious to me that we are no longer being treated as individuals entitled to try and make the most of our lives – but as a barn full of battery hens, just another product to be bought and sold – sold down the river.

Let me put it another way: if you have been driving yourself almost demented in an effort to think the best of those in charge – those in senior positions in government, those in charge of the great institutions of State, those running the big corporations – but finding it increasingly impossible to do so … then the solution to the problem might be to turn your point of view through 180 degrees and accept, however unwillingly, that we are … how best to put this … being taken for a ride.

When you find a stranger’s hand on your wallet, in the inside pocket of your jacket … rather than trying to persuade yourself he’s only making sure it doesn’t fall out … it might be more straightforward to draw the conclusion you’re in the process of being robbed.

Once the scales fall from a person’s eyes, the resultant clarity of sight is briefly overwhelming. Or it is like being handed a skeleton key that opens every locked door, or access to a Rosetta Stone that translates every word into a language instantly understood.

Take the energy crisis: If you’ve felt the blood drain from your face at the prospect of bills rising from hundreds to several thousands of pounds while reading about energy companies doubling their profits overnight while being commanded to subsidise so-called renewables that are anything but Green while listening to this politician or that renew their vows to the ruinous fantasies of Net Zero and Agenda 2030 while knowing that the electricity for electric cars comes, in the main and most reliably, from fossil fuels if you can’t make sense of it all and just know that it adds up to a future in which you might have to choose between eating and heating then treat yourself to the gift of understanding that the powers that be fully intend that we should have less heat and less fuel and that in the planned future only the rich will have cars anyway. The plan is not to fix it.

The plan is to break it, and leave it broken. If you struggle to think the best of the world’s richest – vacuous, self-obsessed A-list celebrities among them – endlessly circling the planet on private jets and super yachts, so as to attend get-togethers where they might pontificate to us lowly proles about how we must give up our cars and occasional holiday flights – even meat on the dinner table … if you wonder how they have the unmitigated gall … then isn’t it easier simply to accept that their honestly declared and advertised intention is that their luxurious and pampered lives will continue as before while we are left hungry, cold and mostly unwashed in our unheated homes.

Here’s the thing: if any leader or celeb honestly meant a word of their sermons about CO2 and the rest, then they would obviously lead by example. They would be first of all of us willingly to give up international travel altogether … they would downsize to modest homes warmed by heat pumps. They would eschew all energy but that from the sun and the wind. They would eat, with relish, bugs and plants. They would resort to walking, bicycles and public transport.

If Net Zero and the rest was about the good of the planet – and not about clearing the skies and the beaches of scum like us – don’t you think those sainted politicians and A-listers would be lighting the way for us by their own example? If the way of life they preach to us was worth living, wouldn’t they be living it already? Perhaps you heard Bill Gates say private jets are his guilty pleasure.

And how about food – and more particularly the predicted shortage of it: the suits and CEOs blame it all on Vladimir Putin. But if the countries of the world are truly running out of food, why is our government offering farmers hundreds of thousands of pounds to get out of the industry and sell their land to transnational corporations for use, or disuse unknown? Why aren’t we, as a society, doing what our parents and grandparents did during WWII and digging for victory? Why is the government intent on turning a third of our fertile soil over to re-wilding schemes that make life better only for the beavers? Why aren’t we looking across the North Sea towards the Netherlands where a WEF-infected administration is bullying farmers off their land altogether, forcing them to cull half the national herd.

Those Dutch farmers are among the most productive and knowledgeable in the world, holding in their heads and hands the answers to all manner of questions about how best to produce food, and yet their government is so intent on scaring them out of the business that a teenage boy in a tractor, taking part in a protest to defend ancient rights and traditions, was fired on by police.

Why do you think it matters so much, to the government of the second most productive population of farmers in the world, to gut and fillet that industry? Why? Why have similar protests, in countries all across Europe and the wider world, been largely ignored by the mainstream media – a media that would have crawled on its hands and knees over broken glass just to report on a BLM protester opening a bag of non-binary crisps. Why the silence on the attack on farming?

And while we’re on the subject of farmland ownership, why is computer salesman Bill Gates buying so much farmland in the US – more than a quarter of a million acres in 19 states at the last count, while simultaneously promoting the production and sale of fake meat? And why have so many small planes crashed into massive food processing plants in the US, sparking fires and thereby hobbling the production and distribution of yet more of the very stuff of life? Why is this happening to farmers and farming … all across the hitherto developed world …?

Isn’t the simple obvious answer … the answer that makes most sense and that is staring us in our trusting faces … that power for the power-hungry has always rested most effectively upon control of food and its supply? Why are the powers that be attributing this to a cost-of-living crisis when everyone with two brain cells to rub together can see it’s a cost of lockdown crisis – the inevitable consequence of shutting down the whole country – indeed the whole world – for the best part of two years. Soaring inflation, rising interest rates, disrupted supply chains.

Might they be calling it a cost-of-living crisis as part of their bare-faced attempt to distract us from the fact that while ordinary individuals face a life and death struggle in the coming months, the corporations have celebrated their share of the greatest transfer of wealth in history? Doesn’t that seem more likely? However unthinkable, might it not be more compelling to ask why our government, and governments around the world, have effectively stood by and held the coats of huge corporations while those money magnets pulled almost all of the world’s wealth into their already creaking coffers?

Are our governments more interested in enabling, in aiding and abetting the rich, than in lifting so much as a finger to protect our livelihoods, our ways of life? I’m only asking. What about the money in our pockets? Why is it getting harder and harder to use good old cash, notes and coins? Why are we being nudged further and further away from spending-power we can see and hold, and towards a digital alternative that exists only on the hard drives of the banks that run the world? Why is that do you think?

Rather than dismiss as yet another conspiracy theory the idea of cash being ultimately replaced with transactions based on the exchange of what amount to glorified food stamps that will only be accepted if our social credit score demonstrates that we’ve been obedient girls or boys … how about taking the leap and focussing on the blatantly obvious … that if we are not free to buy whatever and whenever we please, free of the surveillance and snooping of governments and the banks that run them, then we have absolutely no freedom at all.

And while we’re on the subject of money and banks, why not pause to notice something else that is glaringly obvious – which is to say that the currencies of the West are teetering on the abyss, and that one bank after another is revealed, to those who are bothering to watch, as being as close to bankruptcy as its possible to be without actually falling over the edge.

Then there’s the so-called vaccines for Covid – I deliberately say “so-called” because by now it should be clear to all but the wilfully blind that those injections do not work as advertised. You can still contract the virus, still transmit the virus, still get sick and still die. Denmark has dropped their use on under-18s. All across the world, every day, more evidence emerges – however grudgingly, however much the various complicit authorities and Big-Pharma companies might hate to admit it – of countless deaths and injuries caused by those medical procedures.

And yet here in Britain and just about everywhere else, governments continue to try and get those needles into as many arms as possible, even the arms of the smallest and youngest. The ripe stink of corruption is everywhere. I trusted authority for most of my life.

Now I ask myself on a daily basis how I ignored the stench for so long. Across the Atlantic, the Biden Whitehouse sent the FBI to raid the home of former president Donald Trump. Meanwhile Joe Biden and his son Hunter – he of the laptop full of the most appalling and incriminating content – fly together on Airforce 1. No raids planned on the Obamas, nor on the Clintons. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi flew to Taiwan and onwards to China. Her son Paul, an investor in a Chinese tech firm and with seats on the board of companies dealing in lithium, was along for the ride, into that part of the world where three quarters of the world’s lithium batteries are made. Taiwan leads in that technology.

It is hard to think the unthinkable. It’s hard to think that all of it, all the misery, all the suffering of the past and to come might just be about money, greed and power. It is hard to tell yourself you’ve been taken for a fool and taken for a ride. It’s hard, but the view from the other side is worth the effort and the pain. Open your eyes and see. (link)

REPLAY: from ‘The Pit’ , A Vital Strategy Session presented by True The Vote 8/13/22


VIDEO ‘We Don’t Have Rule of Law in Washington … FBI is Beyond Redemption’

 By Michael W. Chapman | August 10, 2022


When asked about the FBI raid on former President Donald Trump’s home in Palm Beach, Fla., professor, author, and political commentator Victor David Hanson said, “right now, we don’t have the rule of law in Washington,” and added that, “The FBI is beyond redemption.”

Hanson, who was awarded the National Humanities Medal by President George W. Bush, made his remarks on the Aug. 9 edition of FNC’s Tucker Carlson Tonight, guest-hosted by Will Cain.  

Cain asked Hanson why the FBI raided Mar-a-Lago and why were they targeting Trump.

“Well, they’re afraid in the short term,” he said, in reference to the Democrats and the left, “but in the long term they believe they’re morally superior to America, and therefore any means necessary or justifiable for their morally superior ends.”

“And right now, we don’t have the rule of law in Washington,” said Hanson. “Whether you’re targeted or exempt depends on your ideology.”

Hanson, the professor emeritus of Classics at California State University-Fresno, is the author of 22 books, including The Case for Trump and The Dying Citizen: How Progressive Elites, Tribaliam, and Globalization are Destroying the Idea of America

He continued, “So in the past when there was a dispute over the Archives or presidential papers, Barack Obama just said, ‘I’m not going to turn them over to the Freedom of Information. He spent $30 million resisting efforts to do that. George Bush had an Executive Order and said, ‘You know what, I’m not going to do this.’ And that was adjudicated.”

Former President Donald J. Trump. (Getty Images)

Former President Donald J. Trump. (Getty Images)

“Now we go after a president and go to his house with 30 agents,” said Hanson.  “In the past, when a high official was called for a congressional subpoena, Eric Holder just said, ‘I’m not going and I’m not turning over any of this fast and furious.'”

“The idea that you would put him in shackles or you confront him with his family and grab his phone is just ridiculous,” said Hanson.  “But this is what we’re doing on an ideological basis.”

“And when you start to do that, you don’t have a democracy anymore,” he added. “And I don’t think we do.”

Hanson went on to criticize the Jan. 6 committee, comparing it to the authoritarian committees of the French Revolution headed by Robespierre.

“To be on that Committee, you have to have one criteria and you have to vote to impeach Donald Trump,” said Hanson. “If you’re a Republican there was one other qualification, you had to be politically inert with no future and it was deductive.”

US Representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) and US Representative Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) arrive to a hearing by the House Select Committee to investigate the January 6th attack on the US Capitol in the Cannon House Office Building in Washington, DC, on July 21, 2022. (Getty Images)

US Representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) and US Representative Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) arrive to a hearing by the House Select Committee to investigate the January 6th attack on the US Capitol in the Cannon House Office Building in Washington, DC, on July 21, 2022. (Getty Images)

“It started with the premise that we’re going to destroy Donald Trump and then we’re going to bring in witnesses and we’re going to allow narratives for that end,” he added. “There is going to be no cross examination.”

As for the FBI, Hanson remarked, “I never thought I would say this: The FBI is beyond redemption. It is — all of its bureaus and its institutions that have to be farmed out and broken up. If you have a warrant, an FBI warrant, there is no guarantee that that has not been altered. If you subpoena and you want FBI records on phones … they will be wiped clean.”

“We just saw [FBI Director] Christopher Wray and he just stonewalled every question and then he flew on an FBI plane, our plane, a luxury jet because he had to go to his own vacation spot. He took over, remember, from Andrew McCabe — what did he do? He lied four times to federal investigators, and his wife was running for an office with Clinton-related PAC money while he was investigating Hillary Clinton’s e-mail scandal.”

A member of the Secret Service is seen in front of the home of former President Donald Trump at Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida on August 9, 2022. (Getty Images)

A member of the Secret Service is seen in front of the home of former President Donald Trump at Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida on August 9, 2022. (Getty Images)

“[McCabe] took over from James Comey who leaked confidential memos written on FBI devices to the media,” added Hanson, “and then when he was called before Congress, on 245 occasions, he said, he didn’t know or didn’t remember.”

“All of this is destroying this country,” said Hanson. “And it comes from the people who warned us democracy dies in darkness, and they have descended upon us, the greatest cloud of autocracy and illiberality in the history of this Republic. … [L]et’s pray to God the Republicans can save us.”

h/t Tucker Carlson Tonight


AUDIO Freedom Is Never Free

By Rev Bill Woods

For this message I am relying on a short book by Paul Harvey entitled, OUR LIVES, OUR FORTUNES, OUR SACRED HONOR.

Most of the material comes from his book and I want mention this so you will understand that I’m not plagiarizing and pretending  it’s my own work.

He starts out:  The United States of America was born in 1776.  But it was conceived 169 years before that.

The earliest settlers had watered the New World with much sweat, had built substantial holdings for themselves and their families.  When the time came to separate themselves from the tyranny an ocean away in England, at best it meant starting all over again after the destruction of war.

All other world’s revolutions before and since were initiated by men with nothing to lose.

These 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence had everything to lose…nothing to gain…except one thing….OUR LIVES OUR FORTUNES OUR SACRED HONOR.

In the Pennsylvania State House, now known as

 Independence Hall in Philadelphia, the best men from each of the colonies sat down together.  What a tremendous hour in our Nation’s history, one of those rare occasions in history when we had greatness to spare.

These were men of means, well educated.  Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers who owned large plantations; men of means, well educated.  They all signed the Declaration of Independence knowing that the penalty would be death if they were captured. 

On June 11, a committee met to draw up a declaration of independence.  They were going to tell the British, no more rule by redcoats!  Below the dam of ruthless foreign rule, the stream of freedom was running shallow and muddy.  They were lighting the fuse to dynamite that dam.

This pact, “a partnership between the living and the dead and the yet unborn.”  There was no bigotry, no demagoguery in this group.   All had shared hardships.

Jefferson completed a draft of the document in seventeen days.  It was adopted by Congress in July.  

King George III had denounced all rebels in America as traitors.  Hanging was the punishment for treason.

….For six months the names of the signers was kept secret.  Each man knew the full meaning of that powerful last paragraph…where his signature pledged his life, his fortune, and his sacred honor.

Fifty-six men signed their names beneath that pledge.  Fifty-six men knew—when they signed—they were risking everything.

They knew if they won this fight, the best that could happen would be years of hardship in a struggling nation.  If they lost, it would be a hangman’s rope.

But they signed…the pledge.

And they did pay the price!

Here is the fate of that gallant fifty-six.
5 signers were captured by the British as traitors and tortured before they died. 
12 had their homes ransacked and burned. 
2 lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army, another had 2 sons captured. 
9 of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War. 

They signed and pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. 

They held to that pledge!

Carter Braxton of Virginia, was a wealthy planter and trader, who saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts and died in rags. 

Thomas Lynch Jr., signed that pledge.  He was a third generation rice grower, Aristocrat, Large plantation owner.  After he signed his health failed. 

With his wife he set out for France to regain his failing health.  The ship never got to France and was never heard from again.

Thomas McKean of Delaware was so harassed by the enemy that he had to move his family five times in five months. He served in Congress without pay.  His family was kept in hiding. Everything he owned was taken from him.  Poverty was his reward. 

Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Ellery and Clymer, and Hall and Gwinnett, Heyward, and Rutledge and Middleton. 

Thomas Nelson Jr., of Virginia, raised two million dollars on his own signature to get provisions for the allies…the French fleet.  He personally paid back the loans, after the war wiping out his entire estate.  He was never reimbursed by the government.

In the final battle for Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr., found the British General Cornwallis had taken over Nelson’s home for his headquarters.

He urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt and was buried in an unmarked grave.  He’d pledged his life, fortune, and sacred honor.” 

The home and properties of Francis Lewis were destroyed. The enemy put his wife in jail.  She died within a few months. 

Richard Stockton was captured and mistreated.  His health was broken so badly that he died at fifty-one.  His estate was pillaged.

Thomas Heyward, Jr., was captured when Charleston fell.

John Hart was driven from his wife’s bedside where she lay dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For over a year, he lived in forests and caves, when he returned home he found his wife dead and his children vanished. Only a few weeks later, he died from exhaustion and a broken heart. 

Lewis Morris’ land was destroyed and his family scattered.

Philip Livingston died in just a few months from the hardships of war.

History remembers John Hancock best because of a quirk of fate rather than anything he stood for.  His great sweeping signature attested to his vanity and stands out over the others.  He was one of the wealthiest men in New England, he stood outside Boston one terrible night of the war and said, “Burn Boston, though it makes John Hancock a beggar, if the public good requires it.”

He, also, lived up to the pledge.

These were the stories and sacrifices of the American Revolution. These men were not wild-eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were soft-spoken men of means and education. They had security, but they valued liberty more. 

Standing tall, straight, and unwavering, they pledged: “For the support of this declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of the divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.” 

They won for us a free and independent America. The history books don’t tell a lot about what happened in the Revolutionary War.  They didn’t fight just the British. They were British subjects at that time, and we fought their own government! 

Some of us take our liberties too much for granted.  We shouldn’t! 

Tomorrow take a few minutes while enjoying your 4th of July Holiday celebration and silently thank God for these men who sacrificed so much for our nation.

It’s really not much to ask for the price they paid. Remember: Freedom is never free! 

As thankful as I am for the terrible price these 56 signers were willing to pay to establish and provide a Nation where I can know freedom.

I’m even more thankful for the ONE who paid the price for me to have Freedom from the bondage of sin! 

Because “THE WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH.”  He took my sin and died on the Cross sacrificing His Life in my place because I couldn’t pay the price for my own sins.

I was born a sinner and could not redeem myself.

The problem started in The Garden of Eden when Adam and Eve disobeyed God and allowed sin into the human race.

When they sinned they lost the dominion God had given them over His creation.  The Title Deed to the earth.

Satan gained that dominion and became the illegitimate ruler of the world.  (That’s why he could offer Christ all the kingdoms of the world if He would only bow and worship Him.)

As descendants of Adam, we all are born with that sinful disposition which is handed down from generation to generation just like our DNA is. 

Unless a way was found to free us of that sin, we were all bound for Hell!


He sent Jesus to be part of the human race!  Jesus had no sin because He was The perfect Son of God not the son of Adam.  His mother was a virgin which qualified Him to be part of the human race, but without the sin handed down by a human father.

He was the perfect sacrifice for sin.  Sinless human yet Divine!  He could qualify as a man and could defeat Satan’s treachery and win back the Title Deed.

As a perfect sacrifice, He died in my place so I can be forgiven by God and adopted into God’s Family as a Joint Heir with Jesus Christ!  Jesus paid the “wages of sin which is death” so you and I wouldn’t have to!

If Jesus hadn’t taken my sins and your sins to the cruel Cross and paid the penalty for our Redemption with His own Blood, we wouldn’t know the joy of sins forgiven and a clear conscience. 

We wouldn’t have the hope of Eternal Life in Heaven!



As you celebrate July 4th, remember John said in John 8:36.

“So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.”

We have a lot to be thankful for as we celebrate the 4th!

We live in a Nation whose founding fathers sacrificed to provide the Blessings we enjoy as citizens free from cruel bondage.

We serve a God who has provided Freedom from Sin and gives us His Promise of Eternal Life in His wonderful Heaven.

I hope you have a nice, fun, safe 4th please take time to be aware of your blessings!

Let me suggest that If you just celebrate Independence Day because you don’t have to go to work and you can indulge in picnics, lots of food and a lazy day you’re missing the point!  

We’ve been given the privilege of living in a wonderful country but remember it cost the shedding of blood, life, and limbs and more sacrifice than we can even imagine.  Thousands have died on the battlefield to keep us free!  Remember those who paid the ultimate price for these freedoms we take for granted and be thankful they cared enough about our remaining free!

This fact should compel us to be the very best citizens that we can be.  It should compel us to pray for our United States!  We are drifting away from being the nation our founding fathers envisioned us to be.

Take time to Thank God for His Blessings and for those who paid the ultimate price so we could celebrate this week.

I doubt if those 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence would’ve fought so hard if God hadn’t sent Jesus to give us His best! 

I wonder if they would be pleased to see how far we have drifted from what they willingly paid such a heavy price to achieve.

Most of the laws they cited as they put our government together came right out of the Word of God. Our Government and laws were modeled after the Laws God uses to govern His Universe.

If we continue to let politicians dismantle the laws, we will lose our great nation forever and those who died for our Republic will have died in vain!

Tell Jesus you love and appreciate Him!  We can’t imagine what He endured to free us from Satan’s Bondage.

The 4th will mean so much more if you know Christ and celebrate with the Author of our Freedom!






VIDEO Celebrating Life and Freedom

By Reverend Paul N. Papas II

June 26, 2022

This July we continue to Celebrate Life and Freedom. June ended with three OUTSTANDING decisions from the United States Supreme Court confirming there is still hope.

Freedom and Life come from God. Those who deny or hate God also deny or hate Freedom and Life for anyone other than themselves.

In 1976…..

I was stabbed four times while working at a part time job. The stabbings were: in the back, a quarter inch from the heart; the head; the hand; and the leg. Scars of those stabs and chest tubes are present today. I was rushed to the hospital in the back of a police cruiser.  They called my wife to hurry to the hospital as they did not expect me to make it another half hour.  Two brand new doctors attended to me. There was nothing they could do. I left my body to the edge of the wall and ceiling and saw them working on me. I heard a voice say: “It is not your time”. Then I returned to my body and felt pain and heard the two brand new Doctors… in there second week…yell “He’s back.”

This is not a subject that is regularly talked about in the family. At the time I had one daughter, who could have ended up being an only child, however God had other plans and made sure that did not happen.

June 25th this year seemed to be good day to share the events of that day in 1976. This happened at 11:30 PM and I was dead for twenty minutes, yet I was not saved until 1980.

I often say my two other children are miracle children. All three of them are precious to me as well as to God 

This shows how precious you are. God knows the future and had you planned from the beginning. 

Well, they are definitely glad I came back and still here!!! So am I.

This gives an added meaning to; this the day the Lord has made, let us rejoice and be glad in it.

My oldest remembers her mother definitely telling her that story, and she definitely remembers me mentioning it as well… It just seems very surreal!

Some people who experience trauma suffer for years with a whole host of problems such as anxiety, depression and even PTSD. Some self medicate with prescription, alcohol or illegal drugs. By God’s Grace I never had those issues.

Some people had abortions suffer from regret, shame, guilt, anxiety, depression, self loathing, and even PTSD. Some self medicate with prescription, alcohol or illegal drugs.

“No matter what it was caused by, shame can hurt us for many years and may become a “nourishment” for the opinions that we have about ourselves. Under the influence of conditional love or rude and abusive treatment, a person, consciously or not, assimilates a certain “disordered pack” of ideas about their own personality.  You may find many women say about themselves: “There is nothing good in me”, “I am stupid”, “It’s my own fault that I became pregnant”, “I need to hide this for the rest of my life”, “I am not worthy (or capable) to be a mother”, “I am not worthy to have normal relations with a man”, “I had one abortion already, why shouldn’t I have one more?”, “I need to punish myself or let other people treat me badly because I don’t deserve anything else.”

While feeling of guilt can be corrected, in some instances rather quickly, by asking forgiveness for our mistakes, feeling of shame can only be healed by love and truth and may require much longer time.

In freeing yourself from the power of shame, a woman needs to remember that who she is, is not defined by actions or opinions of other people. No matter how many mistakes she personally made, she is a human being that deserves love and respect for her dignity. Since feeling of shame may have its roots in very early childhood or due to rude and abusive treatments, this woman may need strong reassurance from friends and family, that no matter how bad her mistakes were she is loved unconditionally. (4)

On the day I shared the events of 1976 I did not know God had been orchestrating events that would culminate in affirming: our right to defend ourselves (1); our right to determine how we govern ourselves (2); our right to pray (3). God was orchestrating these events as He did in providing the tree Zacchaeus the Tax Collector would climb on to see Jesus (Luke 19:1-10); and providing that Joseph would be in charge in Egypt after being sold into slavery by his brothers. Joseph’s brothers meant it for evil but God meant it for good (Genesis 50:20). Joseph saved many lives.

Another time God was orchestrating events, according to Kelvin Cochran; slavery saved many lives and was good for African Americans in long run (5). You can watch his testimony in Freedom Sunday video below. Kelvin Cochran was fired as the Fire Chief for writing and publishing his Christian family book “How did you know I was naked”. Kelvin Cochran also shared how his faith sustained him. The city of Atlanta settled with Kelvin Cochran for $1.5M. He shares how his faith in Jesus carried him through.

The church has a tremendous opportunity to walk with everyone who hurts or have hurt others, no matter the circumstances, to help each one of them become the whole, healthy, joyful people God intended them to be.

Freedom Sunday | June 26, 2022

 (1) Download and read the actual ruling:


(2) Download and read the actual ruling:


(3) Download and read the actual ruling:





Anniversary of Paul Revere’s Ride, Read as Mr. Revere Explains The Battle of Lexington and Concord in His Own Words

April 18, 2022 Sundance

Patriots’ Day…

A friend once asked: “How do you celebrate Patriots’ Day?” Which, perhaps, should spur me to share my own thoughts on this day of consequence.

Many are familiar with the poem Paul Revere’s Ride, however, far fewer know that Paul Revere actually memorialized the events of the April 18 and 19, 1775, in an eight-page letter written several years later.

Each Patriots’ Day I remind myself to read his letter from a copy handed down, and I think about how Paul Revere was really just a common man of otherwise undue significance…. yet, capable to the task at hand.

To me everything about the heart of Revere, which you can identify within his own writing, is what defines an American ‘patriot’.

There is no grand prose, there is no outlook of being a person of historical significance, there is just a simple recollection of his involvement, an ordinary man in extraordinary times.

Unsure if anyone else would enjoy I have tracked down an on-line source for sharing and provide a transcript below (all misspelling is with the original).

Paul Revere personally recounts his famous ride. – In this undated letter, Paul Revere summarizes the activities surrounding his famous ride on 18 April 1775. He recounts how Dr. Joseph Warren urged him to ride to Lexington to warn John Hancock and Samuel Adams of British troop movements. He arranged to signal the direction of the troops with lanterns from Old North Church, and then had friends row him across the Charles River borrowing a horse for his ride.

Revere wrote this letter at the request of Jeremy Belknap, corresponding secretary of the Massachusetts Historical Society. Revere signed his name to the letter but then wrote above it, “A Son of Liberty of the year 1775”, and beside it, “do not print my name.” Nonetheless, the MHS included Revere’s name when it printed the letter in 1798.

EXPLORE THE DOCUMENT – Or Read the incredible transcript below:

Dear Sir,

Having a little leisure, I wish to fullfill my promise, of giving you some facts, and Anecdotes, prior to the Battle of Lexington, which I do not remember to have seen in any history of the American Revolution.

In the year 1773 I was imployed by the Select men of the Town of Boston to carry the Account of the Destruction of the Tea to New-York; and afterwards, 1774, to Carry their dispatches to New-York and Philadelphia for Calling a Congress; and afterwards to Congress, several times.* [This asterisk points to a note in the left margin written by Jeremy Belknap: “Let the narrative begin here.” ]

In the Fall of 1774 & Winter of 1775 I was one of upwards of thirty, cheifly mechanics, who formed our selves in to a Committee for the purpose of watching the Movements of the British Soldiers, and gaining every intelegence of the movements of the Tories.

We held our meetings at the Green-Dragon Tavern. We were so carefull that our meetings should be kept Secret; that every time we met, every person swore upon the Bible, that they would not discover any of our transactions, But to Messrs. Hancock, Adams, Doctors Warren, Church, & one or two more.

About November, when things began to grow Serious, a Gentleman who had Conections with the Tory party, but was a Whig at heart, aquainted me, that our meetings were discovered, & mentioned the identical words that were spoken among us the Night before. We did not then distrust Dr. Church, but supposed it must be some one among us.

We removed to another place, which we thought was more secure: but here we found that all our transactions were communicated to Governor Gage. (This came to me through the then Secretary Flucker; He told it to the Gentleman mentioned above).

It was then a common opinion, that there was a Traytor in the provincial Congress, & that Gage was posessed of all their Secrets. (Church was a member of that Congress for Boston.) In the Winter, towards the Spring, we frequently took Turns, two and two, to Watch the Soldiers, By patroling the Streets all night.

The Saturday Night preceding the 19th of April, about 12 oClock at Night, the Boats belonging to the Transports were all launched, & carried under the Sterns of the Men of War. (They had been previously hauld up & repaired). We likewise found that the Grenadiers and light Infantry were all taken off duty.

[Page 2]

From these movements, we expected something serious was [to] be transacted. On Tuesday evening, the 18th, it was observed, that a number of Soldiers were marching towards the bottom of the Common.

About 10 o’Clock, Dr. Warren Sent in great haste for me, and beged that I would imediately Set off for Lexington, where Messrs. Hancock & Adams were, and acquaint them of the Movement, and that it was thought they were the objets. When I got to Dr. Warren’s house, I found he had sent an express by land to Lexington – a Mr. Wm. Daws.

The Sunday before, by desire of Dr. Warren, I had been to Lexington, to Mess. Hancock and Adams, who were at the Rev. Mr. Clark’s. I returned at Night thro Charlestown; there I agreed with a Col. Conant, & some other Gentlemen, in Charleston, that if the British went out by Water, we would shew two Lanthorns in the North Church Steeple; if by Land, one, as a Signal; for we were aprehensive it would be dificult to Cross the Charles River, or git over Boston neck.

I left Dr. Warrens, called upon a friend, and desired him to make the Signals. I then went Home, took my Boots and Surtout, and went to the North part of the Town, where I had kept a Boat; two friends rowed me across Charles River, a little to the eastward where the Somerset Man of War lay.

It was then young flood, the Ship was winding, & the moon was Rising. They landed me on Charlestown side. When I got into Town, I met Col. Conant, several others; they said they had seen our signals. I told them what was Acting, & went to git me a Horse; I got a Horse of Deacon Larkin.

While the Horse was preparing, Richard Devens, Esq. who was one of the Committee of Safty, came to me, & told me, that he came down the Road from Lexington, after Sundown, that evening; that He met ten British Officers, all well mounted, & armed, going up the Road. I set off upon a very good Horse; it was then about 11 o’Clock, very pleasant. After I had passed Charlestown Neck, got nearly opposite where Mark was hung in chains, I saw two men on Horse back, under a Tree.

When I got near them, I discovered they were British officer. One tryed to git a head of Me, & the other to take me. I turned my Horse very quick, & Galloped towards Charlestown neck, and then pushed for the Medford Road. The one who chased me, endeavoring to Cut me off, got into a Clay pond, near where the new Tavern is now built. I got clear of him,

[Page 3]

and went thro Medford, over the Bridge, & up to Menotomy. In Medford, I awaked the Captain of the Minute men; & after that, I alarmed almost every House, till I got to Lexington.

I found Mrs. Messrs. Hancock & Adams at the Rev. Mr. Clark’s; I told them my errand, and inquired for Mr. Daws; they said he had not been there; I related the story of the two officers, & supposed that He must have been stopped, as he ought to have been there before me.

After I had been there about half an Hour, Mr. Daws came; after we refreshid our selves, we and set off for Concord, to secure the Stores, & there. We were overtaken by a young Docter Prescot, whom we found to be a high Son of Liberty. I told them of the ten officers that Mr. Devens mett, and that it was probable we might be stoped before we got to Concord; for I supposed that after Night, they divided them selves, and that two of them had fixed themselves in such passages as were most likely to stop any intelegence going to Concord.

I likewise mentioned, that we had better allarm all the Inhabitents till we got to Concord; the young Doctor much approved of it, and said, he would stop with either of us, for the people between that & Concord knew him, & would give the more credit to what we said.

We had got nearly half way. Mr Daws & the Doctor stoped to allarm the people of a House: I was about one hundred Rod a head, when I saw two men, in nearly the same situation as those officer were, near Charlestown. I called for the Doctor & Daws to come up; were two & we would have them in an Instant I was surrounded by four; – they had placed themselves in a Straight Road, that inclined each way; they had taken down a pair of Barrs on the North side of the Road, & two of them were under a tree in the pasture. The Docter being foremost, he came up; and we tryed to git past them; but they being armed with pistols & swords, they forced us in to the pasture; -the Docter jumped his Horse over a low Stone wall, and got to Concord.

[Page 4]

I observed a Wood at a Small distance, & made for that. When I got there, out Started Six officers, on Horse back, and orderd me to dismount;-one of them, who appeared to have the command, examined me, where I came from, & what my Name Was? I told him. it was Revere, he asked if it was Paul? I told him yes He asked me if I was an express? I answered in the afirmative. He demanded what time I left Boston? I told him; and added, that their troops had catched aground in passing the River, and that There would be five hundred Americans there in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up.

He imediately rode towards those who stoppd us, when all five of them came down upon a full gallop; one of them, whom I afterwards found to be Major Mitchel, of the 5th Regiment, Clapped his pistol to my head, called me by name, & told me he was going to ask me some questions, & if I did not give him true answers, he would blow my brains out.

He then asked me similar questions to those above. He then orderd me to mount my Horse, after searching me for arms. He then orderd them to advance, & to lead me in front. When we got to the Road, they turned down towards Lexington. When we had got about one Mile, the Major Rode up to the officer that was leading me, & told him to give me to the Sergeant. As soon as he took me, the Major orderd him, if I attempted to run, or any body insulted them, to blow my brains out.

We rode till we got near Lexington Meeting-house, when the Militia fired a Voley of Guns, which appeared to alarm them very much. The Major inquired of me how far it was to Cambridge, and if there were any other Road? After some consultation, the Major

[Page 5]

Major Rode up to the Sargent, & asked if his Horse was tired? He told answered him, he was – (He was a Sargent of Grenadiers, and had a small Horse) – then, said He, take that man’s Horse. I dismounted, & the Sargent mounted my Horse, when they all rode towards Lexington Meeting-House.

I went across the Burying-ground, & some pastures, & came to the Revd. Mr. Clark’s House, where I found Messrs. Hancok & Adams. I told them of my treatment, & they concluded to go from that House to wards Woburn. I went with them, & a Mr. Lowell, who was a Clerk to Mr. Hancock.

When we got to the House where they intended to stop, Mr. Lowell & I my self returned to Mr. Clark’s, to find what was going on. When we got there, an elderly man came in; he said he had just come from the Tavern, that a Man had come from Boston, who said there were no British troops coming. Mr. Lowell & myself went towards the Tavern, when we met a Man on a full gallop, who told us the Troops were coming up the Rocks.

We afterwards met another, who said they were close by. Mr. Lowell asked me to go to the Tavern with him, to a git a Trunk of papers belonging to Mr. Hancock. We went up Chamber; & while we were giting the Trunk, we saw the British very near, upon a full March.

We hurried to wards Mr. Clark’s House. In our way, we passed through the Militia. There were about 50. When we had got about 100 Yards from the meeting-House the British Troops appeard on both Sides of the Meeting-House. In their

[Page 6]

In their Front was an Officer on Horse back. They made a Short Halt; when I saw, & heard, a Gun fired, which appeared to be a Pistol. Then I could distinguish two Guns, & then a Continual roar of Musquetry; When we made off with the Trunk.

As I have mentioned Dr. Church, perhaps it might not be disagreeable to mention some Matters of my own knowledge, respecting Him. He appeared to be a high son of Liberty. He frequented all the places where they met, Was incouraged by all the leaders of the Sons of Liberty, & it appeared he was respected by them, though I knew that Dr. Warren had not the greatest affection for him. He was esteemed a very capable writer, especially in verese; and as the Whig party needed every Strenght, they feared, as well as courted Him.

Though it was known, that some of the Liberty Songs, which We composed, were parodized by him, in favor of the British, yet none dare charge him with it. I was a constant & critical observer of him, and I must say, that I never thought Him a man of Principle; and I doubted much in my own mind, wether He was a real Whig. I knew that He kept company with a Capt. Price, a half-pay British officer, & that He frequently dined with him, & Robinson, one of the Commissioners. I know that one of his intimate aquaintances asked him why he was so often with Robinson and Price? His answer was, that He kept Company with them on purpose to find out their plans.

The day after the Battle of Lexington, I came across met him in Cambridge, when He shew me some blood on his stocking, which he said spirted on him from a Man who was killed near him, as he was urging the Militia on. I well remember, that I argued with my self, if a Man will risque his life in a Cause, he must be a Friend to that cause; & I never suspected him after, till He was charged with being a Traytor.

[Page 7]

The same day I met Dr. Warren. He was President of the Committee of Safety. He engaged me as a Messinger, to do the out of doors business for that committee; which gave me an opportunity of being frequently with them.

The Friday evening after, about sun set, I was sitting with some, or near all that Committee, in their room, which was at Mr. Hastings’s House at Cambridge. Dr. Church, all at once, started up – Dr. Warren, said He, I am determined to go into Boston tomorrow – (it set them all a stairing) – Dr. Warren replyed, Are you serious, Dr. Church? they will Hang you if they catch you in Boston. He replyed, I am serious, and am determined to go at all adventures.

After a considerable conversation, Dr. Warren said, If you are determined, let us make some business for you. They agreed that he should go to git medicine for their & our Wounded officers. He went the next morning; & I think he came back on Sunday

After He had told the Committee how things were, I took him a side, & inquired particularly how they treated him? he said, that as soon as he got to their lines on the Boston Neck, they made him a prisoner, & carried him to General Gage, where He was examined, & then He was sent to Gould’s Barracks, & was not suffered to go home but once.

After He was taken up, for holding a Correspondence with the Brittish, I came a Cross Deacon Caleb Davis;-we entred into Conversation about Him;-He told me, that the morning Church went into Boston, He (Davis) received a Bilet for General Gage-(he then did not know that Church was in Town)-When he got to the General’s House, he was told, the General could not be spoke with, that He was in private with a Gentleman; that He waited near half an Hour,-When General Gage & Dr. Church came out of a Room, discoursing together, like

[Page 8]

like persons who had been long aquainted. He appeared to be quite surprized at seeing Deacon Davis there; that he (Church) went where he pleased, while in Boston, only a Major Caine, one of Gage’s Aids, went with him.

I was told by another person whom I could depend upon, that he saw Church go in to General Gage’s House, at the above time; that He got out of the Chaise and went up the steps more like a Man that was aquainted, than a prisoner.

Sometime after, perhaps a Year or two, I fell in company with a Gentleman who studied with Church -in discoursing about him, I related what I have mentioned above; He said, He did not doubt that He was in the Interest of the Brittish; & that it was He who informed Gen. Gage That he knew for Certain, that a Short time before the Battle of Lexington, (for He then lived with Him, & took Care of his Business & Books) He had no money by him, and was much drove for money; that all at once, He had several Hundred New Brittish Guineas; and that He thought at the time, where they came from.

Thus, Sir, I have endeavoured to give you a Short detail of some matters, of which perhaps no person but my self have have documents, or knowledge. I have mentioned some names which you are aquainted with: I wish you would Ask them, if they can remember the Circumstances I alude to.

I am, Sir, with every Sentment of esteem,

Your Humble Servant,

Paul Revere

Courtesy of the Massachusetts Historical Society

“The Battle of Lexington, 19 April 1775,” Oil on canvas by William Barns Wollen, 1910.

VIDEO Government Wins From A Frightened Population – Ominous Rise of Global Government – Why Are We Sitting In The Handbasket?

Dean Michele Bachmann Talks About the Ominous Rise of Global Government

By Joe Hoft April 2, 2022

Former Minnesota GOP Representative Michele Bachmann was on with Steve Bannon on Friday morning at the War Room.  The former Minnesota Representative and current Dean of the Robertson School of Government at Regent University discussed the recent rising threat of globalism. 

Michele Bachmann discussed with Steve what was said at the world government forum in Dubai versus what was shared by her experts at the Regent University Globalism Rising Conference.  She shared:

We explained what they were talking about the next day at the World Government Summit.  Again, look at the title – World Government Summit.  And Ms. [Pipi] Malmgren said it.  She said the basis of a world global system has to be financial, so they’re blowing up our current system of money and accounting because she said almost a perfect record is going to be maintained digitally.  Which means every flipping transaction you make, the central government knows about it.

They also said this is programable money.  What does this mean?  That means government .. makes the decision where we can spend the money or where we can’t.

Both Michele and Steve Bannon know this is not in the future.  The globalists are the uniparty.  The Bible predicted this.

Here is Michele’s full interview with Steve Bannon:

Michele discussed Tuesday’s event at Regent University.  This event Michele put together to discuss the threats of the New World order on individual rights and its impact on Americas’ civil liberties.

The Gateway Pundit’s Jim and Joe Hoft spoke at the “Globalism Rising Authoritarianism and the Demise of Civil Liberties” conference at Regent University in Virginia Beach on Tuesday.

Jim and Joe opened the conference with a timeline of “The Rise of Authoritarianism from 2020-2022” in the US and around the world from the start of the COVID pandemic to today.

This can be seen again at the above link to the conference.

Security Expert To Joe Rogan: “Government Wins From A Frightened Population — All The Time” (VIDEO)

By ProTrumpNews Staff April 2, 2022

Security Expert Gavin de Becker just warned that people should question when the government is telling them to fear something.

He noted that tyrannical governments have used the smear of “false news” to shut down dissent many times in the past:

“King Charles in the 1600s banned coffee houses. Why? Because coffee houses were places where people gathered together and talked and they’d be a little amped up…he put out a proclamation. I’m quoting it here. Restrain the spreading of false news and licentious talking of matters of state and government…he does another proclamation saying the spreaders of false news or promoters of anything malicious against the state will be considered seditious.”


The Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft and Joe Hoft gave a presentation at Regent University exposing the “Rise of Authoritarianism” in the United States.

Here is the full presentation:

Fear has become a tool of tyranny.

Neil Oliver Asks: What Is This New World Order and Why Are We Sitting in a Handbasket?

April 2, 2022 by Sundance

GBNews pundit Neil Oliver uses his weekly monologue [Transcript Here] to ask what is this new madness that forces us to suspend disbelief in order to accept it?

Curiouser and curiouser we find ourselves muttering as those who operate the global funhouse mirrors bend the reflected narrative to give the appearance of fat made skinny, boys made girls, and contorted views of their political truth.  WATCH:

[Transcript] – “I wonder how far all this will go. By “all this”, I mean the headlong push, always in the same direction, always away from the world I recognise. To me it seems as though a pendulum is swinging, has been swinging for years now, but always and only one way – further and further from the point where I stand. I wonder too, how far that pendulum can swing before it must stop and, inevitably swing back the other way, and with a vengeance. Every action, after all, has an equal and opposite reaction.

To me there seems no avoiding the conclusion that, as a key part of all this, official misinformation and propaganda all over the world has been shaped to make reasonable people feel like they’re simply going mad, that they have lost the ability to understand and interpret events and make decisions for themselves. Many people have felt the only option was to toe the line – even when it seemed pointless, or counterproductive, even insane. The name of the game was avoiding the anger of those shouting loudest.

Last week US President Joe Biden spoke in front of millions about how: “there’s going to be a new world order out there”

New World Order: three words that have been floating around on social media like something unpleasant that just won’t flush. Hardly were the words out of the president’s mouth before commentators – on his side of the line, at least – were gleefully reporting his statement … while somehow simultaneously offering the opinion that only the tin-hat-wearing, swivel eyed loons (which includes people like me, apparently) had been triggered by his language.

The Independent website, for instance, reported the story under a headline reading: “Joe Biden said New World Order and conspiracy theorists lost it”

This is no more than a clumsy attempt at a verbal sleight of hand, yet another reminder that the official line has it that only crazy people ever suspect that something, somewhere might be amiss.

In a speech delivered to the Australian National University in Canberra, Sir Jeremy Fleming, director of GCHQ, told his audience that the pandemic, followed by war in Ukraine, added up to: “a period of generational upheaval.”

Both Biden and Sir Jeremy – to take just two prominent spokesmen speaking at the same moment in history – seeking to normalise the thought that every few generations, the world must change whether we want it to or not, as though the world has always changed every two or three generations, which it hasn’t.

New World Order, generational upheaval, always the pendulum swinging one way and one way only. Forget how things used to be, that’s over now, get ready for change, for something new, whether you want it or not. What’s a person – a person bedevilled, anyway, by a cost-of-living crisis, the dogged pursuit of Net Zero, a reawakened fear of nuclear war and still coming to terms with the will-they-won’t-they uncertainty of Covid rules left smouldering like embers that might reignite at any moment – to make of such unsettling prophesying?

More verbal gymnastics followed when Mr Biden said recently that Mr Putin should no longer be in power in Russia. The president had told his audience in Poland that Putin: “…cannot remain in power”. But yet more verbal contortions somehow enabled the White House to say that regime change in Russia was not US government policy.

How can both statements be true at the same time?

How can this inside out, upside down line of thinking do anything but leave the average reasonable person feeling they simply do not have a clue about what’s going on anymore?

I say the average reasonable person – which is how I still understand myself, even after all this time of madness – but clearly those on the other side of the debate from me, that viciously polarised debate, now regard me and millions of other reasonable people as wild-eyed extremists, politically to the right of Atilla the Hun.

And yet I look on at the la-la land of Hollywood, at actor Will Smith slapping comedian Chris Rock at the Oscars and then getting a standing ovation for winning the statuette for Best Actor. What does a reasonable person, or even a wild-eyed extremist even begin to do with such a sequence of events compressed into such a short space of time? If I hit someone at a work event I might expect to be fired, rather than given a standing ovation and the award for employee of the year. But that’s showbiz, apparently.

The Oscars have been growing increasingly unbearable for years, of course. Watching millionaires in receipt of goodie bags worth more than what 99 percent of the world’s population earns in a year, while speechifying and shedding crocodile tears about the plight of the poor and the oppressed, had long required a muscular suspension of disbelief. But now surely the pretence of the Oscars as moral spokesman for the world is finally over, and forever, the bubble well and truly burst. I can’t look at it anymore, not after metaphorically watching A-listers on the toilet all these years.

Everywhere you look there’s more to confuse and disorientate. Talk of white privilege, men in women’s sports, big tech censorship. Last week Florida passed a bill to prevent the sexualisation of children up to the age of seven or so. A large majority of Floridians – both Republican and Democrat – agreed it was common sense that children so young should not receive instruction in the classroom about “sexual orientation” or “gender identity”. You might think third graders and younger would do best to get to grips with “The Cat Sat on the Mat” in preparation for later learning what a pronoun actually is – maybe in the context of an English lesson – before being invited to pick pronouns to describe their own understanding of their genders.

Over in the Magic Kingdom, in California, Disney joined those taking strenuous exception to the Florida bill and pushing a blatant lie that it was about stopping teachers saying the word ‘Gay’. All at once the bill was, according to Disney, and other showbiz types, about: “Don’t say gay.”

In fact there was no use of the word gay anywhere in the bill, and in polling, the majority of people of all stripes agreed with it. But that didn’t stop Disney and others insisting that word was being banned in Florida schools and kindergartens.

At the same time, Disney announced it had done away with any and all references to “Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls” at any of its theme parks. Never again, presumably, will a little girl be welcomed as a “princess” as had previously been a commonplace. How much money Disney had made selling princess dresses to uncounted millions of little children hardly bears thinking about. No more, we might assume.

Many parents have known a child insist on dressing as a princess one week, and superman the next. Most of those parents have understood those steps not as permanent life choices, but as the multicoloured stages of being a child growing up.

To be frank, I have never understood the pressure about pronouns, either. I was brought up never to refer to anyone – anyone actually in the room with me – via a pronoun. To point to someone and call them ‘she’ – referring to that person in the third person singular while that person was actually standing in front of me, was to invite, from a grown up, the withering putdown, “Who’s ‘she’, the cat’s mother?”

The use of ‘she’, ‘her’, ‘he’, ‘him’ in regard to a person who was RIGHT THERE, was simply rude, regardless of any other consideration. Good manners dictated that each person in the room was to be addressed and referred to by their name. If you experienced the small agony of forgetting the name of someone you’d been introduced to … too bad … you just had to apologise for the lapse and ask them to say their name a second time. Third person pronouns were for the mention of someone who was elsewhere, absent from the scene. In my world there should be no need for those pronouns while actually with a person. And so what sort of self-obsessed narcissist tries to dictate how others talk about them when they’re not even there?

And always, woven through the confusing madness like dry rot, is the sinister obsession with children and also with the family.

In my homeland of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon’s Scottish government has already seen to it that children as young as four can pick a different gender while in school – without the need for their parents to know anything about it. Previously the Scottish government pursued a so-called Named Persons bill – that would have seen a state sponsored stranger slipped between every child and parent in the land. That named person would have been able to establish a relationship with the child, have conversations with the child about anything and everything under the sun – again without the need for parents to be informed.

The Daily Mail had a story last week about a London-based psychologist reporting a sharp rise in the number of people calling his clinic to report symptoms of what he has called ‘Doomsday anxiety’ – which he describes as “fear of the end of the world or life as we know it.”

I know that feeling and I’m not surprised in the least that more and more people are burdened by hopeless, doom-laden thoughts. After all, the incessant pushing of the pendulum has left more and more people no other choice but to fear the worst.

What interests me more and more though, as I said at the top, is how much further away from me, and millions like me, the pendulum must swing. How much further CAN it swing? How much further away must we watch the pendulum pushed away – away from everything so many of us know to be common sense, decent, honourable and true? How much more will we watch them do to marginalise and then break up the family? How much longer will we let our youngest children watch and listen to lectures about sex, to be encouraged to contemplate things sexual instead of enjoying a handful of years being welcomed as boys and girls and pretending to be princesses one day and superheroes the next?

However far the pendulum swings, it must and will eventually swing back the other way, faster and faster. How far will it swing then, and where will it stop? {LINK}

VIDEO The Forecast Was True

By Reverend Paul N. Papas II

March 29, 2022

A forecast is a prediction of events to come such as a storm in the sky. Not all forecasts come true as they often rely upon science and man’s interpretation.

There was a landowner who PLANTED A VINEYARD AND PUT A FENCE AROUND IT, AND DUG A WINE PRESS IN IT, AND BUILT A TOWER, and he leased it to vine-growers and went on a journey. And when the harvest time approached, he sent his representatives to the vine-growers to receive his fruit. And the vine-growers took his representatives and beat one, killed another, and stoned another.  Again, he sent other representatives, more than the first; and they did the same things to them. But afterward he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ But when the vine-growers saw the son, they said among themselves, ‘This is the heir; come, let’s kill him and take possession of his inheritance!’  And they took him and threw him out of the vineyard, and killed him.  

They questioned when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will the owner do to those vine-growers?”  The answer was, “He will bring those wretches to a wretched end and lease the vineyard to other vine-growers, who will pay him the fruit in the proper seasons.” (1)

The owner of the property was not permitted to use the property as the owner wished. Local people had contracted with the owner to work the land and pay for their use of the land as tenants. The tenants became lawless and thought they could bully the owner to stay away. The owner sent several representatives to collect the rent. The tenants beat and killed some of the owner’s representatives. The tenants underestimated their power and authority as the owner eventually removed the lawless tenants and re-rented the property to tenants who were lawful and would pay their rent to the owner.

The owner was very accustomed to being hated and opposed.  The owner instructed his followers that they would be hated and opposed because they first hated and opposed the owner.

It was forecasted for many years that the owner would be born and in a way in which scientists would say is impossible. There is a certain segment of today’s population which denies hates and opposes the owner.

The owner’s birth was so feared that the local king had thousands of baby boys under the age of two years old killed in attempt to kill the owner and eliminate the threat to the local king’s reign as king. The local king had not understood the forecast as the owner was coming to proclaim His Kingdom which was not of this world.

The chief priests and the elders came to the owner and ask him, “By what authority are you doing these things? And who gave you this authority?”

By asking these questions, they were looking for a way to discredit the owner. The owner had spent the better part of the last three years demonstrating with signs and wonders where His authority came from, but the religious establishment didn’t really want to know.

The owner was despised and hated before birth. The local king tried to eliminate the owner before the owner could walk. The local authorities, priests and elders constantly tried to manufacture reasons to stone the owner to death for perceived violations of the law. Many who forecasted the owner’s arrival and who have followed the owner since have endured similar attacks.

If you think you have it bad, remember what the owner endured for you.

If you have not already answered the owner’s call, now would be a great time to know the owner as his return is near. Call upon the owner while he may be found. Receive your free gift from the owner which the owner already paid for – entrance into the Kingdom which is not of this world, salvation and eternal life.

This is the day the LORD has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it. Psalm 118:24


(1) Matthew 21:33-41

VIDEO How Do I Repent? What is Repentance?

VIDEO If you died tonight would you go to Heaven?

How Can We Know We’ll Go to Heaven?

VIDEO Expert Analysis of Biblical Prophesies on the End of Time and Where We Are Today By Dr. Ed Hindson

VIDEO Democracy Vs. Liberty – The End Stage Of Fake “Liberal Democracy” – Bible on Liberty

 By Dr. Gary M. Galles | February 21, 2022

In America, “democracy” or “democratic” are among the most common words used to justify or endorse positions or policies. “Democratic” is attached as an adjective whenever something is considered good politically (e.g., “our democratic way of life”), and “undemocratic” is attached to things being criticized (including almost everything that represents a loss for just about anyone).  

Americans are constantly told we must fight for democracy. Leading up to elections, politicians extol the democratically-expressed wisdom of the electorate they hope to represent (that those elected often then ignore or overturn). We are told that the American Revolution was for democracy, that people have died for our democratic right to vote, that each vote was crucial, that if you don’t vote, you don’t care about America, and so on. We even hear proposals to replace the Electoral College because it isn’t democratic enough.

Such rhetoric ignores the fact that democracy can destroy liberty as well as preserve it. For a minor example, ask, “Would I have more or less liberty if a majority vote picked my clothes each morning and my dinner each night?” More importantly, ask, “Would I have more or less liberty if that was how my religion, my spouse, or my job was chosen, or how my take-home pay was determined?”

Currently, the “democratic” equals “I approve” approach has turned into a cottage industry about how America and the world face massive threats to our democracy. Good examples are President Biden’s statement that “Democracy doesn’t happen by accident. We have to defend it, fight for it, strengthen it, renew it,” and his “Summit on Democracy” (ignoring the irony of how many things his administration has imposed or tried to impose against the wishes of most Americans). It is also illustrated by a Google search that turned up over 4.5 million hits for “threat to democracy.”

Unfortunately, while democratically determining who will be entrusted with the reins of government may generally be the best hope to enable governments to change without bloodshed (although the precedent set by John Adams’ acceptance of electoral defeat at the hands of Thomas Jefferson is also a critical American precedent), democracy is not America’s core. Liberty is.

Democracy, from America’s Founding on, has been important only insofar as it served and defended liberty. You cannot take seriously our Founders’ words without coming to that conclusion (e.g., George Washington’s statement that “Your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty…the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other”). It is why we have the Constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights. After all, if whatever the majority decided “democratically” at a given time were always to be law, there would be no purpose in restrictions that explicitly put certain rights against government impositions beyond majority determination. It is also why Alexis de Tocqueville wrote that liberty, not democracy, was the central reason for our country’s greatness in “Democracy in America.”

Today, however, many fail to recognize liberty’s primacy over democracy, and the lessons history teaches us about losing liberty despite, or sometimes because of, democracy. That makes it important to refocus attention on that central issue that gets so little attention in policy discussions.

The equation of democracy with liberty fails to distinguish between two quite different things. One is whether there is excessive power in government hands. The other is how those who will administer the government will be selected. Of crucial importance is that electing those who will wield excessive power does not eliminate, or even necessarily reduce, the threats such power poses to citizens the government is supposed to protect. After all, the test of dominant preference looks a lot like “might makes right,” which stands in sharp contrast with liberty. Or as James Bovard put it, “Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.” Democratic determination also means that the wishes of those who are in the minority on any issue are irrelevant to the outcome, rather than providing any significant voice in a result they will be forced to accept. Since all of us are in the minority on some issues, that is hardly an ideal to aim for.   

The importance of understanding the very large gap between liberty and democracy was well expressed by F.A. Harper in his 1949 “Liberty: A Path to its Recovery“: 

“Consider…all the acts of all the units of government for one day. How many among them were the proper functions of a liberal government…in how many instances did you have any opportunity or right to participate in the decision; if you disagreed with the decision, in how many instances was there anything that you could do about it?…Your ‘liberty’ in the process is that you enjoy the right to be forced to bow to the dictates of others, against your wisdom and conscience…the direct opposite of liberty.”

Harper also recognized what is now driving an increasing wedge between democracy and liberty. We must remember that: “Government of even the best design should be used only where, in the interests of liberty, it becomes necessary to arrive at a singleness in pattern of conduct.” When we need not all agree about our desires and the trade-offs we are willing to make — which is true for the vast majority of choices — liberty is the best democracy, in that each individual’s choices matter. Substituting political democracy for economic democracy, when we need not agree on what to do, gives each of us less liberty in our lives (which is why federalism and freedom tend to increase or decrease together).

America is already far beyond what can be justified as advancing our mutual well-being. And our government seems determined to double down on how far it oversteps, a strategy which necessarily shrinks liberty and the benefits only liberty can provide. That makes it worth noting that a maximum of democracy means a minimum of reliable protection for citizens’ rights, which in turn means a minimum of liberty. If we thought carefully about that, “democracy” would no longer be the go-to word for good in politics, and liberty might get more attention.

Dr. Gary Galles is a Pepperdine University economics professor. His books include “Pathways to Policy Failure” and “Apostle of Peace.”

Editor’s Note: This piece originally appeared on the American Institute for Economic Research

Justin Trudeau Crosses The Rubicon And Reveals The End Stage Of Fake “Liberal Democracy”

February 22, 2022

One year ago, the Globalist American Empire flexed its muscle by more or less politically castrating the sitting US president while he was still in office. They banned President Trump from every social media service of note, shut down his email list, crushed entire websites like Parler, banned thousands of rank-and-file Trump supporters and linked groups from Twitter and Facebook, and turned reams of data over to Deep State law enforcement so as to enable “the largest manhunt in American history.”

It was an incredible overreach. At the time, it felt difficult to imagine what could come after. Mass deplatformings, undisguised censorship, the calculated destruction of an entire political faction and any companies seen as enabling it. What more, realistically, could they do?

A lot more, it turns out, and Justin Trudeau is pointing the way. Four days after granting himself emergency powers in response to the trucker protest against vaccine mandates, Trudeau sent in police to smash the protest. Along with the physical escalation of its crackdown, the Trudeau regime also used its emergency powers to freeze the bank accounts of anyone lending financial support to the Trucker Convoy.

But the “emergency” part of the response has already been exposed as a lie. Refusing to let a crisis go to waste, the Trudeau regime is now racing to make its “emergency” powers permanent.

Not only that, but the Trudeau government is also mulling a bill that would let people be sued or criminally charged for thought crimes. Incredibly, the bill would allow people to be targeted for allegedly “contemplating” a “hateful” act or statement.

The Economist:

On February 14th Mr Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act for the first time in the law’s 34-year history.

Mr Trudeau’s government has expressed shock that racist symbols were displayed during the protest. It appears to be planning to reintroduce an “anti-hate” bill that could lead to the imprisonment of people who use racist speech. This could include a clause which would allow individuals to take other people to court if they fear that they may be about to say something which falls under the definition of “hate propaganda”. They could also be charged for contemplating an offence “motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or any other similar factor”.

If you feel North America’s two great Anglo “democracies” have taken a dark, decisive turn in the last few weeks, you aren’t alone and you aren’t mistaken. The Globalist American Empire is crumbling, and as it crumbles it also trembles, shrieks, and lashes out. As Western nations abandon even the pretense of being free-societies, our corrupt ruling class will ever-more enthusiastically embrace the naked language of compulsion, intimidation, and force.

The way Trudeau treated the Trucker Convoy, you’d think they were violent arsonists or deadly killers. Police smashed up vehicles:

Officers arrested citizen journalists for recording events:

By mid-afternoon Friday, at least seventy people had been arrested just in Ottawa.

During the three weeks of trucker protests, Trudeau and his allies smeared participants as racists motivated by “hate,” with an agenda of “antisemitism, Islamophobia, anti-Black racism, homophobia, and transphobia.” Truckers were accused of “threats” and “violence.” These calumnies were obvious lies.

If there was ever a “peaceful protest,” the trucker occupation of Ottawa certainly qualified. The most damning fact that The New York Times can muster against the truckers after more than two weeks of protesting is that, “during the first 11 days of the protest, truck horns blasted up to 16 hours a day, and some residents say they have been harassed on the street.” In reality, there was only honking for the first 11 hours of the protest because the truckers ceased when a judge ordered them to.

That was the extent of the trucker protest. Some residents in one of Canada’s richest, most privileged neighborhoods in the Imperial Capital heard a lot of honking for less than two weeks, roads were clogged up and a few people were allegedly harassed. Ottawa businesses didn’t even bother boarding up their windows, because why would they? Nobody expected any real chaotic violence from the protesters. In fact, the protest was so peaceful that street crime in Ottawa actually fell during the protests.

Compare this to the damage created by the BLM protests, which Trudeau supported:

Even today, BLM is celebrated and well-funded. In contrast, the Regime responds to the Trucker Convoy movement with a declaration of total war. Despite being entirely peaceful in its conduct and restrained in their demands, Trudeau crushed the convoy physically and banned protest leaders from doing so much as speaking in support of the cause. But perhaps most sinister of all is how banks, media, and (perhaps?) even the intelligence services were collectively enlisted to make even the most marginal financial supporter of the truckers entirely beyond the pale.

Just as Trudeau was announcing his new emergency powers, the “whistleblower” group Direct Denial of Secrets (DDoS) announced it had obtained a full list of all donors to the trucker convoys on GiveSendGo. The Antifa hacker group immediately shared the information with press outlets. The press itself soon played its part, directly contacting many on the donor lists and making it clear they could dox anybody they wished if they felt like it. You don’t want to end up like this café owner, do you?

It gets even more sinister. In 2020, the Trump Department of Homeland Security claimed that DDoS is a “criminal hacker group.” Despite that, it enjoys IRS non-profit status. DDoS’s high-profile hacks have, almost without exception, targeted domestic dissidents against the regime, or its international enemies, rather than the regime itself. Besides doxing every GiveSendGo donor, DDoS’s other targets include Gab, Parler, local police departments, Russia, Myanmar, and right-wing chat groups online.

So much for speaking truth to power. By all accounts, DDoS speaks power to truth.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, DDoS’s leader is the “chronically ill” “they/she” transgender freak show Emma Best.

DDoS almost certainly works hand in hand with serious criminals, if it is not an outright criminal organization itself. Yet nobody is shutting down financial support for DDoS or seizing its assets. While Julian Assange awaits trial and, in all likelihood, life in prison for embarrassing the security state and the Hillary Clinton campaign, “Emma” Best (they/she) faces no serious efforts to stop his activities whatsoever. And why would he? He is among the most heroic tranissaries rendering an invaluable service to the Globalist American Empire.

The right to protest, publicly, is enshrined as a sacred privilege and marker of democracy. When the US backed the overthrow of Ukraine’s government in 2014, it was because President Viktor Yanukovych allegedly used force against “peaceful protesters” (in fact, they were not peaceful; they killed several police officers). The American Regime used the Chinese government’s use of force against “mostly peaceful” protesters in Hong Kong to justify more moral grandstanding. If a trucker protest just like the one in Canada had been suppressed and criminalized like those in Minsk, or Moscow, or Tehran, the State Department and US regime press would shriek about totalitarianism.

Now, the hypocrisy is too naked and blatant to ignore. The Canadian crackdown is a decisive “mask off” moment for the class obsessed with masks.

A similar “mask-off” moment is unfolding in America. Last week, the Biden Administration’s “intelligence officials” smeared Zero Hedge as a Russian intelligence operation for publishing articles critical of US foreign policy. A week before that, the administration claimed that dissident views on Covid-19 policies contribute to domestic terrorism. In the US client state of Ukraine, the mass banning of Russian-language TV stations is characterized as a “gift” to the Biden administration. Even MyPillow founder Mike Lindell is getting a Canada-style debanking because of his political activism.

Still, what is most interesting about the Canada development is not how evil it is, but how overt. Western governments seem to be abandoning even the pretense of existing as free societies. Even the press is admitting it.

The good news is, it’s unclear how well this will work. The pretense of being a free society is central to the self-perception of Americans and Westernerns more generally. If a government shorn of moral legitimacy decides to rule by force instead, it is unclear that it will have the persuasive or coercive tools to make the change stick.

A year ago, in the early days of the Biden Administration, Revolver warned about America’s rapidly crumbling moral authority in a piece entitled, “With Zero Moral Authority Left, The Globalist American Empire is Doomed to Fail at Home and Abroad”:

In China, people tend to defer to state authority so long as the state is performing competently. There is no psychological need for the Chinese to think of their nation in “moral terms” as a “free society” that respects “human rights.” For better or worse, things are different in America. Being a “free society” is just as must an essential part of American self-identity as being a “global superpower.” America’s decline from global superpower status and its transition from a nation that at least pretends to be a free society to a more transparent and overt totalitarianism are mutually reinforcing tendencies that could strain the very special preconditions for American patriotism as we know it.

It is far from clear that the American regime can complete this transition without dire consequences with respect to its standing globally, and to its own citizens right here at home. Patriots of all stripes should not view this as a consolation prize, but as a great opportunity.


That opportunity is now greater than ever before. The Globalist American Empire was low on legitimacy a year ago. Today, it is scraping the bottom of the barrel. It cannot win wars. It cannot prevent crime; in fact, it encourages it. It cannot keep shelves stocked or even consistently keep the lights on. It nakedly dispenses with bedrock American rights like freedom of association, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and equality under the law. It makes a mockery of the “democracy” it claims the sole right to represent. It shuts down your bank account while shrieking of “racism,” “homophobia,” and “fascism.”

And now, it fears being called out. The authorities in Canada lashed out because they were genuinely afraid. As Substack writer N.S. Lyons noted last week in a piece analyzing the clash between the Physicals and the Virtuals (those who engage in real-world economic activity versus those who use laptops):

When the truckers rolled their big rigs, which weigh about 35,000 pounds, up to the political elite’s doorstep, engaged their parking breaks (or removed their wheels entirely), and refused to leave until their concerns were addressed, this was like dropping a very solid boulder of reality in the Virtuals’ front lawn and daring them to remove it without assistance. And because the Virtuals do not yet actually have the Jedi powers to move things with their minds, the truckers effectively called their bluff on who ultimately has control over the world.

To many of the Virtuals, this is existentially frightening. [The Upheaval]

This is the key weakness of the Globalist American Empire: Its most zealous adherents are not able to maintain the society they rule over. Though members of the “thinking class,” they are actually bereft of meaningful hard skills. They do not build roads, keep the lights on, or grow food, and if suddenly tasked with doing so they would be in a near-hopeless position. A handful of truckers getting uppity put their backs to the wall. A more meaningful, widespread general strike by even a few hundred thousand workers would immediately render their regime helpless. That is why they must threaten even the slightest deviation with maximum force, with threats to seize protesters’ entire life savings without due process.

With its hysterical reactions against all dissent, the Globalist American Empire prepares the way for its own doom. The Empire has no clothes. As it claims more power than ever, it is in fact closer than ever to losing it all.

What The Bible Says About Liberty

LIBERTY  (דְּרﯴר֙, H2002, a flowingliberty, חֻפְשָׁה, H2928, freedom, חָפְשִׁי, H2930, free, רַ֫חַב, H8144, widebroad; ἐλευθερία, G1800, a freedomliberty, ἐλευθερόω, G1802, freeset free.) That condition or reference to a condition the opposite of slavery or forced subjection whether physically, materially, or spiritually.

In the OT the concept of liberty is used basically to refer to the physical freedom of slaves. Thus, derōr is used in Leviticus 25:10 for proclaiming liberty for Heb. slaves in the fiftieth year of Jubilee (cf. Ezek 46:17), and in Jeremiah 34:89141517 this liberty is to be granted to slaves in the seventh sabbatical year.

Hebrew hopšî is used also to indicate liberty granted to Heb. bondslaves in the seventh year (Exod 21:25Deut 15:121318) and liberty to a male or female slave because of an injury inflicted by a master (Exod 21:2627). Job 3:19 speaks of a slave’s freedom from his master after death, and in a more general sense the oppressed are spoken of as being set free (Isa 58:6). The psalmist laments that he is “like one forsaken among the dead” in the sense of being cut off from God’s remembrance (Ps 88:5). In the area of material liberty hopsî speaks of freedom from taxes and other types of obligations (1 Sam 17:25).

In one instance the Heb. rāhāb speaks fig. of the psalmist’s freedom in living a godly life since he has sought the Lord’s precepts (Ps 119:45); and in another derōr is used prophetically to describe a part of the Messiah’s spiritual ministry of salvation as He will “proclaim liberty to the captives” (Isa 61:1; cf. Luke 4:16-21).

In the NT there is reference to the physically free, as opposed to the slave (1 Cor 7:2122), where the Christian who has his political and social freedom is enslaved to Christ and the Christian slave is free in Christ. Galatians 3:28 teaches that with all other groups free men are united to Christ.

The NT lays greater stress on spiritual liberty, with the one through whom spiritual freedom is obtained being clearly set forth. Christ’s interpretation of Isaiah 61:1 makes clear that He as the promised Messiah will bring to sinners deliverance from sin. The Gr. here is ἄφεσις, G912, (Luke 4:16-21). Galatians 5:1 amplifies this. Compare also Romans 6:18 where the Christian is declared freed from the slavery of sin by Christ’s death. In John 8:3236 Christ and His word of truth are set forth as the means by which the sinner is really made free. Romans 8:2 teaches that the authority of the life-giving Holy Spirit has made the sinner free from the authority of sin, and it is this same Spirit who frees men so that they may know the Lord and His Word (2 Cor 3:1-17).

Having been liberated by Christ from the penalty of sin, the Christian is challenged to employ this liberty properly in Christian living. He is not to use it as an excuse to satisfy unchristian sinful desires but he is by love to serve others (Gal 5:13; cf. vv. 19). The world should see that the believer’s freedom in Christ does not result in sin; it issues in good works (1 Pet 2:1516). The Christian is to consider the conscience of another in his use of Christian liberty (1 Cor 10:29). A divine means by which the believer’s life is influenced to godly living is the perfect law of liberty, the Word of God (James 1:252:12).

2 Peter 2:19 suggests that a false freedom can lead to corruption and bondage.

Finally, at the Second Coming of Christ the Christians will be given a glorious freedom from the effects of sin (Rom 8:21).

Bibliography J. E. Frame, “Paul’s Idea of Deliverance,” JBL IXL (1930), 1-12.

God’s Not Dead: We The People (Official Trailer)


4 Things the Bible Says About Freedom

By BGEA   •   June 29, 2020 

“The Scripture teaches that the only truly free people in the world are those who have made Christ their Savior, Master and Lord. Jesus Christ said, ‘Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.’” —Billy Graham

As the United States of America celebrates Independence Day on July 4, it’s worth noting the nation was founded upon the idea that God created human beings to be free. The Declaration of Independence states that people “are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

But what is “liberty,” exactly? Is freedom based upon the country where you live, or can it have a deeper meaning?

Here are some key ideas from the Bible about freedom—including how to find true freedom in your life.

1. People have been searching for it for thousands of years.

The quest for freedom is a theme found throughout the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. Just three chapters into the story of God’s creation, humanity gave up its freedom by choosing to rebel against God. From that time forward, the perfect freedom God created in the Garden of Eden was gone, and the long-term effects were both physical and spiritual.

The Old Testament of the Bible records how God’s people lost their physical freedom time and again as various empires overtook them (most notably the Egyptians, as recorded in the book of Exodus).

The loss of physical freedom was often tied to spiritual disobedience like worshiping false gods. But time and again, the one true God forgave His people and rescued them. When God freed the Israelites from slavery in Egypt, He was foreshadowing the arrival of Jesus Christ, who came to free humanity from sin—the spiritual slavery that leads to death.

Today, many people are living in spiritual slavery without realizing it. They chase false gods of money, success, personal comfort and romantic love—only to realize they still have an emptiness that can’t be filled by any of those things.

>> Everyone worships something. Read Billy Graham’s short answer about the definition of an idol.

2. God’s answer to our loss of freedom has always been Jesus Christ.

When Jesus began his short period of ministry on the earth, He announced He was the One that God’s people had been waiting for since the fall of humanity. He did this by reading a particular passage from the book of Isaiah—a passage his listeners knew was referring to the Messiah, or the Savior of the world.

The words had been written hundreds of years earlier and spoke of a new freedom that was coming in the future. When Jesus stood up to read, He was saying the future had arrived. Liberty would come through Him.

“And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,

‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
    because he has anointed me
    to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives
    and recovering of sight to the blind,
    to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.’

And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. And he began to say to them, ‘Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing’” (Luke 4:17-21, emphasis added).

>> Read Billy Graham’s short devotion, “Truth Brings Freedom.”

3. Jesus came to free us from death, sin and anything that enslaves us.

The core message of the Christian faith—the Gospel—is that Jesus Christ rescues us from the slavery of sin and offers true freedom in this life and beyond. This is what Jesus said:

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).

The Good News—the best news ever—is that faith in Jesus frees us from the death we deserve for sinning against God. It frees us from the punishment that would be inflicted upon us at the end of our lives for the evil things we’ve thought and done.

While Christ followers still battle with sin, they are no longer slaves to it. Through the power of Christ, His people can be set free from the bondage of greed, vanity, pride, pornography, addiction, abusive behavior, gluttony, selfishness—and any other sin under the sun. Here’s what Jesus said about the freedom He offers:

“If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:31-32). 

“Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed” (John 8:34-36).

>> Watch Billy Graham’s powerful message, “Truth and Freedom,” from his 1969 New York City Crusade.

4. God gives us freedom to choose our own path.

God created human beings, not robots. We don’t have to accept the freedom He offers us through Jesus Christ. He gives each person the free will to accept or reject His salvation. But the Bible warns that hell is a real place where real people end up when they knowingly reject the truth.

Likewise, those who choose Christ are not forced to obey Him at every turn. But God makes it clear: the best life is one that’s devoted to honoring Him. As the Apostle Paul explained to some of the first Christians:

“’All things are lawful for me,’” but not all things are helpful. ‘All things are lawful for me,’ but I will not be dominated by anything” (1 Corinthians 6:12).

“For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another” (Galatians 5:13).

>> What is “the judgment,” and why did Jesus have to die for our sins? Listen to Billy Graham’s message.

Final thoughts on freedom

From cover to cover, God’s Word points to freedom in Christ. And God doesn’t leave us wondering how to grab hold of the freedom He offers. It starts with acknowledging our brokenness—and admitting we are slaves to sin. And it ends with choosing Jesus and following Him daily. Only He can break the bonds of slavery and lead us to true freedom, now and forever.

Choose Jesus today, and find out what true freedom feels like.

VIDEO Government Need for Control is a Reaction to Their Fear – Michigan Tow Trucks Assist Canadian Police – NZ and Paris Protests

UPDATE: TD Bank Freezes Canadian Freedom Convoy Charitable Accounts: Withholds $1.1M for Trucker Protest

Tucker Carlson, The Government Need for Control is a Reaction to Their Fear

February 12, 2022 | Sundance 

Tucker Carlson used his segment on the Canadian Freedom Protests Friday night to emphasize a point we have made for many years.  The government need to control the truckers in Canada is a reaction to fear.

The administration of Justin Trudeau and also Joe Biden are fearful of the working class people the truckers represent.  Those who consider themselves elite are the few, we are the many. Those who live atop society, in politics or positions of influence and affluence, are becoming increasingly fearful.

Recent references are not limited to COVID lockdowns and arbitrary totalitarian rules put into place.  The way the government responded to the “yellow vest” movement in France; or the U.K. government efforts to fight Brexit; or the U.S. government response to Donald Trump’s election; these are all examples of those holding power being fearful of the us – a free people.   The elites are fearful, and they will lose.  WATCH:

Canadian Police Clearing Ambassador Bridge Truck Blockade and Freedom Protest, Tow Trucks from Michigan Sent to Assist

February 12, 2022 | Sundance 

Tow trucks from Michigan have been sent to assist Ontario police and Canadian federal law enforcement to remove the Freedom Protestors and truckers from the Ambassador bridge at the border crossing between Canada and the U.S.A.

Yesterday, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and U.S. President Joe Biden held a phone call to discuss the collaboration of U.S. and Canadian federal law enforcement as well as joint intelligence agencies to remove any blockades at the border crossing points.   Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer also told media she would assist the Canadian government effort.

(Image Source)

As local, regional and federal law enforcement on both sides of the border begin to confront the blockades, it appears they are sharing resources.  Previously, Canadian tow trucks refused to cooperate against their own citizens in protest.  It appears that Michigan tow trucks are willing to do the dirty work. However, the initial tow companies pictured can only move regular passenger vehicles and pick-up trucks, like those driven by supporters of the truckers.

Police arrived shortly after dawn this morning to clear the protest group who spent the night at the busiest crossing between the United States and Canada and enforce a court order issued yesterday. “The Windsor Police & its policing partners have commenced enforcement at and near the Ambassador Bridge. We urge all demonstrators to act lawfully & peacefully. Commuters are still being asked to avoid the areas affected by the demonstrations at this time,” police tweeted.

Global News journalists reported, “police in black uniforms with yellow vests were seen moving behind the protesters’ cars on the bridge. Tactical teams and snipers were also present.” CTV News Windsor’s Michelle Maluske reported from the scene that some protesters had begun to pack up and leave ahead of police moving in to enforce a court injunction, while others remain defiant in the face of fines and jail time.

CANADA –  Police have moved in to break up a days-long protest at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, Ont., where vehicles have been blocking traffic on the crucial border crossing into the U.S.

“We urge all demonstrators to act lawfully and peacefully,” Windsor police said in a tweet as officers started to move in with other law enforcement at about 8:30 a.m. on Saturday. 

They also advised people to stay away from the area.

While some protesters left immediately, a handful remained as of 10 a.m. Police formed a line and were steadily pushing back the demonstrators, some of whom were shouting “shame,” “freedom” and “you’re on the wrong side.” (read more)

New Zealand’s Covid Cops Fail to Disperse Freedom Convoy with 80s Music

Police (R) block off protesters as they occupy the grounds around the parliament building in Wellington on February 9, 2022, on the second day of demonstrations against Covid restrictions, inspired by a similar demonstration in Canada. (Photo by Marty MELVILLE / AFP) (Photo by MARTY MELVILLE/AFP via Getty Images)
Photo by MARTY MELVILLE/AFP via Getty Images


New Zealand’s freedom convoy has maintained its position outside the Parliament on Saturday despite varying police efforts to disperse them, including blasting the Macarena on loop, arrests, and even turning the garden sprinklers on.

After failing to deter a freedom convoy by attempting to arrest around 120 people on Thursday, New Zealand’s police officers have attempted to remove the protest of up to 1,500 people protest that has been in place in the Parliament’s grounds since Tuesday, with less orthodox police tactics.

Reports have emerged that the NZ authorities attempted to remove protestors by blasting them with pro-vaccine propaganda and also 80s and 90s classics such as the Macarena and Barry Manilow songs on repeat.

Protesters however responded by dancing to the music and blaring back their own songs such as the Twister Sister’s We’re Not Gonna Take It, according to a report from The Telegraph.

Authorities also tried to shift the protesters – some of whom are camping within the Wellington Parliament’s grounds – by turning on the parliament lawn’s sprinklers, but protesters dug trenches and assembled plastic tubing to drain the water from the area and prevent it from affecting the campsite.

Wellington’s police have been forced to take a more relaxed approach with the protestors after footage went viral of them dragging a naked lady out of the protest by her hair on Thursday, which triggered widespread condemnation of the police.

The extreme police tactics reinvigorated the protest – as numbers on Thursday had dropped to around 200 from an initial thousand on the first day of the protest – with 1,500 people arriving to support the freedom convoy on Friday.

Despite Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern initially supporting the protest, saying, “People often protest on the front lawn of Parliament. It is part of New Zealand” — authorities quickly shifted their stance and declared that the protestors are in fact trespassing.

Convoy participants have challenged this order, questioning how they can trespass on public property, saying it belongs to the people as it had been paid for by the “blood of our forefathers on the battlefield” and “our taxes”.

Protestors, including those using their vehicles to block the roads around the Parliament, have committed to staying in place “as long as it takes” for the government to repeal coronavirus restrictions such as obligatory masks for children in schools and vaccine mandates for certain jobs such as healthcare workers.

French Police Block 500 ‘Freedom Convoy’ Vehicles From Entering Paris

PARIS, FRANCE - FEBRUARY 12: Police stop members of a "Freedom Convoy" along a street on February 12, 2022 in Paris, France. Numerous convoys have been headed toward the French capital since Wednesday. The Parisian police prefecture has forbidden the convoys from entering the city. Truckers in Canada have blockaded …
Sam Tarling/Getty Images


PARIS (AP) – Paris police intercepted at least 500 vehicles attempting to enter the French capital Saturday, in defiance of a police order, to take part in protests against virus restrictions.

The police said on Twitter that several convoys were stopped from entering at key city arteries and over 200 motorists were handed tickets.

Elsewhere, at least two protesters were detained amid a seizure of knives, hammers and other objects in one central Parisian square.

Some 7,000 officers have been mobilized for the weekend protests. Police have created checkpoints, deployed armored personnel carriers and set up water cannons to brace the city for the protests. So far, the police blockade action has seemed effective.

Railing against the vaccination pass that France requires to enter restaurants and many other venues, protesters have tried to weave toward Paris from north, south, east and west, waving and honking at onlookers from their car windows. Some convoys sought to avoid police detection Friday by traveling local roads instead of the major highways leading into the capital.

Waving French flags and shouting “freedom,” the protesters organized online, galvanized in part by truckers who have blockaded Canada’s capital and blocked border crossings. The French action has no single leader or goal, and comes as months of protests against French government vaccination rules have been waning.

It’s not just in France that such protests are brewing. Dozens of trucks and other vehicles, from tractors to a car towing a caravan arrived in The Hague Saturday morning as part of a “freedom convoy,” blocking an entrance to the historic parliamentary complex.

A group of protesters joined the truckers carrying a banner emblazoned with the Dutch words “Love & freedom, no dictatorship.”

Police urged the protesters to move to a park, where the municipality said they could demonstrate, and warned the public about traffic problems in the city.

Live at #AmbassadorBridgeBlockade



DON’T STOP NOW! They’re PANICKED Over Freedom Convoy | Monologue | Huckabee

Vaccine-Injured Respiratory Therapist Has MAJOR Regrets

Surgical, cloth and N95 masks are useless against COVID-19

TD Bank Freezes Canadian Freedom Convoy Charitable Accounts: Withholds $1.1M for Trucker Protest

nti-vaccine mandate protestors block the roadway at the Ambassador Bridge border crossing, in Windsor, Ontario on February 11, 2022. - The protestors who are in support of the Truckers Freedom Convoy in Ottawa have blocked traffic in the Canada bound lanes from the bridge since February 7, 2022. Approximately $323 …

SIMON KENT 13 Feb 2022

Toronto-Dominion (TD) Bank froze two personal bank accounts, one of which included $1.1 million, paid into them destined to support trucker protests gathering under the Canadian Freedom Convoy banner, Reuters reported.

The decision to freeze the money before distribution to the anti-vaccine mandate protesters was confirmed by a spokesperson for the bank in a statement seen by the outlet.

The move came after TD applied to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice this week about taking funds sent through bank transfers and GoFundMe and giving them to the intended recipients or returning them to the donors “who have requested refunds but whose entitlement to a refund cannot be determined by TD.”

Christian-owned GiveSendGo later stepped in to fill the void left by GoFundMe’s departure.

Reuters reported one bank account received C$1 million through GoFundMe and the rest was sent to a second account through a variety of bank transfers. The spokesperson said TD is unsure of where the GoFundMe payment originated.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has since asked the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to launch an investigation into GoFundMe and its actions.

In an email to Reuters, Keith Wilson, an attorney for the convoy, said TD has been put “on notice that their actions are improper and disappointing.”

Anti-vaccine mandate protesters block the roadway at the Ambassador Bridge border crossing in Windsor, Ontario, on February 11, 2022. (GEOFF ROBINS/AFP via Getty Images)

Police surround pickup trucks as they clear protesters against Covid-19 vaccine mandates who blocked the entrance to the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, Ontario, Canada, on February 13, 2022. (JEFF KOWALSKY/AFP via Getty Images)

GoFundMe faced immense criticism earlier this month after the company decided to pause the fundraising page for the convoy after it surpassed $10 million, as Breitbart News reported.

A lawyer for the Freedom Convoy sent an email to Reuters outlining TD has been put “on notice that their actions are improper and disappointing.” The email, written by Keith Wilson, also said the convoy will seek a court order to release the money raised to a new not-for-profit corporation.


Create your website with
Get started
%d bloggers like this: