Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started

VIDEO “Brazil is Going Full Gulag. This is the Worst Communist Takeover Ever” – Lula forcibly injects its political enemies with deadly covid “vaccines”

By Richard Abelson January 14, 2023

A young girl being searched and detained as a “Terrorist” in Brasilia

The US has begun deporting Brazilian opposition leaders to the Gulags as evidence mounts the Jan. 8 riots were staged. US journalist Glenn Greenwald complained about the Communist takeover he helped enable: Chief Justice Alexandre de Moraes is “making himself chief censor of the world,” Greenwald said. Speaking to Steve Bannon, Brazil observer Matt Tyrmand said: “They are going full Gulag. This is the worst Communist takeover ever.”

Senator Marcos do Val says he has new evidence against the incoming leftist Justice Minister Flávio Dino in the so-called “Storm on the National Congress” Jan. 8 and will ask for  Dino’s removal and arrest.

Dino was “aware of the risk of hostile actions and damage to the government buildings” January 8, Antagonista reports: ”In a letter sent the day before to the governor of the Federal District, Ibaneis Rocha, the minister said he had been informed by the Federal Police of the “intense movement of people who, dissatisfied with the result of the 2022 Elections”, organized “bus caravans to move to Brasilia/DF”.

TRENDING: BREAKING: COVER UP: Lawyers Found More Classified Documents in Biden’s Private Library Than Previously Known

“According to reports, this movement would have the intention of promoting hostile actions and damages against the public buildings of the Ministries, the National Congress, the Presidential Palace, the Federal Supreme Court and, possibly, other bodies such as the Superior Electoral Court,” Ibaneis Rocha wrote.

At the same time, the new Lula government announced it would press charges against former President Jair Bolsonaro. Chief Justice Alexandre de Moraes approved a request by the Attorney General’s Office to investigate  former President Jair Bolsonaro for “instigation of undemocratic acts” that resulted in “vandalism and violence” in Brasilia last Sunday, Jan. 8.

This particularly ironic because Bolsonaro disappointed many supporters by not calling the elections stolen or taking any steps to prevent the Lula takeover. In 72 days of protests, Bolsonaro spoke to supporters only once, to lead them in prayer in a tearful scene with his wife (Gateway reported).

41 US “Democrats” have called for revoking Bolsonaro’s visa, who is staying in Florida, presumably so he can be put in the “Lulag” too, along with the rest of the US-based opposition.

Biden Regime sending Anderson Torres to Gulag in Florida Friday

US police officers in Florida were seen deporting former Secretary of Security of the Federal District Anderson Torres on the night of Friday, 1/13. Brazilian police raided Torres’ house and allegedly found a draft decree proposing the introduction of martial law to overturn the result of the country’s presidential election, a Justice Ministry spokeswoman told CNN.

Pro-Lula protestors in Brazil called for “Communism” and “no immunity” for former President Bolsonaro.

The Communist government is holding 1159 protestors in Federal Prison without access to lawyers or charges, forcing them to sign confessions of “terrorism”. At least one protestor appears to have attempted or committed suicide and 3-4 others reportedly died of dehydration and medical emergencies. There is a total press blackout on these deaths.

The Lula Regime is clamping down on the opposition suspending leading channel Jovem Pan as well as prominent opposition figures like host Monark, Congressman Nikolas Ferreira and influencer Barbara of channel “Te Atualizei”, who all had their Twitter accounts suspended. Monark had 1.4 million followers and Ferreira 2 million.

Corrupt Chief Justice Alexandre de Moraes denied a request by representative Nikolas Ferreira to arrest Justice Minister Dino for dereliction of duty in the capital attacks.

Left-wing Snowden reporter Glenn Greenwald, who lives in Brazil and was a vocal critic of Jair Bolsonaro, has realized his own liberty is now in danger and is apparently getting a severe case of Communist Gulag buyer’s remorse: “We just obtained a censorship order that is genuinely shocking, directing multiple social media platforms to *immediately* remove numerous prominent politicians and commentators”, Greenwald wrote.

Elon Musk responded to Greenwald, asking for more info. Greenwald responded that “I can’t post it yet – just waiting for last legal clearances from our lawyers. It’s insane that, as a journalist, I even need to worry about this, but that’s the climate here” (in Brazil).

A video from the “Lulag” prison camp showed police asking the political prisoners who among them was feeling sick. “A girl raised her hand and went to front thinking she would be helped. The officers screamed at her, ripped off what was on her head, then kicked out her legs & tackled her to ground. Army present, watched it all. Did nothing. Inhuman,” Matt Tyrmand wrote.

Speaking to Steve Bannon on “War Room”, Tyrmand said that Brazil had gone from “zero to Stalin in no time.” What happened on Jan. 8 was a “template learned from Jan. 6 – coax ‘em in, show that your agents provocateurs are destroying everything, and then arrest all the patriots, and send a message to the rest of the country. They created a Gulag at the Federal Police Academy and rounded up 1700 people, old women and men, young kids, every race, Brazilian patriots through and through…

We have video of them getting into arguments with the agents provocateurs (during the riot), saying ‘Don’t  break this window, this is our house.’ They were trying to (protest) peacefully, as they had done 72 days previously, because these are peaceful, patriotic warriors. They got cornered and gulaged, and at least one woman died of dehydration. Unconfirmed reports say that 4-5 people have died.”

Prisoners were forced to sign confessions with no legal advisory, Tyrmand said. “The men and more able-bodied females have gone into a Federal Penitentiary, with no charges, no due process, no investigation, no trial, and they are now in jail. Gateway Pundit had a letter describing the absolutely inhumane conditions,” Tyrmand noted.

The regime is calling the protestors “terrorists” now, Tyrmand said. “They are trapped like sardines in these small facilities, literally cloaked in the Brazilian flag to keep warm at night, kids lying on the Brazilian flag as a mat, talk about a powerful poetic symbol.”

The Lula Regime has gone “hogwild on the censorship”, Tyrmand said: “Jovem Pan news has been kicked off the air, the Brazilian equivalent of Fox news, Paulo Figueiredo Filho and all of the right-wing journalists have been deplatformed. The extradition notices are being drawn up, for the journalists and pastors and activists who have residence in the US. They’re putting out red notices, reiterating the call to extradite (leading journalist) Allan dos Santos.”

Jair Bolsonaro, who remained silent for two months of protests, is nonetheless being charged for “sowing distrust in the election system” for asking for auditable paper ballots, Tyrmand said. “Everybody is going to jail. They used a Hitler Reichstag Fire to cement power”, Tyrmand said.

Lula da Silva is “just a figurehead”, Tyrmand noted, the real power lies with Chief Justice Alexandre de Moraes. “They are going full gulag, it is absolutely gross. Even Glenn Greenwald, who helped build this, cheerleading the fight for Lula against Bolsonaro, now he’s giving a press conference, because now they’re trying to censor him.”

Moraes should be “in the Hague”, Tyrmand said, “Because people are dying in the makeshift Gulag and the prisons. And everybody who was put in federal penitentiary was force-vaxxed. If this is not a violation of the Geneva convention, it is worthless. Where is Human Rights Watch? Where is Amnesty International? Where is the United Nations Charter for Indigenous Rights, given that Chief Serere Xavante is still in prison because he is a brave soul with faith, and he is not signing the denunciation letter that they have been torturing him to get him to sign. This is the worst Communist takeover ever.”

Truth Brazil has launched a petition to investigate the failure of the Justice Minister, which you can sign and share here:

Assine a petição de investigação e responsabilização dos envolvidos na segurança, administração nos atos de 08/01/2023 e fatos ocorridos depois dos atos. É necessário investigar porque a segurança falhou. 1.167 pessoas estão presas sem investigação.https://t.co/KW3k5NsBz2

— truth Brasil (@truth_brasil) January 13, 2023

Submit Additional Information

PURE EVIL: The Lula da Silva regime in Brazil forcibly injects its political enemies with deadly covid “vaccines”

January 14, 2023 by: Lance D Johnson

Image: PURE EVIL: The Lula da Silva regime in Brazil forcibly injects its political enemies with deadly covid “vaccines”

(Natural News) Now that the popular Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro has been removed from office, a new communist force is rising up to take his place. Bolsonaro had largely resisted much of the medical tyranny that swept the world from 2020 to 2022. He fought back against mandates and vaccine passports, and advocated for medical privacy, body autonomy rights, and proper treatment of Brazilians.

Now the new President, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, is insisting on persecute his political enemies and forcibly injecting them in makeshift cells. The Lula da Silva regime has arrested over 1,500 who protested the official results of the 2022 election in Brazil. Approximately seven hundred sixty-three of the protestors are being charged with invasion and depredation of public buildings in Praca dos Tres Pederes. They are currently being screened for disease, forcibly vaccinated, and sent to makeshift cells, as they await further punishment. The prisoners are appealing to Brazil’s Federal Supreme Court for a request for freedom.

Brazilian political prisoners are force injected with covid-19 death shots

According to the Federal District government, the number of individuals rounded up so far include 498 men and 265 women. The men are being sent to the Papuda Provisional Detention Center and the women are being separated and sent to separate structures at Colmeia. Journalists on the ground have provided details about the conditions that these political prisoners face. The prisoners are issued a uniform and a rolled-up mattress, without a pillow or blanket. They are handed a hygiene kit that includes soap, feminine pads, toothpaste, and a toothbrush. The cells come in different sizes and can hold several detainees. A bathroom is available in the cell. All cell phones are confiscated. Detainees who support Bolsonaro are separated from the other prisoners.

Most shocking, the detainees are treated liked medical slaves. They are forced to undergo medical tests and be subject to covid-19 jabs. A medical task force was deployed to the camps to inject the covid-19 vaccine into the detainees, against their will. For many of the detainees, these forced jabs are like a death shot. Covid vaccines have already killed upwards of 32,000 people in Brazil.

Any detainee who is determined to have a comorbidity is also forced to take government-approved medications. The prisoners are fed a crummy diet as they await their virtual hearing with a judge and a prosecutor.

When it is their time to appear before a judge, the detainees are brought into a prison-like environment called a parlatory. These makeshift courtrooms were created during the covid-19 scandal by communists who sought to facilitate quarantine orders and physical isolation on the unvaccinated population. These parlatories are now being used to speed up the persecution of political prisoners, who are force jabbed against their will and essentially forced to confess their support for the Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva regime.

During these sessions, a judge appears virtually over a screen.  The detainees have a short amount of time to present their case to the virtual judge and the prosecutor. To speed up the process, thirty judges are deployed on screen to deal with multiple cases at once. A defense attorney assists the accused, yet the process for each prosecution takes around 20 to 30 minutes in total. Those who were caught in the act of damaging property are sentenced immediately. Prosecutions that lack direct evidence are sent directly to the Federal Supreme Court, where Minister Alexandre de Moraes makes a judgement on the individual’s request for freedom.

To keep up with the latest, visit ChemicalViolence.com.

Sources include:

Estado.com

CNN.com

NaturalNews.com

https://www.naturalnews.com/2023-01-14-lula-da-silva-regime-in-brazil-forcibly-injects-political-enemies-covid-vaccines.html

Comment:

The above is an another example of what happens when election thieves are allowed to get away with their steel.


Related

VIDEO Ringing of the Liberty Bell – President Reagan Warned Us

Ringing of the Liberty Bell

ringing-of-the-liberty-bell-1


The Liberty Bell is an iconic part of America’s history.

In 1751, on the 50th anniversary of Pennsylvania’s 1701 first charter of liberties the Pennsylvania Assembly ordered a bell from London to be used as part of the commemoration festivities. It arrived on September 1, 1752 and was hung in the tower of the State House in 1753.

Sadly, the bell cracked the first time it was pealed, so the local Philadelphia foundry of Pass and Stow melted down the bell and recast it. But many citizens were displeased with the sound of the bell, so it was once again melted down, recast, and then rehung in the tower.

It was originally known as the “State House Bell.” It was some fifty years after the Revolution, in the midst of the growing national divide over the slavery issue, that abolitionists renamed it the Liberty Bell. It was called this because of the Bible inscription from Leviticus 25:10 emblazoned around the top of the bell — “Proclaim Liberty Throughout All the Land Unto All the Inhabitants thereof.” Its new name was popular among the public and became its permanent name.

Across the years, the Liberty Bell rang many times in September as part of several notable events in American history. For example:

  • September 1764 — It rang to call together the State Assembly, which voted to request that its official representative in London “use his endeavors to obtain a repeal or at least an amendment of the [Sugar Act]” — one of the underlying causes of the American War for Independence.
  • September 1765 — It rang to call together the Assembly to discuss the Stamp Act, another one of the onerous British policies that spurred independence.
  • September 1770 — It rang to assemble citizens, who passed a resolve stating that Parliament’s taxes violated the rights of Pennsylvania citizens.
  • September 1777 — It was transported by wagon to the Zion Reformed Church in Allentown to protect it from the British who, it was widely thought, would take the bell and melt it down to use for ammunition.
  • September 1824 — It rang to welcome hero Marquis de Lafayette (who was visiting America) to Independence Hall.
ringing-of-the-liberty-bell-2

Of course, there were many other important times that the Liberty Bell was rung, including on July 8, 1776 to call citizens to assemble together outside the State House for a special announcement. At that time, the new Declaration of Independence was read to them by Col. John Nixon.

This month, we remember the famous Liberty Bell, named because of its Bible verse, as another example of the rich religious heritage of the United States.

Our nation’s history is full of wonderful stories like this one. At WallBuilders, we are often asked by legislators, courts, and schools to share such information about our rich moral, religious, and constitutional heritage. If our mission resonates with you, please consider supporting our work financially with a tax-deductible donation.

* Originally published: December 31, 2016.

 

By WallBuilders|August 31st, 2022

RONALD REAGAN TRIED TO WARN US | Watch & Share

RONALD REAGAN TRIED TO WARN US in this video of several things happening today. A prophetic message of what life would be like with big Government and lack of patriotism that every American needs to watch and Share! This video was cut up from President’s Farewell speech and put to music composed by Steve Montgomery. Pray for America and Pray for the World. Tyranny is upon us and our freedom is being dismantled. Wake up before it’s too late. Ronald Reagan was Right!

Ronald Reagan’s A Time for Choosing Speech, October 27, 1964 clipped

Full Transcript Below:

“The Speech” is what Ronald Reagan called it. Today we call it, “A Time for Choosing,” and it was a pivotal turning point in Ronald Reagan’s life.

Ronald Reagan began a long side-career of public speaking as his acting career closed out. He traveled across the country meeting Lions Clubs, Rotary Clubs, Chambers of Commerce and any other civic-minded local groups. This continued and intensified during his service as the General Electric spokesperson while hosting their sponsored television series. “The Speech” was delivered in various forms and to different audiences as each word was honed, measured and memorized.

During the 1964 Presidential campaign, Republican party officials in California, who knew Reagan’s powerful message and delivery, asked him to film a speech on behalf of the Republican candidate, Barry Goldwater. The speech was aired on October 27, 1964 and it was electrifying. Donations to the Republican party and candidates increased dramatically.

The Republican Party took note and they targeted Reagan as a candidate from that point forward. He agreed in 1966 to run for Governor of California. He won two terms, and eventually won the Presidency.

Transcript of “A Time for Choosing,” delivered on national television on October 27, 1964

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn’t been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own words and discuss my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.

I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used, “We’ve never had it so good.”

But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn’t something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector’s share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven’t balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We’ve raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury; we don’t own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. And we’ve just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value.

As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We’re at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it’s been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it’s time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.

Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, “We don’t know how lucky we are.” And the Cuban stopped and said, “How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to.” And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there’s no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.

And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man.

This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I’d like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There’s only an up or down – [up] man’s old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the “Great Society,” or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they’ve been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, “The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism.” Another voice says, “The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state.” Or, “Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century.” Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as “our moral teacher and our leader,” and he says he is “hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document.” He must “be freed,” so that he “can do for us” what he knows “is best.” And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as “meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government.”

Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as “the masses.” This is a term we haven’t applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, “the full power of centralized government”this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don’t control things. A government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

Now, we have no better example of this than government’s involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85 percent of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21 percent increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming that’s regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years we’ve spent 43 dollars in the feed grain program for every dollar bushel of corn we don’t grow.

Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater, as President, would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because he’ll find out that we’ve had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He’ll also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress [an] extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. He’ll find that they’ve also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldn’t keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil.

At the same time, there’s been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. There’s now one for every 30 farms in the United States, and still they can’t tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estes never left shore.

Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but how – who are farmers to know what’s best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down.

Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights [are] so diluted that public interest is almost anything a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a “more compatible use of the land.” The President tells us he’s now going to start building public housing units in the thousands, where heretofore we’ve only built them in the hundreds. But FHA [Federal Housing Authority] and the Veterans Administration tell us they have 120,000 housing units they’ve taken back through mortgage foreclosure. For three decades, we’ve sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency.

They’ve just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over 30 million dollars on deposit in personal savings in their banks. And when the government tells you you’re depressed, lie down and be depressed.

We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they’re going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer – and they’ve had almost 30 years of it – shouldn’t we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn’t they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?

But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we’re told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than 3,000 dollars a year. Welfare spending [is] 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We’re spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you’ll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we’d be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.

Now, so now we declare “war on poverty,” or “You, too, can be a Bobby Baker.” Now do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion we’re spending, one more program to the 30-odd we have -and remember, this new program doesn’t replace any, it just duplicates existing programs – do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain there is one part of the new program that isn’t duplicated. This is the youth feature. We’re now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps [Civilian Conservation Corps], and we’re going to put our young people in these camps. But again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we’re going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person we help 4,700 dollars a year. We can send them to Harvard for 2,700! Course, don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.

But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who’d come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning 250 dollars a month. She wanted a divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. She’s eligible for 330 dollars a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who’d already done that very thing.

Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we’re denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we’re always “against” things – we’re never “for” anything.

Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.

Now, we’re for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we’ve accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.

But we’re against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They’ve called it “insurance” to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term “insurance” to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they’re doing just that.

A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary – his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he’s 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can’t put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they’re due, that the cupboard isn’t bare?

Barry Goldwater thinks we can.

At the same time, can’t we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn’t you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think we’re for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we’re against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. They’ve come to the end of the road.

In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate, planned inflation, so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar’s worth, and not 45 cents worth?

I think we’re for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we’re against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world’s population. I think we’re against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in the Soviet colonies in the satellite nations.

I think we’re for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we’re against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We’re helping 107. We’ve spent 146 billion dollars. With that money, we bought a 2 million dollar yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenya[n] government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought 7 billion dollars worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country.

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So governments’ programs, once launched, never disappear.

Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.

Federal employees – federal employees number two and a half million; and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation’s work force employed by government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man’s property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury? And they can seize and sell his property at auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier over-planted his rice allotment. The government obtained a 17,000 dollar judgment. And a U.S. marshal sold his 960-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work.

Last February 19th at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, “If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States.” I think that’s exactly what he will do.

But as a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn’t the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration, because back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his Party was taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his Party, and he never returned til the day he died, because to this day, the leadership of that Party has been taking that Party, that honorable Party, down the road in the image of the labor Socialist Party of England.

Now it doesn’t require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the, or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.

Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men – that we’re to choose just between two personalities.

Well what of this man that they would destroy, and in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear? Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well I’ve been privileged to know him “when.” I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I’ve never known a man in my life I believed so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.

This is a man who, in his own business before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent monthly checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn’t work. He provides nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by the floods in the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there.

An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas. And he said that [there were] a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. And then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, “Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such,” and they went down there, and there was a fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in those weeks before Christmas, all day long, he’d load up the plane, fly it to Arizona, fly them to their homes, fly back over to get another load.

During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, “There aren’t many left who care what happens to her. I’d like her to know I care.” This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, “There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life on that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start.” This is not a man who could carelessly send other people’s sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all the other problems I’ve discussed academic, unless we realize we’re in a war that must be won.

Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy “accommodation.” And they say if we’ll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he’ll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer – not an easy answer but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.

We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, “Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we’re willing to make a deal with your slave masters.” Alexander Hamilton said, “A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” Now let’s set the record straight. There’s no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there’s only one guaranteed way you can have peace – and you can have it in the next second – surrender.

Admittedly, there’s a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face, that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand, the ultimatum. And what then, when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we’re retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he’s heard voices pleading for “peace at any price” or “better Red than dead,” or as one commentator put it, he’d rather “live on his knees than die on his feet.” And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don’t speak for the rest of us.

You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin – just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard ’round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn’t die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it’s a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, “There is a price we will not pay.” “There is a point beyond which they must not advance.” And this – this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater’s “peace through strength.” Winston Churchill said, “The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we’re spirits – not animals.” And he said, “There’s something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.”

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.

Thank you very much.

https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/reagans/ronald-reagan/time-choosing-speech-october-27-1964

A Time for Choosing by Ronald Reagan – 1964 Presidential Campaign for Barry Goldwater for President

Televised Campaign Address for Goldwater Presidential Campaign – 10/27/64.

Frequently referred to by conservatives as “the speech” (proper title “A Time for Choosing”), many consider this one of the best speeches on conservative principles and the best speech ever given by Ronald Reagan. The appeal was probably narrower than the intended audience, but among conservatives the speech still resonates.

Much of the content is timeless – as applicable today as when delivered in 1964.

For more information on the ongoing works of President Reagan’s Foundation, visit http://www.reaganfoundation.org


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! 

https://thenewamerican.com/republics-and-democracies/


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



Related

https://thefederalist.com/2022/08/11/democratic-operatives-control-voter-rolls-in-31-states-report-shows/

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

https://cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/victor-hanson-we-dont-have-rule-law-washington-fbi-beyond-redemption


Related

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
evening.

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 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

https://cnsnews.com/commentary/dr-gary-m-galles/democracy-vs-liberty

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.

READ THE REST

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.

https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/encyclopedia-of-the-bible/Liberty


https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/words/Liberty

https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Liberty

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Liberty/

https://www.openbible.info/topics/liberty


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



Related

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/even-small-donation-to-freedom-convoy-after-feb-15-enough-to-have-donors-bank-accounts-frozen-finance-committee-told

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/senate-growing-frustrated-by-pressure-to-rubber-stamp-emergencies-act

https://thefederalist.com/2022/02/23/why-tech-totalitarianism-threatens-to-turn-america-into-canada-or-china-unless-we-stop-it/

The sacredness of every human being

By Richard D. Land, Christian Post Executive Editor| Friday, June 04, 2021

In the United States, history tells us that Old Testament teachings have combined with New Testament declarations to proclaim the sacred interior life of every human being – each created in God’s image (Gen. 1:26-27).

This sacred interior space, often called the “soul,” received prominence of place in the nascent nation’s first official document, the Declaration of Independence. On behalf of the new nation, the Continental Congress proclaimed to the world,  “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” 

As they won their independence from Great Britain the new government of the United States, struggling “ to form a more perfect Union,” ratified what we now know to be the U.S. Constitution ratified in September 1787.

This new American Constitution, along with the Bill of Rights (comprised of the Constitution’s first ten amendments, ratified in 1791) represented a new theory and kind of government, one in which the government gained its power from the consent of the governed and minority rights were protected from majority suppression.

This rather simple sounding concept was absolutely revolutionary in the world of the eighteenth century.  Over the next more than two centuries it has proven to guarantee and protect more basic human rights than any government yet conceived and incorporated on this planet.

And, thanks be to God, over that expanse of time it has produced brave men and women of faith who understand the inviolate, sacred integrity God envisioned and planned for every human being.  This has produced citizens of great and noble courage with an unshakeable sense of human dignity.

A beautiful illustration of this is Mr. Jack Phillips, the proprietor of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado.  Mr. Phillips, a devout Christian, on a summer afternoon in July 2012 declined to bake a wedding cake to celebrate a same sex union.

Immediately, the “cancel culture” war machine mobilized against Mr. Phillips and his little bakery.  They believed that he must be forced to conform under penalty of law and bake the cake and thus affirm same sex unions.  The Colorado Civil Rights Commission began a legal campaign against Mr. Phillips that the U.S. Supreme Court would eventually label as  harassment. 

Jack Phillip’s response to this campaign of vilification (“his objections must be simple prejudice; religion is just an excuse”) went through the entire legal system until the Supreme Court upheld Jack Phillips’ right to freedom of conscience (7 to 2) in Masterpiece Bake Shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

Now, Mr. Phillips has written a book relating his almost decade long struggle to live out his understanding of how God desires for him to use his God-given talents in living out God’s purposes for his life. 

In The Cost of My Faith, How a Decision in My Cake Shop Took Me to the Supreme Court, Mr. Phillips narrates his struggle and the attacks on his character and physical person that he has endured. 

He then asks the $64,000 question,

Why not just bake the cake?  Mr. Phillips’ answer to the question is
brilliantly and beautifully illuminating.  He says, “My objection is
never to the person. . . asking me to create a cake  with a particular
message.  My objection . . . is to the message itself.  I can and
cheerfully will serve anyone.  I cannot and won’t communicate every
message.”

Jack Phillips, in telling his story, discovers and displays a God-given talent for the written word that rivals his breathtaking skills as a baker and decorator of cakes. 

Here is a riveting and moving example:

My beliefs are what make me who I am.  My commitment to God and
to . . . his holy word is the defining premise of my life. . . and the
guiding direction for my actions.  If you ask me to separate all of that
from my work. . . I simply can’t do that.. .It’s like asking a contractor to
build a great building, but first remove the foundation.

Then he asks what is really the crucial question: 

Where do we think artistic creativity comes from?  Something
outside of ourselves.  Of course not.  It’s water from the foundation of
our soul. It comes from a deep- down place inside each of us where
our experiences, our understanding, our intentions, our deepest
beliefs and convictions all stir together.  These can’t be separated
from each other anymore than you can sift out the various
ingredients from a cake after it is baked. 

Mr. Phillips goes on to explain that he does not disrespect anyone and affirms everyone as made in the image of God – and “as a person worthy of respect.”

He understands any talents he has were given to him by God and he has a responsibility to use these  gifts to glorify God, not that which God  disapproves.

Then he explains that demanding that he use his artistry to communicate a message that he believes is wrong is:

asking me to stop being me. . . . to deny the deepest convictions of
my heart. . .that’s not something any person has a right to ask of
another. . . or a command any government has the right to force one
of its citizens to obey.

Well said, Mr. Phillips.  As the seventeenth century Puritan preacher Roger Williams, aptly put it almost four  centuries ago. for anyone to force the conscience of another person on religious maters is “soul rape!”

May God lead our people to demand that our government continue to hold that the sacred inner space of our citizens’ souls is beyond the purview of any government or merely human organizations.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/the-sacredness-of-every-human-being.html

VIDEO A Fine Kettle Of Fish

By Reverend Paul N. Papas II

September 28, 2021 – updated

Unless you’ve been living in your basement for the last year or so you’ve watching the worst international disaster unfold daily before your eyes. While you are watching the international disaster unfold remember there is one person who had the authority, opportunity, and the means to prevent all this from happening instead he choked and gave an elbow bump to the Speaker (1). I wonder how he sleeps at night.

That chocking has caused untold suicides, anger, anxiety, mental anguish, deaths, and economic chaos in large portions of our population through many edicts by Joe who was allowed to be unlawfully seated.

As we hear testimony I wonder who is in charge from the miraculous emergence from the basement. Two generals claim they warned Joe not to surrender. One of those generals also conspired with China.    

Early after the election it became apparent that body doubles were needed for Joe. Perhaps the generals did warn one of the body doubles perhaps not all of them. (2)

“Arthur Roberts, the 83-year-old C-List actor who portrays Joseph Biden on television and in person, blew his cover during a televised press conference with UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson earlier this week.” (2)

“In a moment not caught on microphone and spoken softly enough for the press pool to not overhear, Roberts began lamenting to Johnson his failed film career, and he asked the UK Prime Minister whether he had seen the films Little Miss Magic and Up in Smoke, in which he had minor roles.” (2)

“A theatrically masked Boris Johnson, our source said, discretely muted his microphone and spoke softly in Roberts’ direction, asking, “You’re not Joe Biden. Who the bloody h** are you?”(2)

“Even though he muted his mic, Jen Psaki and White House Communications Director Kate Bedingfield were in another office, and able to overhear the entire discourse through hidden parabolic mics in the briefing room. They, how should I put this, freaked the f*** out. They began screaming into Roberts’ hidden earpiece to get back on script or read only from the teleprompter. That’s when Roberts silenced his own mic and told Boris he was only joking around. But Psaki feared the situation would deteriorate, and she immediately ordered the room cleared,” our source said. (2)

He added that a bewildered Johnson later asked Psaki “what the h** just happened,” and was told to forget the entire incident, unless the UK wanted to lose all U.S. support.”(2)

Joe’s hallmark is suppression or elimination of those who disagree with him, a Soviet Union and a Red China tactic. Here is one example of a silencing:  Lt. Col. Scheller’s Attorney Joins Tucker Carlson to Discuss His Political Imprisonment For Speaking Out Against Biden’s Afghanistan Debacle; Marine’s Father Also Issues Statement. (3)

People don’t like being oppressed. People don’t like being lied to. People don’t like their voice silenced at the ballot box.

Here is Kari Lake’s take:  AZ Gubernatorial Candidate Kari Lake After AZ Audit Results – Calls For INDICTMENTS Against LYING Fake News: “We Should Look At CRIMINALLY Charging Them As Well” (4)

State Senator Sonny Borrelli weighs in: AZ State Senator Sonny Borrelli – Evidence Turned Over To AG Brnovich For Criminal Investigation – MSM PsyOp Spreads Propaganda To Demoralize Americans (5)

All is not lost, there is hope, and together we will get through this fine kettle of fish.  We are a strong people. We are a resilient people. Corrections are on the way.

Look up, our help comes from above. The photo on top was taken in Perry, Georgia before the Rally (6).


(1)  https://preacher01704.wordpress.com/2021/01/07/benedict-arnold-again/

(2) https://realrawnews.com/2021/09/biden-body-double-blows-cover-during-meet-with-boris-johnson/

(3) https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/09/wrong-will-not-stand-lt-col-schellers-attorney-joins-tucker-carlson-discuss-political-imprisonment-speaking-bidens-afghanistan-debacle-marines-fathe/

(4) https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/09/watch-az-gubernatorial-candidate-kari-lake-az-audit-results-calls-indictments-lying-fake-news-look-criminally-charging/

(5) https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/09/watch-az-state-senator-sonny-borrelli-evidence-turned-ag-brnovich-criminal-investigation-msm-psyop-spreads-propaganda-demoralize-americans/

(6) https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/09/seen-skies-perry-georgia-afternoon-trump-rally/


https://preacher01704.wordpress.com/2021/09/30/a-fine-kettle-of-fish/


Related

Computer Programmer Testifies He Was Hired To Rig Elections

The Absolutely Damning Video That Opened Mike Lindell’s Cyber Symposium

Maricopa County admits they DELETED and moved the election data to hide it from auditors AFTER they got a subpoena

Cyber Ninjas CEO Tells Congress to Fork Off and Joins ConservativeDaily 

21 Years of Election Fraud — and They All Know

Eric Coomer Deposition SAYING IT WAS “ILLEGAL” NOT TO FLIP ELECTION RESULTS

Representative Jim Jordan Confronts Merrick Garland – The Great Awakening of The American People Has Begun

LIVE STREAM VIDEO: WI Sheriff Schmaling: ‘ELECTION LAW WAS NOT JUST BROKEN BUT SHATTERED!” – Releases Evidence of Election Fraud in Racine, Wisconsin!

Eric Coomer explains how to alter votes in the Dominion system

Ruby caught on video *WITH AUDIO* Discussing Stealing Votes (GA)

Ep. 2615b – This Is The Tip Of The Iceberg, The Call For Election Decertification Is Getting Louder

‘Drop and Roll’ – How The 2020 Election Was Stolen From Donald Trump

FULL VIDEO Whistleblower in Delaware Co, PA w/evidence of destruction of election data and equipment

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/09/30/fake-views-white-house-creates-illusionary-white-house-set-for-joe-biden-events/

https://www.redvoicemedia.com/2021/09/ga-corruption-exposed-rnc-covered-up-major-election-fraud/

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/10/11/rigged-mollie-hemingway-biden-georgia/

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2021/10/21/representative-jim-jordan-confronts-merrick-garland-the-great-awakening-of-the-american-people-has-begun/

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2021/10/21/representative-thomas-massie-questions-ag-merrick-garland-about-fbi-agents-and-informants-participating-and-agitating-in-january-6-dc-protest/#more-218829

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/10/federal-judge-allowed-texas-seek-internal-documents-facebook-twitter-google-regarding-censor-conservatives/

Racine County Sheriff Refers Criminal Charges Against Five Top Wisconsin Elections Commissioners in Nursing Home Voting Scam

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/11/racine-county-sheriff-refers-criminal-charges-five-top-wisconsin-elections-commissioners-nursing-home-votin

http://www.redvoicemedia.com/2021/11/us-marshals-hold-surprise-inspection-of-dc-jails-find-egregious-conditions-and-transfers-inmates/

https://wendyrogers.org/arizonas-2020-forensic-election-senate-audit-what-you-havent-heard-and-much-much-more/

We would NOT need to DECERTIFY if this man was not a Traitor

Racine County Sheriff Files Criminal Charges Against 5 of 6 Members of Wisconsin Elections Commission – First Material Charges Country-wide Related to 2020 Election Theft > Where are the arrests by AZ AG Brnovich?

SIGN THE PETITION TO DECERTIFY THE ELECTION

wendyrogers.org/decertify/

Sign the petition to decertify the Presidential Election. Learn More


Contact Information  for the AZ Attorney General. Ask him when the arrests will start of those who participated in the election steal.

Power Versus Empowerment

by Jerry Newcombe, D.Min

On the ballot are two different visions for America: government power vs. empowerment of people. The choice is ultimately between politicians who seek to confiscate and redistribute wealth (creating a perpetual underclass that’s dependent on government) on the one hand, or those who empower the individual on the other hand, enabling us each to work towards our God-given destiny.

Jesus wants us to help the poor and the underclass. Nothing helps them more than to help them become empowered themselves, living out their gifts and talents. In His classic parable of the talents, Jesus commends those who work hard with the talents He has entrusted to them, and He condemns the one who buried His talent in the ground. We should seek to help others to fulfill their calling. “A hand out” may be necessary in emergency situations, but “a hand up” is much better in the long run.

This power versus empowerment dichotomy can be seen in tax cuts. Tax cuts put money back in your pocket, instead of that of the government bureaucrat. Tax cuts empower we the people. But the political elitist class loses power through tax cuts. So they oppose them—even though liberal icon JFK, a proponent of tax cuts, said in reference to them that a rising tide lifts all boats.

A conservative believes that you are best qualified to take care of yourself and your family. A liberal believes that the government is best qualified to take care of you and your family. That’s the difference, plain and simple.

Dr. Ben Carson is a renowned neurosurgeon and currently serves as the head of the Department of Housing and Urban Department for President Trump.

He and his brother grew up in grinding poverty, in a housing development in Detroit with their single-parent mom.

But to help them break free from a life of dependence upon government, their mother insisted that each of them read a book a week in order to expand their lives (to empower them). She even forced them to write book reports on each of them for her perusal. Dr. Carson realized later she probably was not even literate enough to read those book reports, but they still produced them. Both brothers became well-educated and made something of their lives, because of her faith in the Lord and in them.

Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, our schools were shut down. Some have reopened. But in Los Angeles, the teachers’ union made a series of demands if the schools were to be reopened. Included in their mandates was that there be a moratorium on building new charter schools. Nothing like trying to squash your competitors.

Generally children thrive in alternative forms of schooling, such as private schools, charter schools, and home schools.

Parents in poor neighborhoods especially want to have school choice because it can empower their children to make something of their lives. But the teachers’ union sought to protect the power of its own members—rather than empower children and families.

College would seem to be a great place to become empowered—to learn things with which to make something of one’s life. But much of college education today is just politically correct indoctrination.

Victor Davis Hanson writes (7/23/20): “1960s student radicals graduated without much debt and for all their hipness could enter a booming economy with marketable skills. Today’s angry graduates owe a collective $1.6 trillion in student loan debt—much of it borrowed for mediocre, therapeutic, and politicized training that does not impress employers….In other words, today’s radical is far more desperate and angry that his college gambit never paid off.”

Those who become reliant on permanent government handouts ultimately develop a sense of entitlement—as if this money is owed them. How much better to train, to teach, to educate, to inspire, to motivate, than it is to keep people in perpetual reliance on the government, in exchange for their votes.

Steve Moore, the FreedomWorks economist, who worked for the Reagan administration and who has advised President Trump’s campaign, recorded a recent PragerU video (10/7/20). He points out: “Red state America is prospering. Blue state America is in meltdown. So where do you want to live?” For the most part, Red state America is engaged in trying to empower its citizens. The leaders in Blue state America are trying to cling to power—even using it to shut down churches and schools in the name of fighting the pandemic.

Here’s the kicker. While many on the left essentially want a perpetual underclass as their power base, everyone will one day die and give an account to our Maker as to what we did with our lives.

In Election 2020, there is a hidden issue on the ballot. That issue is which vision we choose to pursue: power for power’s sake or empowering as many citizens as want to be empowered for a better future.

https://www.djameskennedy.org/article-detail/power-versus-empowerment


Some Things Won’t Change

By Reverend Paul N. Papas II

June 29, 2021

July 4th comes every year. The actual events and documents which gave us Independence Day on July 4th don’t change. There is a current movement afoot which seeks to delete facts and history and replace it with a disturbingly negative story. This disturbingly negative story seeks to install their propaganda at every level of education, major media outlets, big corporations, and the military.

Our military will no longer be an efficient cohesive combination of various size, shapes, colors, and backgrounds of people under this disturbingly negative story. Simply put in a foxhole when enemy rounds are incoming the real care is that those in the foxhole have each others back. If the disturbingly negative story were implemented in the military members of the military would not trust each other and the enemy would overrun our military. We’d be defeated from within. (1)

The governing document of our country is shorter than many contracts, has no fine print and easy to read, see (2).The Constitution of the United States is the foundational document of our American Government. It lays out the system of Government and the limits what our government may and may not do. Some say the Constitution lists the rights of the American people. Our Rights come from God not the government. It is the people who establish the government and grant certain powers to their representatives and government to act in their stead.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”

A little spoken of Amendment to the Constitution, number Nine, supports the power is retained by the people.

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

The War of Independence against British was fought to free Americans from the tyranny of the British Monarchy who arbitrarily imposed rules, laws, regulations, and edicts without consultation or consent of the governed.

Americans endured an oppressive form of government under the British and formed a bottom up form of government, a Constitutional Republic. Oppressive governments rule by fear, fear they may displease the ruler. Fear, anxiety, depression, and suicide run rampant under oppressive governments. Summary executions with due process become common under oppressive governments.

The Constitution has three parts. The Preamble tells the purpose of the document and Government. The Articles set up how the Government is organized and how the Constitution can be changed. The Amendments are changes to the Constitution. The First Ten Amendments are called the Bill of Rights.

Any laws which violate the Constitution are void, can not be enforced, because they are UnConstitutional. The Constitution can not be changed by legislative or executive fiat.

Refuse to be bullied into the disturbingly negative story.

The Constitution and Bible when correctly applied are recipes for Freedom, Liberty, tranquility for all and Independence.

Have a Blessed, Safe, and Happy Independence.

(1) https://narrowpathministries.wordpress.com/2021/06/30/video-former-army-captain-purple-heart-recipient-sean-parnell-rips-joint-chiefs-chair-gen-mark-milley-for-defending-crt/

(2) http://founding.com/founders-library/government-documents/federal-government-documents/united-states-constitution-1789/


https://preacher01704.wordpress.com/2021/07/01/some-things-wont-change/



Related

https://freebeacon.com/elections/mcauliffe-calls-critical-race-theory-a-right-wing-conspiracy-his-union-ally-says-its-needed-to-teach-the-truth/

https://www.breitbart.com/education/2021/07/01/critical-race-theory-ground-zero-republican-glenn-youngkin-rallies-parents-in-loudoun-county-virginia/

%d bloggers like this: