A WordPress Blog-THE CHURCH MILITANT Ephesians 5:11-"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them". This Christian News Blog maintains a one stop resource of current news and reports of its own related to church, moral, spiritual, and related political issues, plus articles, and postings from other online discernment ministries, and media which share the aims to obey the biblical commands to shed light on and refute error, heresy, apostasy, cults, and spiritual abuse. ALL CONTENT FROM HTTPS://RATHEREXPOSETHEM.BLOGSPOT.COM MOVED TO THIS NEW BLOG, MAY 2020
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Freedom of expression is under more concerted attack than it has faced in years, and as the censorship efforts of Big Tech demonstrate, that attack is coming from the Left. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the American Library Association (ALA), and the anti-censorship group PEN America, however, would have you believe that the real threat is coming from the big, grey conservative machine that looms so large in far-Left propaganda. AP ran a story on Tuesday about these admirable warriors, entitled “Activism grows nationwide in response to school book bans.” It is, as you might expect, a near-total inversion of reality: what the Leftists in the story characterize as censorship is actually the effort of parents to roll back at least some of what the Left has done to transform American public schools into centers of Leftist indoctrination.
We are first introduced to a woman named Stephana Ferrell, who was moved to become politically active when her Florida county decided to remove a graphic novel entitled Gender Queer: A Memoir from the local high school’s library. “By winter break,” she says, “we realized this was happening all over the state and needed to start a project to rally parents to protect access to information and ideas in school.” Along with another parent, Ferrell then founded the Florida Freedom to Read Project, which labors to “keep or get back books that have gone under challenge or have been banned.”
This is a deft spin, but it’s a spin nonetheless. Ferrell and her ilk aren’t fighting against some entrenched conservative establishment that is banning books left and right that don’t conform to the MAGA worldview. There is, of course, no such establishment. There is, rather, an educational establishment that is wholly under the control of the Left, and that has been pushing to get books such as Gender Queer: A Memoir into schools in order to break down traditional morality even more than it is already. Some parents have taken it upon themselves to try to resist this effort. And now, for AP, as well as the ACLU, the ALA, the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC), PEN America, and others, they’re the censors.
The ACLU, PEN America, and the NCAC have been astroturfing this effort to strike back at the supposed censors. According to AP, the three groups “have been working with local activists, educators and families around the country, helping them ‘to prepare for meetings, to draft letters and to mobilize opposition,’ according to PEN America’s executive director, Suzanne Nossel.” These people are awash in cash: “The CEO of Penguin Random House, Markus Dohle, has said he will personally donate $500,000 for a book defense fund to be run in partnership with PEN. Hachette Book Group has announced ‘emergency donations’ to PEN, the NCAC, and the Authors Guild.”
These well-heeled activists also have the ACLU mounting legal battles for them, fighting the removal of books including Gender Queer. “The civil liberties union has also filed open records requests in Tennessee and Montana over book bans, and a warning letter in Mississippi against what it described as the ‘unconstitutionality of public library book bans.'” Vera Eidelman of the ACLU cited a 1982 Supreme Court case stating that “local school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books.”
The irony couldn’t be thicker. Local school boards, contrary to the impression that AP gives, are not hotbeds of reactionaries and anti-intellectual yahoos. Up until the recent book controversies, they were generally as dominated by Leftists as everything else in America today. Conservative parents are only fighting back now because they have begun to be aware of the effects of decades of Leftist domination of the educational establishment. The Leftist activists AP celebrates in its article aren’t fighting to get books defending the traditional family, arguing against the wisdom of encouraging and celebrating transgenderism, or praising Washington, Jefferson, and other Founding Fathers out of schools, because for the most part, those books aren’t there in the first place. The Leftist activists are just fighting to preserve the gains that the Left has made in recent years in the culture wars.
The AP article concludes by telling a story about how the Round Rock Black Parents Association in Texas fought to prevent Stamped: Racism, Antiracism, and You by Ibram X. Kendi and Jason Reynolds, a piece of race-hate agitprop, from being taken off middle school reading lists. A Leftist activist recounts proudly, “We had children speaking up in favor of this book, even though it was traumatic for some of them to read. We had everyone from middle school students to grandmothers and grandfathers stating their reasons why this should remain on the shelves. The board ended up voting in our favor and the book is still there.” Heartwarming.
Imagine, however, the outcry if a book calling for racial equality and arguing against Critical Race Theory had somehow gotten onto the curriculum in Round Rock. In the first place, that never would have happened at all. But if it did, there would be an outcry in the establishment media, the book would be removed, and that would be that. Censorship is usually the act of the powerful, silencing the powerless. The powerful in America’s schools today are all on the Left. AP’s propaganda won’t change that.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
As Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pulled out all the stops to quash the trucker protest against vaccine mandates, it became clear that democracy has been an illusion
For many years, the technocratic elite, with their global authoritarianism goals, have infiltrated governments around the world and pushed for surveillance and national security tools intended to suppress dissent
A key part of that dissent-crushing system is the surveillance apparatus that has been erected. While sold as a tool to hunt down dangerous criminals, its primary purpose is to stifle dissent among peaceful, law-abiding citizens. Financial warfare — banning people from using financial services — is another
Dissent is also stifled by applying criminal terms to those who disagree with the narrative. Case in point: "Anti-vaxxers" and anyone who disagrees with pandemic measures are now labeled domestic terrorists or domestic extremists. Using terms of criminality allows those in power to justify the use of unconstitutional repression and punishment
The U.S. must repeal both the Patriot Act and the new bio preparedness initiative, or else all privacy and freedom will be destroyed
As Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pulled out all the stops to quash the trucker protest against vaccine mandates, without ever having actually listened to their complaints, a truth emerged, clear as day. Democracy has been an illusion. That's the conclusion drawn by Canadian journalist Matthew Ehret in a February 18, 2022, Strategic Culture article.1
"Who would have thought that Canada would ever be a spark plug for a freedom movement against tyranny?" Ehret asks.
"Countless thousands of patriots have driven across the country to bunker down in Ottawa in peace and high festive spirits which I had to see with my own eyes to believe demanding something so simple and un-tainted by ideology: freedom to work, provide for families and a respect for basic rights as laid out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms ...
Mainstream media and political hacks have been working overtime to paint the Freedom convoy that converged on Ottawa on January 29 as an 'insurrectionist movement' full of 'white supremacists,' 'Russian stooges,' and 'Nazis' out to 'overthrow the government.'
Even the Bank of England's former governor (and World Economic Forum Trustee) Mark Carney chimed in on February 7 stating that 'this is sedition' and that 'those who are still helping to extend this occupation must be identified and punished to the full force of the law' ...
Faced with an organic civil rights movement of blue-collar truckers, farmers and tens of thousands of supporters who have convened on Canada's capital to demand a restoration of their basic freedoms, the current Liberal government has failed to show even an ounce of humanity or capacity to negotiate.
This shouldn't be a surprise for those who have seen the hypocrisy of neo-liberal 'rules-based' order ideologues in action over the past few years who are quick to celebrate the 'liberty' of citizens of Ukraine, Hong Kong, or Xinjiang when the outcome benefits the geopolitical aims of detached technocrats hungry for global hegemony.
The moment genuine self-organized labor movements arise demanding basic rights be recognized, then the masks come off and the rage of tyrants show their true faces."
Tyrants Are Showing Their True Colors
As reported by Ehret, the Deep State of Canada is now using the Emergency Measures Act to do precisely what Carney called for, namely identify and punish anyone who dares stand up for freedom.
The Act grants extraordinary powers to the banking industry to search people's social media accounts and private bank records and to seize the bank accounts of anyone suspected of supporting the Freedom Convoy, either in spirit or through online donations, including cryptocurrencies.
Victims will have no recourse, as the banks have been given full legal protection from lawsuits by those whose lives they destroy. Business owners in Canada who support freedom can also have their insurance policies canceled, and truckers can lose their drivers' licenses, either temporarily or permanently.
Still, the protesters did not give up. If anything, the threats appeared to have had the opposite effect. According to Ehret, the protestors were "renewing their commitments to remain in place," which they did until Trudeau sent in police2 to arrest protestors and tow their trucks.
While Trudeau remained dictatorial until the truckers had been cleared from the Parliament area, the political establishment, on the other hand, showed signs of cracking. Two Liberal Party members, MP Joel Lightbound and MP Yves Robillard broke with party ranks, calling for an end to the unpopular and unnecessary COVID measures.3 Then, finally, in a surprise turnabout, Trudeau buckled February 23, 2022, and said he would revoke the Emergencies Act he'd invoked earlier.4
On a global scale, the silence of leaders of democracies and republics around the world is as informative as Trudeau's power grab. By now, we would have expected leaders of the U.S., the U.K., France, and any number of others, to have stepped up to the microphone to denounce the Canadian government's actions.
But they haven't, and that tells you everything you need to know about where they stand on the issues of democracy and freedom. Worse, some have vocalized support for Trudeau's dictatorial actions.
In a February 10, 2022, tweet, Juliette Kayyem, former assistant secretary of Homeland Security under U.S. President Obama and a frequent CNN commentator, suggested the Canadian regime ought to slash the truckers' tires, empty their gas tanks, arrest the drivers, move the trucks, cancel their insurance, suspend their drivers' licenses and prohibit their recertification in the future. In her own words, "I will not run out of ways to make this hurt."5
The Illusion of Liberal Democracy Has Collapsed
As noted by Ehret, while we don't yet know how it will end, one thing we can be sure of is that "the illusion of liberal democracy ... has collapsed."6 That doesn't mean the globalist cabal will pack up their briefcases and retire. No, they're going to fight to stay in power until the bitter end.
But the hill they're standing on is getting steeper and slipperier by the day. Everyone can see that they're saying one thing and doing the complete opposite. You can't lay claim to being a defender of democracy, freedom, and equal rights for all while simultaneously declaring peaceful citizens the enemy of the state. It's just not credible. As noted by historically left-leaning journalist Glenn Greenwald:7
"When it comes to distant and adversarial countries, we are taught to recognize tyranny through the use of telltale tactics of repression. Dissent from orthodoxies is censored.
Protests against the state are outlawed. Dissenters are harshly punished with no due process. Long prison terms are doled out for political transgressions rather than crimes of violence. Journalists are treated as criminals and spies. Opposition to the policies of political leaders are recast as crimes against the state.
When a government that is adverse to the West engages in such conduct, it is not just easy but obligatory to malign it as despotic. Thus can one find, on a virtually daily basis, articles in the Western press citing the government's use of those tactics in Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela and whatever other countries the West has an interest in disparaging ...
That the use of these repressive tactics render these countries and their populations subject to autocratic regimes is considered undebatable. But when these weapons are wielded by Western governments, the precise opposite framework is imposed: describing them as despotic is no longer obligatory but virtually prohibited.
That tyranny exists only in Western adversaries but never in the West itself is treated as a permanent axiom of international affairs, as if Western democracies are divinely shielded from the temptations of genuine repression.
Indeed, to suggest that a Western democracy has descended to the same level of authoritarian repression as the West's official enemies is to assert a proposition deemed intrinsically absurd or even vaguely treasonous.
The implicit guarantor of this comforting framework is democracy. Western countries, according to this mythology, can never be as repressive as their enemies because Western governments are at least elected democratically. This assurance, superficially appealing though it may be, completely collapses with the slightest critical scrutiny."
The Dangers of Majority Despotism
As explained by Greenwald, the premise of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights is that "majoritarian despotism is dangerous in the extreme." "Despotism" means government in which a single entity rules with absolute power. Usually, this entity is an individual, but despotism can also arise out of majority rule.
It's interesting to note that while the Founding Fathers probably had no term for what we now know as the psychology of "mass formation," they were clearly aware of the dangers posed by an irrational majority.
As noted by Greenwald, "the Bill of Rights consists of little more than limitations imposed on the tyrannical measures majorities might seek to democratically enact."
For example, even if a majority of people agree that certain ideas and views should be criminalized, the Bill of Rights prohibits it. The Bill of Rights also prohibits the abolishment of religious freedom, even if a majority were to support it. Likewise, "life and liberty cannot be deprived without due process even if 9 out of 10 citizens favor doing so."
The Founding Fathers were clever enough to realize that majority rule can easily become just as destructively despotic as any dictatorship. Hence, they ensured that individual freedoms were enshrined in such a way that even if you're the last person in the country who wants to practice religion, you have the right to do so. The majority cannot take that away from you.
Waking Up to Reality as It Is
Greenwald goes on to explain how the signs of tyranny in the West have been evident for well over a decade. We just weren't paying attention. Only now, as we stare tyranny in the face first-hand, are we starting to really see it for what it is:
"The decade-long repression of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, standing alone, demonstrates how grave neoliberal attacks on dissent have become. Many are aware of key parts of this repression ... but have forgotten or, due to media malfeasance, never knew several of the most extreme aspects.
While the Obama DOJ under Attorney General Eric Holder failed to find evidence of criminality after convening a years-long Grand Jury investigation, the then-Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), succeeded in pressuring financial services companies such as MasterCard, Visa, PayPal and Bank of America to terminate WikiLeaks' accounts and thus banish them from the financial system, choking off their ability to receive funds from supporters or pay their bills.
Lieberman and his neocon allies also pressured Amazon to remove WikiLeaks from its hosting services, causing the whistleblower group to be temporarily offline.
All of that succeeded in crippling WikiLeaks' ability to operate despite being charged with no crime: indeed, as the DOJ admitted, it could not prove that the group committed any crimes, yet this extra-legal punishment was nonetheless meted out.
Those tactics pioneered against WikiLeaks — excluding dissenters from the financial system and coercing tech companies to deny them internet access without a whiff of due process — have now become standard weapons. Trudeau's government seizes and freezes bank accounts with no judicial process.
The 'charity' fundraising site GoFundMe first blocked the millions of dollars raised for the truckers and announced it would redirect those funds to other charities, then refunded the donations when people pointed out, rightly, that their original plan amounted to a form of stealing. When an alternative fundraising site, GiveSendGo, raised millions more for the truckers, Canadian courts blocked its distribution."
Greenwald also highlights how American politicians have pressured Big Tech monopolies and the financial system to act as a joint censorship arm of government. Blocking people and companies from being able to use servers and financial transaction services have been key strategies to silence critical voices.
Why Assange Was Targeted
According to Greenwald, Assange's capture was precipitated by his denouncement of the Spanish government's violence against citizens of Catalonia in 2017 and 2019. Catalonia wanted autonomy from the Madrid-based Spanish government, and the government responded with shocking force.
"Spain treated the activists not as domestic protesters exercising their civic rights but as terrorists, seditionists and insurrectionists," Greenwald writes. "Violence was used to sweep up Catalans in mass arrests, and their leaders were charged with terrorism and sedition and given lengthy prison sentences."
Assange did not actually express support for Catalonian independence. He objected to the Spanish government's violent assault on civil liberties. This was why Ecuador rescinded Assange's asylum and handed him over to British authorities in April 2020. Since then, Assange has been held in a high-security prison in Belmarsh, even though he's never been convicted of a crime.
"All of this reflects, and stems from, a clear and growing Western intolerance for dissent," Greenwald writes.8 "This last decade of history is crucial to understand the dissent-eliminating framework that has been constructed and implemented in the West. This framework has culminated, thus far, with the stunning multi-pronged attacks on Canadian truckers by the Trudeau government.
But it has been a long time in the making, and it is inevitable that it will find still-more extreme expressions. It is, after all, based in the central recognition that there is mass, widespread anger and even hatred toward the neoliberal ruling class throughout the West."
Surveillance Apparatus Was Created to Crush Dissent
In response to the growing anger against the ruling class, the technocratic cabal has "opted for force, a system that crushes all forms of dissent as soon as they emerge in anything resembling an effective, meaningful or potent form," Greenwald notes.
A key part of that dissent-crushing system is the surveillance apparatus that has been erected all around us.9 While sold as a tool to hunt down dangerous criminals, we've come to realize that rarely is the system ever used to go after true criminals. Instead, it's used to identify people who disagree with a given narrative. Its primary purpose is to stifle dissent among citizens.
As noted by the ACLU,10 while most Americans think the Patriot Act's surveillance powers are there to facilitate the identification and roundup of terrorists, it "actually turns regular citizens into suspects." Dissent is also stifled by applying criminal terms to those who disagree with the narrative. Case in point: "Anti-vaxxers" and anyone who disagrees with pandemic measures are now labeled domestic terrorists or domestic extremists. As noted by Greenwald:
"Applying terms of criminality renders justifiable any subsequent acts of repression: we are trained to accept that core liberties are forfeited upon the commission of crimes. What is most notable, though, is that this alleged criminality is not adjudicated through judicial proceedings — with all the accompanying protections of judges, juries, rules of evidence and requirements of due process — but simply by decree ...
Few things are more dangerous than a political leader who convinces themselves that they are so benevolent and well-intentioned that anything they do is inherently justified in light of their noble character and their enlightened ends ...
Within the logical world where one is convinced that they really are fighting a white nationalist, fascistic, insurrectionary global movement to overthrow liberal democracy, then all the weapons we were long taught to view as despotic suddenly become ennobled ...
And it is through this self-glorifying tale which Western neoliberals are telling themselves that they have become exactly what they shrilly insist they are battling."
We Must Repeal the Patriot Act and Pandemic Powers
In September 2021, the White House announced a $65 billion bio preparedness initiative as part of the Biden administration's Build Back Better plan.11 As I've explained in many previous articles, Build Back Better is part and parcel of The Great Reset, which in turn is a technocrat-led attempt to implement global authoritarianism. As reported by Biospace:12
"The first goal is to transform medical defense, including an improvement and expansion of vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics against known threats, and lay the groundwork for unknown pathogens ... Secondly, the plan calls for ensuring 'situational awareness' regarding infectious disease threats. This includes early warning and real-time monitoring of these viral threats."
In a nutshell, what this bio preparedness initiative entails is more invasive biosurveillance — meaning, the monitoring of your internal biology. Right now, claims that government wants to monitor people down to their body chemistry will earn you the title of a paranoid conspiracy theorist, yet the writing is on the wall. That's where we're headed, even if we're not there yet.
I believe the U.S. must repeal both the Patriot Act and the bio preparedness initiative, or else all privacy and freedom will be destroyed.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
If you’re wondering how we’ll ever put an end to these draconian COVID-19 mandates that are destroying lives and sanity across the world, take heart. History can serve us in this regard
Over 135 years ago, in 1885, England became the host to a massive anti-vaccination movement that ultimately resulted in people overturning the government’s compulsory vaccination rule
Tens of thousands of people took to the streets in opposition to compulsory smallpox vaccinations. Many were fined and jailed, but in the end, the government relented and abolished the mandate
The trucker protest in Canada and elsewhere is almost identical to what happened during smallpox vaccination campaigns more than a century ago when mass protests and peaceful disobedience broke the government’s tyrannical hold
The Leicester Model was proven successful in the wake of that 1885 anti-vaccination protest and has been standard ever since. By quarantining infected patients and improving public hygiene, smallpox was finally eradicated
If you’re wondering how we’ll ever put an end to these draconian COVID-19 mandates that are destroying lives and sanity across the world, take heart. History can serve us in this regard. The parallels between the COVID-19 pandemic and its countermeasures that of previous smallpox pandemics are fascinating to behold, and therein we can also find the answer to our current predicament.
Smallpox, a highly infectious and disfiguring illness with a fatality rate of around 30%,1 has been with us for many centuries, probably thousands of years. During the last four centuries, forced mass vaccination has been a recurring countermeasure relied on by the government during these kinds of outbreaks, often with devastating results, and there have always been large portions of society that opposed it.
In the 1700s, Boston, Massachusetts, was hit by a series of outbreaks, and the introduction of a vaccine led to violent rebellion by those who believed it was dangerous and a violation of God’s will. Local newspapers were rife with disputes for and against the vaccine.2
The hypodermic needle had not yet been invented at this time, so the vaccination consisted of rubbing some cowpox pus into an open wound on the arm. Dr. Zabdiel Boylston, who introduced the inoculation at the urgings of Rev. Cotton Mather, was forced into hiding and was eventually arrested. Mather’s home was firebombed.
In 1862, it was Los Angeles, California’s turn. Compulsory vaccination was again rolled out, and anyone who refused was subject to arrest. Infected people were terrified of being forcibly quarantined in a “pest house,” miles outside the city limits, and for good reason. It was a place where you were dumped to die, with not so much as a bedsheet for comfort.3
The Anti-Vaccination Rebellion of 1885
In the decades to come, smallpox outbreaks were occurring all over the world, and forced inoculation was typically the answer, even though it had its own risks. In 1885, England became the host to a massive anti-vaccination movement that ultimately resulted in people overturning the government’s compulsory vaccination rule.
As reported by the BBC, December 28, 2019, mere weeks before COVID-19 was declared a global pandemic:4
“In the late 19th Century, tens of thousands of people took to the streets in opposition to compulsory smallpox vaccinations. There were arrests, fines and people were even sent to jail. Banners were brandished demanding ‘Repeal the Vaccination Acts, the curse of our nation’ and vowing ‘Better a felon's cell than a poisoned babe.’ Copies of hated laws were burned in the streets and the effigy was lynched of the humble country doctor who was seen as to blame for the smallpox prevention program.”
A Substack user going by the moniker “A Midwestern Doctor”5,6 details this part of history, explaining why it matters to us today. He writes:7
“What is occurring now in Canada and other places is almost identical to what happened with the smallpox vaccination campaigns over a century ago, and I believe it is critical we understand these lessons from the past and it is vital this message gets out to the Truckers.
Briefly, the original smallpox vaccine was an unusually harmful vaccination that was never tested before being adopted. It increased, rather than decreased smallpox outbreaks. As the danger and inefficacy became known, increasing public protest developed towards vaccination. Yet, as smallpox increased, governments around the world instead adopted more draconian mandatory vaccination policies.
Eventually, one of the largest protests of the century occurred in 1885 in Leicester (an English city). Leicester’s government was replaced, mandatory vaccination abolished, and public health measures rejected by the medical community were implemented. These measures were highly successful, and once adopted globally ended the smallpox epidemic, something most erroneously believe arose from vaccination.”
The alternative countermeasure implemented in Leicester involved quarantining infected people and notifying anyone who’d been in close contact with the patient. They also used “ring vaccination” in which hospital workers who took care of infected patients had been inoculated.8
As a result, when smallpox broke out again between 1892 and 1894, Leicester got off lightly, with a case rate of 20.5 cases per 10,000. In all, the town had 370 cases and 21 deaths — far lower than the towns of Warrington and Sheffield, where vaccination rates were high.
On the other hand, there were well-vaccinated areas that had lower case rates and fewer deaths, and areas with low vaccination rates that also fared worse in this regard, so vaccination was probably not the determining factor either way.
In 1898, the U.K. implemented a new law that allowed people to opt-out of vaccination for moral reasons. As reported by the BBC, this was “the first time ‘conscientious objection’ was recognized in U.K. law.”9 Now, we have to fight to regain that right yet again, all around the world.
Dissolving Illusions
“A Midwestern Doctor”10 goes on to discuss Dr. Suzanne Humphries’ 2009 book, “Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History,” in which she shatters the notion that vaccines (and certain other medical interventions) have been single-handedly responsible for improved health and increased life spans. As a nephrologist (kidney specialist), Humphries noticed a pattern among her patients.
Many who experienced kidney injury or kidney failure had recently received a flu vaccine. It was a singular common denominator. So, she began to challenge the hospital’s routine practice of vaccinating patients. Humphries was roundly ignored and was ultimately forced to leave. The book grew out of her frustration with people who insisted that vaccines had eliminated scourges like polio and smallpox. Once she delved into the research, what she found was something else entirely.
With regard to smallpox and smallpox vaccination, living conditions during the industrial revolution were horrid. Plagues and infectious outbreaks were commonplace, not because of insufficient vaccination, but because sanitation was near-nonexistent and people, including children, were overworked and underfed. Early progressives believed deadly plagues could be prevented by improving living and working conditions, and they were correct.
We know this because other plagues for which there were no vaccines disappeared right along with smallpox and polio. While the medical industry eventually embraced vaccination, and increasingly over time treated it as something that could not be contested or questioned, Humphries’ book details the opposition.
Smallpox Opposition
As it turns out, many doctors have spoken out against smallpox vaccination and published data demonstrating its dangers. For example:11
In 1799, Dr. Woodville, after having administered the vaccination to many children, stated that “in several instances, the cowpox has proved a very severe disease. In three or four cases out of 500, the patient has been in considerable danger, and one child actually died.”
In 1809, the medical observer reported more than a dozen cases of often fatal smallpox, contracted as long as a year post-vaccination. The 1810 medical observer contained 535 cases of smallpox after vaccination (97 of which were fatal), and 150 cases of severe vaccine injuries.
An 1817 London Medical Repository Monthly Journal and Review reported that many who received the smallpox vaccination were still getting sick with smallpox.
In 1818, Thomas Brown, a surgeon of 30 years and ardent proponent of vaccination, after vaccinating 1,200 people stated: “The accounts from all quarters of the world, wherever vaccination has been introduced … the cases of failures are now increased to an alarming proportion.”
In 1829, The Lancet described a recent smallpox outbreak, stating: “It attacked many who had had smallpox before, and often severely; almost to death; and of those who had been vaccinated, it left some alone, but fell upon great numbers.”
In 1845 George Gregory M.D. reported: “In the 1844 smallpox epidemic, about one-third of the vaccinated contracted a mild form of smallpox, but roughly 8% of those vaccinated still died, and nearly two-thirds had severe disease.”
In 1829, William Cobbett, a farmer, journalist, and English pamphleteer, wrote: “Why, that in hundreds of instances, persons cow-poxed by JENNER HIMSELF have taken the real small-pox afterward, and have either died from the disorder, or narrowly escaped with their lives!”
An 1850 letter to the Hampshire Telegraph and Sussex Chronicle claimed there were more admissions to the London Small-Pox Hospital in 1844 than during the smallpox epidemic of 1781 before vaccination began, and that one-third of the deaths from smallpox were in people who had previously been vaccinated.
The Moving Goal Post
Once it became clear that the smallpox vaccine was incapable of providing long-lasting immunity as initially promised, the medical profession moved the goal post and started justifying vaccination on the basis that it could protect against more severe illness, even if it couldn’t provide lifelong “perfect” immunity the way recovering from the infection could.
This has been a basic mantra ever since, and we’ve gotten a double dose of it during this COVID pandemic. Within months, the goal post was switched from “two doses are near-100% effective,” to “two doses wear off in six months and leave you more vulnerable to severe illness thereafter.” Some bargain!
Corruption of Vital Statistics Protect Vaccination Narrative
What’s worse, the trend of not reporting vaccine injuries due to “allegiance to the practice,” as noted by Henry May in the Birmingham Medical Review in January 1874, has continued unabated. According to May, vaccinated people who died were typically recorded as having died from some other condition, or were erroneously listed as “unvaccinated.”12 As noted by “A Midwestern Doctor”:13
“This corruption of the vital statistics creates many challenges in assessing the efficacy of immunization, and is also why many authors have noted no metric can be used to assess COVID-19 immunizations except total number of deaths (independent of cause) as this cannot be fudged.
Of note, a different significant overlap exists with the early polio campaigns (also detailed within ‘Dissolving Illusions’), where ‘polio’ diagnostic criteria was repeatedly adjusted to meet the political need for polio cases.
Governments responded to this skepticism by progressively using more and more force to mandate vaccination. Vaccination was made compulsory in England in 1853, with stricter laws passed in 1867. In the United States, Massachusetts created a set of comprehensive vaccination laws in 1855 (which created the Supreme Court case Jacobson v. Massachusetts a case that is frequently cited about state enforced vaccination).
Lemuel Shattuck emphasized the need for vaccination and pushed for house-to-house vaccination to be enforced by the authority of the City of Boston in an 1856 report, also noting ‘The City has already provided that no unvaccinated child shall be admitted into the public schools.’
A situation emerged I term the ‘Vaccine positive feedback cycle.’ Keep in mind that most systems in nature are instead negative feedback systems. In these, when something occurs, it self-corrects the system and turns it off rather than accelerating it, as occurs in a positive feedback system. The cycle is as follows:
A concerning disease exists.
↓
Immunization is cited as a potential solution to the problem.
↓
An immunization campaign is conducted and makes the problem worse.
↓
As the problem is now worse, the need for immunizations to address it increases and another campaign is conducted.
↓
This makes the problem worse.
↓
This increases the need for more aggressive measures to increase immunization.
↓
This makes the problem worse and further perpetuates the cycle, before long leading to very questionable governmental policies designed to force unwilling parties to vaccinate.
The underlying drivers of this process seem to be an unquestionable faith in vaccination, a conviction dating back to the days of smallpox, that vaccinating an ever-increasing proportion of the population through vaccination can end epidemics (now termed herd immunity), and the government having limited options to address the issue besides immunizations and governmental force.”
The Effects of Forced Smallpox Vaccinations
“A Midwestern Doctor” continues describing the effects of the government’s insistence of forced smallpox vaccination:14
“In accordance the positive feedback cycle, these results were found everywhere. Within the United States, as smallpox worsened in Boston, in 1855, the government made enacted strict enforcement of vaccination.
It was followed by the epidemics of 1859-1860, 1864-1865, 1867 (these were all similar in size to earlier epidemics), and then infamous 1872-1873 epidemic which dwarfed all previous epidemics (proving fatal to 1040 persons, at a rate of 280 deaths per 100,000 people).
By the end of 1868, more than 95% of the inhabitants of Chicago had been vaccinated. After the Great Fire of 1871 ... strict vaccine laws were passed, and vaccination was made a condition of receiving relief supplies. Chicago was then hit with a devastating smallpox epidemic in 1872 where over 2,000 persons contracted smallpox, with over 25% dying, and the fatality rate among children under 5 being the highest ever recorded.
A 1900 medical article discussed vaccination in three European nations. In England, of 9392 small-pox patients in London hospitals, 6,854 had been vaccinated and 17.5% of the 9,392 died.
In Germany ‘official returns show that between 1870 and 1885 one million vaccinated persons died from small-pox.’ In France, ‘every recruit that enters the French army is vaccinated. During the Franco-Prussian war there 23,469 cases of small-pox in that army.’
An 1888 article in the Encyclopedia Britannica describing Prussia’s strict vaccination practices throughout the population (including mandatory re-vaccination for school pupils), noted: ‘Notwithstanding the fact that Prussia was the best revaccinated (boosted) country in Europe, its mortality from smallpox in the epidemic of 1871 was higher (59,839) than in any other northern state.’”
Other countries reported the same smallpox trends, including Italy and Japan, where smallpox death rates after successful vaccination campaigns were unprecedented. Vaccine injuries, including deaths, were also common. It is shocking how closely the miserable failures of the smallpox vaccines mirror the COVID jabs.
One of the most common causes of death after smallpox vaccination was erysipelas, a painful bacterial skin disease. An 1890 Encyclopedia Britannica article reported that smallpox vaccination had triggered a disastrous epidemic of erysipelas. Other side effects included jaundice, syphilis, tuberculosis, eczema vaccinatum (a rare and lethal skin condition).
Massive Historic Public Protests Over 135 Years Ago
As skepticism of and opposition against smallpox vaccination grew, enforcement increased. Vaccine refusers were fined, jailed and sometimes vaccinated by force. Parents were even forced to vaccinate their second child even if the first one died from the inoculation. Intermittently, riots would break out. A Midwestern Doctor details what happened next:15
“In 1884, 5,000 court summons had been issued against the unvaccinated, a case load that completely overloaded the court system. Letters in local newspaper at this time revealed widespread disdain for the irrationality of the procedure and the medical profession’s steadfast defense of a dangerous practice that had clearly failed over the last 80 years.
Tensions reached a boiling point and on March 23, 1885, a large protest estimated at 80,000 to 100,000 people erupted. It was composed of citizens of all professions from across England and receive support from citizens across Europe who could not attend it.
The procession was 2 miles long, with displays showing the popular sentiments against vaccination present throughout the crowd. The demonstration was successful, and the local government acceded to and acknowledged their demands for liberty. Many of the description of this protest (and the jubilant mood there) are extremely similar to reports I have read of the Trucker's protest.
Mr. Councilor Butcher of Leicester addressed the protest and spoke of the growing opinion that the best way to get rid of smallpox and deadly infectious diseases was to use plenty of water, eat good food, live in light and airy houses, while it was the municipality’s duty to keep the streets clean and the sewers in order. He emphasized that if this was not done, it was unlikely any act of Parliament or vaccination could prevent the diseases.
That year, following the protest, the government was replaced, mandates were terminated, and by 1887 vaccination coverage rates had dropped to 10%. To replace the vaccination model, the Leicester activists proposed a system of immediately quarantining smallpox patients, disinfection of their homes and quarantining of their contacts alongside improving public sanitation.
The medical community vehemently rejected this model, and zealously predicted Leicester’s ‘gigantic experiment’ would soon result in a terrible ‘massacre,’ especially in the unprotected children, who were viewed by government physicians as ‘bags of gunpowder’ that could easily blow up schools (along with much other hateful and hyperbolic rhetoric directed at them).
This smallpox apocalypse would forever serve as a lesson against vaccine refusal the medical profession bet their stake upon. [But] the predicted catastrophe failed to emerge and Leicester had dramatically lower rates of smallpox in subsequent epidemics than other fully vaccinated towns (ranging from 1/2 to 1/32).
Various rationalizations were put forward to explain this, but as the decades went by, a gradual public acceptance of Leicester’s methods emerged, but even 30 years later, a New York Times article still predicted a disaster was right around the corner and it was imperative Leicester change their methods.
Fortunately, the value of Leicester’s novel approach of quarantining and improvement public hygiene was recognized and gradually adopted around the world, leading to the eventual eradication of smallpox.”
Keep in mind that these protests occurred when the population was much lower, so as a percentage of the population it was much higher. In 1885, the U.K. population was only 36,015,500,16 so a protest with 100,000 was just under 0.3% of the entire population. As of February 16, 2022, today’s U.K. population is 68,471,390,17 so to match that protest, percentage-wise, about 205,400 would have to hit the streets.
History Repeats Itself
Those who don’t know their history are bound to repeat it, and it seems that’s precisely what we’ve allowed to occur in the past two years. Many doctors predicted and warned that the pandemic would be prolonged and worsened by rolling out non-sterilizing vaccines (i.e., vaccines that do not prevent infection and transmission). And that’s precisely what we’ve witnessed.
Predictions of devastating side effects have also come true. And, as resistance to the shots grew, draconian mandates followed. History tells us forced vaccination is not the answer. History also tells us how to get out from underneath a tyrannical government’s insistence on forced vaccination.
The answer is peaceful noncompliance. The answer is standing together, en masse, and saying “No more. Enough.” The truckers in Canada, the U.S., Belgium, and elsewhere have the right idea, and the rest of us need to join and support them, in any way we can.
“Like the smallpox vaccination campaigns, the COVID-19 immunization campaign has been so egregious it has inspired a large global protest movement with the large scale current protests being very similar to those that occurred 135 years ago,” A Midwestern Doctor writes.18
“My hope is that this movement can remember the lessons from the past and carry them forward to now so a future generation does not have to repeat our mistakes.”
If you want to learn more about the fraud of all vaccines, I would encourage you to carefully review Suzanne Humphries’ excellent book, “Dissolving Illusions.” In my view, it is the best book out there on the subject.
WATCH: Dad Says There's No Racism Here —Except From the Government and Media
Rumble — A North Carolina dad dropped by his local school board meeting to speak about CRT, gender ideology, and more. Love seeing moms and dads showing up to speak up for the kids.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
CRT got blown away by a massive truth bomb dropped by North Carolina dad — and local GOP candidate — Brian Echevarria at his school board meeting on Monday.
“As a parent, I speak to other parents,” he told Cabarrus County School Board members, “And there are a few things we don’t want.”
“I’m biracial, I’m multilingual, I’m multicultural. The fact is in America and North Carolina, I can do anything I want — and I teach that to my children. And the person who tells my little pecan-color kids that they’re somehow oppressed based on the color of their skin,” he justly insisted, “would be absolutely wrong and absolutely at war with me.”
Echevarria started off by thanking the board for passing a non-discrimination resolution but quickly segued into a now-viral attack against what he calls the “big fat lie” of critical race theory.
“What the masks showed us is the parents, the most powerful group in the country, [are] taking back the wheel.”
What a great dad.
He isn’t alone, either. As I reported for PJ Media VIP supporters, three “woke” school board members didn’t just lose a recall election in San Francisco on Tuesday, they lost by a jaw-dropping three-to-one margin.
Parents everywhere are waking up to the wokeness, and insisting that teachers teach the three Rs, rather than the poison of CRT.
CRT, Echevarria says, teaches children to “look at your black neighbor and say they’re oppressed and you look at your white neighbor and say they’re evil — regardless of the experience you’ve had with them.”
If Echevarria was looking to jumpstart his campaign, I can’t think of a better or more timely way to do it.
“Parents Have Rights,” in fact, is the first issue listed on his campaign website.
Echevarria is running as a Republican in North Carolina House 73rd district, and with his ability to garner positive attention with a strong and timely message, he might not stop there.
Watch the whole thing. It might be the best three minutes you’ll spend all day.
If candidates like Echevarria are becoming the new face of the GOP, it’s a welcome change from the pre-Trump stodginess and timidity we’d all grown far too accustomed to.
Words are traps for the unwary. In the hands of the adept proselytizer, they can kill a person just as assuredly as a bullet through the brain, a knife through the heart, or a potassium cyanide capsule in the stomach.
But words are more facile than guns, knives, or potassium cyanide. For words target the mind. They target the thoughts of men.
In the hands of the skilled practitioner, words can sway the emotions, or stir the intellect. They can educate or indoctrinate. They can confuse or elucidate. They can inspire a person to act in a beneficial direction or can propel a person to rabid violence. They can motivate or demotivate. They can instill confidence and self-assurance or infuse timidity, passivity, and anxiety. They can generate pride of self and Country; or they can engender self-loathing and repudiation of the nobility of Self and Country.
Malicious, malevolent forces that crush nations know this, of course. In the age of the Smartphone and Social Media, these forces can reach billions of people in nanoseconds, and they have done so; and continue to do so: incessantly, noxiously, ramping up their messaging, and clamping down on dissent.
Americans, especially, need to be cognizant of this, as the Nation is rapidly approaching an inflection point: The United States either survives as a true Free Constitutional Republic that the founders of our Republic gave us, or falls into ruin, never again to rise in prominence; never again to exist as a small bright beacon of hope and freedom in a broad, dark, dank strife-ridden world.
The Country is at a dichotomous point in its history.
The American people can, through a stout heart and a firm grip on their firearms, rekindle a zest in freedom and liberty—the rallying cry against the forces of tyranny.
Or they can return to a state of internment, succumbing to defeatism fear, and doubt, constantly projected by the Deep State Globalist instigators and agitators of the Rothschild dynasty.
Since the earliest days of the Republic, the Rothschild internationalist banking dynasty expected to obtain and maintain complete control over the North American continent, and that included control over the English colonies in America, as their end-goal was and is world domination. That was always in their sight. The colonists didn’t much care to be a part of the Rothschilds’ game plan. They had other plans: freedom from tyranny and their Declaration of Independence from Tyranny made that singular aim crystal clear to those whose objective was and is the destruction of the Republic and the emergence of a one-world government, grounded on the tenets of Collectivism.
Rothschilds’ first attempt at subjugating the American colonies was transparent and overt: the American Revolutionary War.
Through its command of King George’s immense military, the banking dynasty sought to bring quickly to heel what it perceived as a mere ragtag band of malcontented colonists. That didn’t go so well. The Rothschild dynasty and their stooge, George III, lost control of the colonies.
The physical loss of the colonies was painful enough for the Rothschild dynasty and for its principal toadies, King George III and the English Parliament.
But more painful to the Rothschilds and for their stooges was the personal affront to their egos. So, from the nascent days of the American Republic, the Rothschild dynasty plotted, schemed, and machinated to bring the United States to its knees. And, in the ensuing years, they decided on a different tack to destroy the Country. They conjured up, and through the passing years and decades, they refined an entirely new plan to retake the Country.
As overt use of the British military to defeat America’s patriots failed, the Rothschilds devised a covert plan. This one would take a goodly amount of time, money, and organizational ability, all of which they had and now their descendants have in marked abundance. They implemented a plan to destroy the Nation from within.
The Rothschilds took under their wing a new and massive collection of underlings, situating them throughout the Federal & State Governments, Courts, and the Federal Reserve. They showered these sociopaths and rank opportunists with money and the trappings of power and let them loose on the Nation.
The Rothschilds found it far easier to consolidate their power over and eventually did take control over, great swathes of western Europe. This included control of a few Baltic States as well, resulting in the creation of a new political, social, economic, and juridical structure: the European Union. But even as they controlled the Commonwealth Nations and even as they gained control over the EU, the prize jewel for them was and is the United States.
The demoralization and debasement of the American people and the dismantling of the Republic remained, always, their first and primary focus.
And, as the U.S. in time grew increasingly more powerful economically, militarily, geopolitically, and technologically, the Rothschild’s appetite for unfettered control over “the colonies” grew exponentially as well.
They intend to remake and control all of western civilization, carving out their share of a world empire be controlled by them and Communist China. The Rothschilds’ share of the spoils would include the remains of all western nation-states. And, since the turn of the 21st Century, both they and their minions have instituted a particularly vicious and virulent, all-encompassing campaign to destroy the sovereignty and independence of these nation-states. But they don’t just talk of a “new world order.”
No! The catchword for world domination is cloaked in a seemingly innocuous phrase: “the Open Society.”
The Rothschilds appointed their darling child, gun-control’s super-financier, George Soros, to oversee this Herculean task to fuse western nation-states into a new world order, referred to euphemistically as the “Open Society,” to hide its sinister plot for world domination. Dig deep and you find the name George Soros plastered all over this Open Society effort.
The Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution has no place in the opprobrious Rothschild/Soros Open Society. The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution has no place in a colossal world empire that seeks to control the lives of billions of people; must control such large masses of people if it is not to fall of its own ponderous weight. Such an enterprise requires unity of thought and expression of all people.
There is no place in such a world for individual expression; no place for privacy. And there certainly is no place in such a world for armed citizens who prefer to control their own destiny, free from Government interference; free from military and police harassment; free from the all-seeing eye of a colossal intelligence apparatus. And, the inklings of the positioning and emplacement of this mammoth beast overlaid on our free Constitutional Republic and on all western countries are all around us.
About The Arbalest Quarrel:
Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.
New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- The Deep State & Globalist stooges in Government and in the legacy Press and media constantly talk of “Democracy”— bantering endlessly that only the “Democrat Party” is intent on preserving it. Yet, they never bother to explain what they mean by it, even as they lavish attention on it. But what is really going on here?
These stooges constantly claim they are all for “democracy; and that they and they alone are the only protectors of it. And they dare anyone who might object to what surely comes across as mere pretension when they mention ‘democracy.”
Yet, think about what these imbeciles don’t say when they go on and on about it. They never mention the word ‘freedom’ in association with it. They never mention ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ in the same breath. In fact, they don’t mention the word, ‘freedom’ at all. And why is that? Might it be that ‘freedom’ is not something they want; that it isn’t a thing they adhere to, and that it’s not something they wish others to adhere to either.
Why would these “Democrats” object to “freedom,” and why would they vigorously attempt to dissolve man’s natural bond to it? Indeed!
Do you think this might have something to do with their concern over Americans’ exercise of their fundamental natural rights?
In fact, “freedom” is tied up with and inextricably bound to natural laws rights of the people—those that are enumerated in the first Eight Amendments of the Bill of Rights, and those unenumerated rights as exemplified in the Ninth Amendment.
Recall that the Antifederalists demanded that the U.S. Constitution provide explicit expression of the rights of the American people.
The Federalists objected, concerned that, if a Bill of Rights delineated a set certain of specific rights, then a strong, centralized “federal” government might henceforth claim, one day, the natural rights of the American people must be limited to the rights specifically enumerated, and they must ever refrain from asserting an unalienable right that has not been enumerated.
But, the Antifederalists, for their part, knew that, if natural law rights of the people were not explicitly etched in stone, then a strong, centralized federal government could, and would, eventually, invariably, one day deny, to the people, exercise of any right that government did not deign to bestow to them.
Tyranny is the natural state of Government. The history of the actions of governments, regimes, and empires against the populace, going back to antiquity, is laden with evidence of that. The very struggle of America’s colonists, the Nation’s first Patriots, attests to the tenacity, voraciousness, and virulence of Tyranny.
The Antifederalists’ concern has been shown to be entirely reasonable and justified.
For, even as founders of a new Nation struggled to construct a Government that would be able to resist the intrusion of future tyranny, they knew that tyranny would always sit at the doorstep of the Nation. They understood the forces that they had defeated would soon resume the conflict. And the Nation’s Patriots must have contemplated the next attempt to insinuate tyranny would be surreptitious and devious.
Assisted from the outside, they contemplated that malevolent forces would attempt to subvert the will of the people from the inside.
The only hope for America to preserve the gain of freedom won through a Revolution fought more than two centuries ago, is to hold tight to their natural law rights—those rights that the would-be destroyers of our Nation, both inside and outside the Country, have struggled mightily to constrain. These forces know full well that, as long, as Americans have the capacity and will to exercise their natural God-given rights, the Nation cannot fall. Yet, these forces that crush entire nations have made substantial inroads against this Nation in their effort to undercut and, in one case, even curtail exercise of some of those natural law rights.
Americans have all but lost the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The attack on the fundamental rights of free speech and the freedom of association (an attendant right of freedom of speech) are under siege, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, and has been, for decades, under vigorous assault.
Had these rights not been explicitly delineated, the American people would have lost, long ago, any vestige of their once free Constitutional Republic. Those who presently control Congress and the vast and powerful police, military, and judicial apparatuses of the Executive Branch of Government do not accept the reality and legitimacy of natural law rights. They categorically reject any notion of laws that stand beyond their power to create, modify, and rescind at will. Thus, the Bill of Rights, a set of natural law rights, existent in man before the inception of Government, serves as a perpetual annoyance for them.
The Antifederalists dealt with the thorny issue presented by the Federalists, among them—those who were against the creation of an express, but limited, set of natural law rights—by adding a Ninth Amendment. The Ninth Amendment states, plainly and succinctly that,
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The very presence of the Ninth Amendment buttresses the ineluctability of the first Eight. And the presence of the first Eight points to the illimitability and impenetrability of the essence of the Divine Creator. Through time, the Divine Creator will manifest through man further obligatory, eternal natural law rights that, at present rest, behind the veil of inscrutability that further elucidate the sanctity and inviolability of man’s Spirit and Soul.
And what are the American people to make of the Tenth Amendment? The Tenth Amendment says,
“‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’
The Tenth Amendment is the principal expression of federalism, an assertion that the Federal Government shares power and authority with the States and the people. But it is also an expression of autonomy and sovereignty of the people over Government, both State and Federal. This idea, rarely mentioned, is, nonetheless, made explicit in Justice Clarence Thomas’ well-reasoned and amplified dissent in the case, United States Term Limits vs. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1994).
The case involved whether the people of Arkansas can amend their State Constitution concerning the State’s electoral process. In a close decision, the majority opinion, penned by now retired Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, and joined by Associate Justices, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, ruled the people of Arkansas do not have that right!?
Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Associate Justices Scalia, O’Connor, and Thomas vociferously disagreed.
Discussing Justice Thomas’ reasoning, who penned the dissent, the author of the law review note writes, in pertinent part,
“Thomas contends that all power stems from the people of the states and that ‘reserved’ powers therefore include all those not specifically granted to the federal government in the Constitution. . . . Justice Thomas reasons that the ultimate source of the Constitution’s authority is the consent of the people of each individual state. Further, ‘because the people of the several States are the only true source of power . . . the Federal Government enjoys no authority beyond what the Constitution confers: the Federal Government’s powers are limited and enumerated.’” “Term Limits and the Tenth Amendment: The Popular Sovereignty Model of Reserved Powers, 29 Loy. L.A. L. Review 1163 (April 1996), Vince Lee Farhat.
Although this topic of elections and electoral process would seem abstruse as discussed in the above-referenced law review note, it is of paramount importance in the upcoming midterm elections in November 2022, and it has implications for the rights of the American people.
It boils down to this:
The would-be Destroyers of the Nation realize that they need a few more years to complete their agenda—involving further destabilization of society, dissolution of the Nation’s institutions, and the dismantling of the Republic, for its eventual inclusion in a supra-transnational governmental structure embracing the world.
To obtain time, these Destructors must maintain firm control over the electoral process in the upcoming election. The liberal-wing of the U.S. Supreme Court knows this as well, and their rulings in the Arkansas case suggests a desire to defeat the doctrine of Federalism, underlying the Tenth Amendment, and their rulings also underscore the liberal-wing’s contempt for the notion that the American people remain the sole true sovereign over all Government, State, and Federal.
Anti-American forces have already stolen one U.S. Election, undermining the great strides made during the Trump years to impede the Clinton/Bush/Obama Globalist agenda that had severely weakened the security of the Nation and undermined the sovereignty of the American people.
Americans must not allow these malignant forces to waylay the 2022 midterm elections, as well.
About The Arbalest Quarrel:
Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.
Rumble — Donna Jackson, director of membership development at Project 21, gives The Real Story on why Joe Biden’s potential pick for the high court is already making political waves.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
“We demand” is the operative phrase used by CAIR to target people they want to destroy. CAIR’s cancel culture works on the famous and not-so-famous alike. The term “Islamophobic” is thrown around like so much confetti at a New Year’s Party.
What is CAIR? The Council on American Islamic Relations bills itself as a Muslim advocacy and civil rights organization. Yet instead of promoting “civil rights” for everyone, they will target anyone who opposes special rights for Islam. They are even willing to fire one of their own if that person begins cooperating with outsiders. In December of 2021, they fired Romin Iqbal, a former director, and legal counsel, for allegedly recording CAIR meetings and giving them to the Investigative Project on Terrorism.
“Islamophobia” = Term Invented by the Muslim Brotherhood
As previously reported at RAIR Foundation USA, “The term Islamophobia was invented in the 1990s by a Muslim Brotherhood front group to help export blasphemy laws to the West. Similarly, the term “Hate speech” is the Marxist version of Islamic blasphemy laws.
The “Islamophobia” and “hate speech” scams are insidious because they shut down the most important of American values, freedom of speech.”
The mere mention of the term “Islamophobia” is often enough to destroy the person who makes an off-the-cuff remark about Muslims. Take the example recently of Rep Lauren Boebert, whose comment about Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) not having a “backpack” was enough to put her in the crosshairs of CAIR and the Muslim members of Congress. As a result, they want her stripped of her committee assignments, an action that nearly deletes a Congress member’s ability to do anything.
As a reminder, the term “Islamophobia” used by CAIR and other jihadis, even other leftist groups, to target their opposition is a term that is used interchangeably with “slander” in the Quran. Slandering their prophet carries an extremely harsh penalty, so they believe they are justified in getting people fired or their reputations destroyed.
As an example, they set out immediately to destroy President Trump after he issued a travel ban on some Muslim countries early in his presidency. Never mind that Obama did the same in 2015; Trump was immediately labeled an “Islamophobe” and “racist.” That targeting continued for his entire four years in office and moved into “white supremacy” when no such situation existed. The Islamophobe label is extremely effective – and keep in mind that Black Lives Matter, an admittedly Marxist group, and CAIR often work together to target people and police.
CAIR’s Cancel Culture
Nihad Awad, the Chief Executive Officer of CAIR, continually pitches the destructive Islamophobic narrative.
“A law signed by President Obama in Dec. 2015 required additional security for arrivals from Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Sudan and any other country designated by the Department of Homeland Security as a source of legitimate terrorism concerns.
Awad of CAIR said Monday that Trump’s new order “still stigmatizes the faith of Islam and Muslims. It does not make America any safer. But it does make America less great.” CNS News
CAIR also spends time and money targeting speakers who oppose their position. Take the case of Counterterrorism Expert John Guandolo and his team from Understanding The Threat (UTT). They train law enforcement and countries in the dangers of Muslim jihad, using Guandolo’s knowledge of the Quran and its meanings. CAIR will not tolerate informed opposition and often uses local media to target them and prevent them from speaking or training people to a proper understanding of Islam. They appear to have far more influence over governments and media the last few years than they once did. Events have been canceled when local media uses the label “Islamophobic” as a weapon to force compliance. The labels of “racist” or “hate speech” go a long way toward destroying reputations. Hate speech is the leftist equivalent of blasphemy and operates by exact mechanisms.
A letter targeting Mr. Guandolo signed by several Muslim organizations, including CAIR, is at this link.
“In a letter dated August 14, 2014, addressed to the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Lisa Monaco, 75 progressive and jihadi organizations called for “immediate action to end the use anti-Muslim training materials inside the federal government, and singled out UTT’s founder John Guandolo, noting he continues to train law enforcement officers across the country….”
CAIR hunts people, searching for anyone who opposes Islam
CAIR’s Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper justifies literally hunting for the opposition as “we have to know what’s going on.” He stated it requires CAIR to “monitor the various news sources.” CAIR keeps a database of people opposed to their agenda, and even if people say something against Islam in a small town, they’ll pick it up. They don’t seem to care whether or not that person is just an ordinary citizen who makes a remark or a public figure.
CAIR targets law enforcement as well, using the same tired rhetoric that Black Lives Matter has used to foment ire and hate against police. Jaylani Hussein, one of CAIR’s directors, is fond of using a megaphone to stir up the crowd and has a habit of showing up during BLM protests to help advance their labeling tactic against police. It’s part of that “monitoring” the news situation that Hooper spoke about.
CAIR is tied to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization. It was an “unindicted” co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Trial. Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood- an organization listed as terrorists in many other nations, even Muslim ones such as Egypt. CAIR denies any connection to either organization, but the connections are real and were established in court. They all have an agenda, and that agenda ultimately is to destroy the United States and all the non-Muslims within it.
“The Ikhwan [brothers] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and god’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” Explanatory Memorandum On the General Strategic Goal of Muslim Brotherhood 5-22-1991 (The first few pages of this memo are in Arabic, you have to scroll down further to find it in English.)
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- A Message For The American People For 2022!
“Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood.” ~ John Adams, from “A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law, 1765”
Through time immemorial all great nations and empires have had to struggle with stressors, and the United States is no different.
Strong nations capably resist hostile outside influences bent on destroying them.
The United States has since its inception as a free Constitutional Republic ably weathered all attempts by hostile nations and other antipathetic foreign entities that sought the Nation’s destruction. And the reason for our Nation’s uncommon ability to thwart such attacks is grounded on its exceptional strength, resilience, and fortitude.
These essential qualities derive from our Nation’s philosophical, jurisprudential, political, social, and ethical underpinnings, all of which are reflected in its unique Constitution—the foundation of our Nation’s fundamental governing principles. That says much of our Country’s inherent greatness as well as its formidable power.
A nation’s governing documents are, after all, the best indices of its health and vitality. A nation’s governing documents are the barometer of a modern nation-state’s ability to weather adversity and to grow ever stronger and more resilient in having overcome adversity.
The United States has, since its inception, become the most powerful, resourceful Nation-State on Earth: militarily, economically, financially, technologically, and geopolitically. It has excelled on all indices of National health, well-being, and vigor. It did so through recognition that the strength of the Country ultimately derives from the strength of its citizens: a free, sovereign, independent, and armed people.
Our Nation did not see an easy birth, shackled as it was to a powerful empire. Yet, against all odds, it threw off the yoke of tyranny. And it did so, not through wizardry, but through determination, selflessness, resourcefulness, an abundance of courage, firm conviction, and an indomitable will to prevail over oppression and tyranny: the armed American!
Yet, the most dangerous perils to impact the continued well-being of an otherwise strong nation, such as the U.S., are those perils emanating inside its geographical boundaries, not outside them—by forces that seek to confuse, cow, frighten, and disarm the American citizenry.
A new tyranny is on the rise. And this tyranny is in our midst.
Countries sicken and die more often through an inability to deal effectively with attendant institutional weaknesses and treacherous machinations of heinous and loathsome elements residing within them than by antagonistic forces marshaled against them from the outside.
The traps and snares that emerge within the nation itself are the most dangerous to a nation’s continued existence because these traps and snares are often masked and cloaked and, so, they go unrecognized. Remaining hidden and unseen, they remain unchallenged, until too late.
Destructive forces have seeded their viral plague into our Nation centuries ago. And these forces have bided their time, for they know it takes time to destroy a strong, resilient nation from within. And these destructive forces and influences existent within the Country supported by and in collusion with formidable forces and influences outside the Country have exhibited infinite patience.
They have, through recent years and decades, and with the rapid advances in the technology and the art of social conditioning, slowly, inexorably, surreptitiously, and ever so quietly insinuated themselves into the public psyche, manipulating the thought processes of the American people—creating confusion, anxiety, fear, and a sense of profound hopelessness in the polity. Thus the Destructive forces of a free Constitutional Republic have effectively “softened” the willpower and the spirit of many Americans even as many other Americans remain resolute, able to see through the ruse, and therefore able to contain it.
We Are at War! A New Unconventional Almost Hidden War
In the last decade of the 20th Century and at the turn of the 21st Century, these Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist forces—implacable, intractable foes of Americans—have been bent on transforming the whole of western civilization into a unified transnational globalist empire, sans nation-states and national borders. And they have felt confident enough in their control over Americans and, particularly, over the American psyche, to eventually merge the United States, as their ultimate prize, into their new world order scheme. And, in the first one and a half decades of the 21st Century, they have speeded up their timetable for the dissolution of the United States.
Through the sinister machinations of their toadies—Clinton, Bush, and Obama—the citizenry’s ties to their history, heritage, ethos, culture, ethical foundation, and fundamental Christian grounding began to loosen, to fracture.
The American belief system founded, first and foremost, on the sanctity and inviolability of the individual has through time been systematically, surreptitiously, and assiduously replaced with an altogether new and alien, fabricated and sinister, belief system.
The forces that crush have concocted their false belief system to divide the American people, to prevent them from forming a durable, imperishable defense against the forces amassed against them.
These malevolent forces have designed their false belief system to attack the Nation’s traditional belief structures at an elemental, subconscious level. They have designed their counterfeit belief system to engulf and destroy the core precepts, principles, and tenets of a free Republic, predicated as they are on fundamental, unalienable, God-given rights and liberties.
Unseen but axiomatic, the sanctity and inviolability of the individual soul rest at the core of this Nation’s strength.
The inherent and absolute sovereignty of the American people is grounded on this sacred notion of the sanctity and inviolability of the individual soul. This is the predicate basis of the citizenry’s sovereignty over Government.
And the citizenry’s sovereignty over Government isn’t maintained by blind faith that the Federal Government will abide by the immutable authority of the American citizenry over that Federal Government, but by the fact that the citizenry is armed and will ever remain so.
The citizenry’s sovereignty over Government depends on the fact that the citizenry remains armed.
Under no situation or circumstance is the Government permitted lawfully to constrain, restrain, abrogate or suspend the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This is a core Truth, and the forces that seek this Nation’s destruction know this.
The eternal enemies of the American people know that this core Truth is detrimental and altogether antithetical to the goal of realizing a one-world governmental regime. With cold, callous, calculated determination, these Neo-Marxist internationalists and Neoliberal Globalists have designed and have thrust into the American psyche an entirely new, alien, and fabricated belief system.
This system is calibrated to undercut the core sacred Truth upon which the Country absolutely depends for its existence as a free Republic: the nobility and autonomy and sanctity and inviolability of the Individual Soul.
Remain vigilant, stay heavily armed and very dangerous.
About The Arbalest Quarrel:
Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.
Kids Chant To Aztec Gods In New California Curriculum
MARCH 17, 2021: Government-school students in California will soon be asking the barbarous Aztec gods of human sacrifice and cannibalism for help in pursuing a counter-genocide against “white Christians,” at least if a proposed new “ethnic studies” curriculum is formally approved this week. Yes, seriously. Full Story: https://bit.ly/3cFSx4B
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
California’s long-running descent into madness continues as its bizarre Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum (ESMC) now encourages public school students to pray to bloodthirsty Aztec deities.
The California State Board of Education approved the almost 900-page ESMC in March 2021, saying teaching children about the systemic racism that supposedly plagues America has never been more urgent, as Fox News reported at the time.
“The curriculum’s unequivocal promotion of five Aztec gods or deities through repetitive chanting and affirmation of their symbolic principles constitutes an unlawful government preference toward a particular religious practice,” Frank Xu, president of Californians for Equal Rights Foundation, said months ago as his organization filed a lawsuit against the state.
“This public endorsement of the Aztec religion fundamentally erodes equal education rights and irresponsibly glorifies anthropomorphic, male deities whose religious rituals involved gruesome human sacrifice and human dismemberment.”
The legal action, Californians for Equal Rights Foundation v. State of California, was filed Sept. 3, 2021, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, by attorneys from the Thomas More Society, a national public interest law firm focusing on religious freedom. The foundation is a non-profit civil rights organization headquartered in San Diego.
Golden State officials say this is the first statewide ethnic studies model curriculum in the country. Oregon is developing ethnic studies standards for its social studies curriculum, while Connecticut will require its high schools to offer courses in black and Latino studies by autumn this year.
“We are reminded daily that racism is not only a legacy of the past but a clear and present danger,” said California State Board of Education president Linda Darling-Hammond, a leftist who headed the Biden-Harris regime’s education transition team. “We must understand this history if we are finally to end it.”
The California curriculum is intended to educate high school students about the travails of “historically marginalized peoples which are often untold in U.S. history courses.” It reportedly focuses on the four groups examined in college-level ethnic studies courses: African Americans, Chicano/Latinos, Native Americans, and Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders.
Somehow this leads to the Aztec religion, complete with its cast of characters one might expect to find in a Tobe Hooper movie.
The ESMC includes a section on “Affirmation, Chants, and Energizers,” among which is the “In Lak Ech Affirmation,” an invocation of five Aztec deities. This pagan prayer recognizes the cosmic beings as sources of power and knowledge, seeks their assistance, and gives them thanks.
The five beings are Tezkatlipoka, Quetzalkoatl, Huitzilopochtli, Xipe Totek, and Hunab Ku.
Tezcatlipoca is “an omnipresent god capable of shapeshifting into a jaguar,” according to Mythopedia. In Nahuatl, an American Indian language of the Uto-Aztecan family that is still spoken in central and western Mexico, Tezcatlipoca means “smoking mirror,” a reference to the obsidian mirrors Aztecs used in ceremonies. He was often depicted as having one of his feet replaced with an obsidian mirror. Two of his many alternative names, Titlacauan and Ipalnemoani, attest to his status among the gods, meaning “we are his slaves” and “he by whom we live,” respectively.
Tezcatlipoca was celebrated annually during Toxcatl, the fifth month of the Aztec calendar.
“Every year, a young man—typically a prisoner of war—was chosen to represent Tezcatlipoca … and [this] ixiptla, or impersonator … was treated with great respect and trained to speak in a courtly style. He was also taught to play the flute, the sound of which was thought to be the voice of Tezcatlipoca. A month prior to the festival of Toxcatl, he would be wed to four young women impersonating the four goddess wives of Tezcatlipoca: Xochiquetzal, Xilonen, Atlatonan and Huixtocihuatl.”
The high point of the festival was when the ixiptla walked up the steps of a pyramid and his heart was cut out with an obsidian knife. When the next’s year impersonator was chosen, he was given his predecessor’s skin to wear as a cloak.
Quetzalcoatl, known to the Mayans as Kukulcan, was initially depicted as a feathered snake. Portrayed as both the morning and evening star, Quetzalcoatl became a symbol of death and resurrection. Accompanied by his loyal companion, the dog-headed god Xolotl, he descended to hell to collect the bones of the ancient dead, and poured his own blood on them, thereby creating the people who live in the present universe. Quetzalcoatl sacrificed snakes, butterflies, and birds, but never humans.
Huitzilopochtli was the Aztec god of war, Mythopedia reports. His mother’s other 400 children were unhappy about his approaching birth and according to various versions of the story: a) they killed her; b) they tried to kill her, or c) they tried to kill Huitzilopochtli before he was born. In what must have been challenging childbirth, somehow Huitzilopochtli escaped the womb while fully armored and promptly defeated his siblings. Sacrifices, including human sacrifices, were made to him after every military victory and defeat.
Xipe Totec, meaning “Our Lord the Flayed One,” had a diverse set of responsibilities, according to Mythopedia. He was the Aztec god of agriculture, seasons, disease, and goldsmiths. Xipe Totec “was often depicted wearing a suit of flayed skin, and his associated ceremonies emphasized his choice of attire. Such rituals usually culminated in a fresh skin suit being made and worn by either a statue of Xipe Totec or one of his priests.”
Hunab Ku, meaning “One-God,” was a creator deity worshiped by Aztecs and some Mayans but thought to have Aztec origins.
“The Aztecs regularly performed gruesome and horrific acts for the sole purpose of pacifying and appeasing the very beings that the prayers from the curriculum invoke,” said Paul Jonna, a partner at LiMandri & Jonna LLP and Thomas More Society Special Counsel.
“The human sacrifice, cutting out of human hearts, flaying of victims and wearing their skin, are a matter of historical record, along with sacrifices of war prisoners, and other repulsive acts and ceremonies the Aztecs conducted to honor their deities,” Jonna said.
“Any form of prayer and glorification of these bloodthirsty beings in whose name horrible atrocities were performed is repulsive to any reasonably informed observer.”
Yet the ESMC is now a reality.
It came about after the board of education named R. Tolteka Cuauhtin, a co-author of the 2019 book Rethinking Ethnic Studies, to head a committee tasked with developing it. In his book, Cuauhtin “demonstrates an animus towards Christianity and Catholicism—claiming that Christians committed ‘theocide’ (i.e., killing gods) against indigenous tribes,” according to court documents.
In March 2021, the board approved the ESMC, also including the “Ashe Affirmation,” which “invokes the divine forces of the Yoruba religion four times—honoring this divine force and seeking assistance for the school day.” Yoruba is “an ancient philosophical concept that is the root of many pagan religions, including Santeria and Haitian Vodou or voodoo,” according to the Thomas More Society. It reportedly has 100 million believers worldwide in West Africa, Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guyana, and various Caribbean nations.
How the Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum, with its invocation of witch doctors and Aztec gods like Xipe Totec, who wears suits made of flayed human skin, will enlighten California schoolchildren has never been explained.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Thierry Baudet calls out a prophetic pandemic scenario from a 2010 Rockefeller Foundation Report.
Dutch leader Thierry Baudet called out a prophetic pandemic scenario from a 2010 Rockefeller Foundation Report that mirrors many tyrannical moves from governments playing out today on a global scale.
The Rockefeller Foundation rivals George Soros’ Open Society Foundations for their “investments” in radical left organizations bent on destroying Western Civilization. In 2016, the organization boasted a 4.1 billion endowment. According to their website, they have given “$17 billion in current dollars to support thousands of organizations and individuals worldwide.”
In a scenario from the Rockefeller Foundation report (See Page 18 of the embedded document), “National leaders all over the world would strengthen their power with laws, rules, and restrictions, from the requirement to wear masks to body temperature checks on entering train stations, planes, buildings….” Baudet stated.
He continues to quote from the document itself. Here is a relevant portion (Page 19) – keep in mind this was published in 2010:
China’s government was not the only one that took extreme measures to protect its citizens from risk and exposure. During the pandemic, national leaders around the world flexed their authority and imposed airtight rules andrestrictions, from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets.
Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified. In order to protect themselves from the spread of increasingly global problems – from pandemics and transnational terrorism to environmental crises and rising poverty – leaders around the world took a firmer grip on power.
At first, the notion of a more controlled world gained wide acceptance and approval. Citizens willingly gave up some of their sovereignty – and their privacy – to more paternalistic states in exchange for greater safety and stability.
The Forum for Democracy (FVD) leader pointed out the similarities between the events as described in the report and the public reaction today. “Just as now, people shout with joy when they are vaccinated,” Thierry Baudet declared. “[Post] photos of their injected arm on social media — it is all in this report — and they beg for a Corona passport, the Lock Step Scenario writers predict, just as I said.”
While the “fact-checking” arm of the mainstream media has attempted to shut down (see here, and here) the mere mention of this damning Rockefeller Foundation report, the parallels are undeniable.
Baudet slammed this era as “obedience training” conditioning citizens to accept unscientific, “arbitrary” mandates from their governments:
But it is most important, and these will be my closing words, that we realize that with a pretext, one or another hysteria over this Chinese flu, an infrastructure has been put together that in any arbitrary moment, because of any arbitrary event, the authority can be applied again. Lockdowns, masks, keeping distance, no more travel, no more handshaking, allowing absurd experimental injections.
The pandemic scenario is reminiscent of “Event 201,” a similar globalist exercise held in 2019 by the “Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.”
It appears that massive globalist leftist organizations are obsessed with war-gaming pandemic scenarios.
Chairperson, in 2010, the Rockefeller Foundation, one of the most influential NGOs in the world, developed a number of scenarios for the future of technology and international development.
This report. And in this report, the Rockefeller Foundation describes the so-called “Lock Step Scenario” on the coming of a worldwide pandemic and its aftermath. Already in 2010.
According to this scenario — and I have it here with me — the Chinese would be the first to begin with “required quarantine for all citizens” — that’s a quote — and immediate and almost hermetic closing off of all borders.
National leaders all over the world would strengthen their power with laws, rules, and restrictions, from the requirement to wear masks to body temperature checks on entering train stations, planes, buildings. It all comes in here. But it doesn’t even stop there.
According to Scenario Lock Step, we have a lot more to look forward to: “Even after the pandemic was over,” the researchers write, “the authoritarian control would remain, with the supervision of the citizens and their activities, and would even be intensified.” In this report from 2010, even climate lockdowns are hinted at.
Precisely what they are already beginning to talk about in our time.
I quote: “To protect oneself against increasingly global problems — from pandemics and transnational terrorism to environmental crises and increasing poverty, leaders all over the world will increase their grip on power.”
And the report also predicts well how citizens would react to all the regulations.
Sorry, I say. Just as now, people shout with joy when they are vaccinated, photos of their injected arm on social media — it is all in this report — and they beg for a Corona passport, the Lock Step Scenario writers predict, just as I said. The more controlled world thus finds, so they predicted in 2010, much acceptance among the people. Citizens voluntarily gave up part of their sovereignty — and their privacy — in exchange for more safety and stability.
Citizens were more tolerant and even eager to get more top-down steering and supervision.
National leaders had more freedom to enforce order in ways they themselves saw fit.
That this would lead to a digital passport, the authors of the Rockefeller Foundation report had also foreseen. In 2010, the Rockefeller Foundation was not able to literally predict the current technological state of things, but they thought then that sharpened supervision would lead to a biometric ID for all citizens. And it is now in our paper passports.
The digital vaccination passport is just a supplement.
Just 13 years after the pandemic, the public would, according to the Rockefeller Foundation, realize they have been cheated, had enough of the controls and the absurd power fantasies of the masters.
And Chairperson, I still hope that the Rockefeller Foundation is wrong on that point.
All of their forecasts have come true, but I hope that here they are really wrong, that a point comes that we wake up.
That we realize that this is a collective psychosis.
that the locking up of our country, of half the world, lasting a year and a half because of a flu variant, is madness. That we run around with the BS — non-functional masks, that we abide by the completely nonsensical distance regulations. And see our businesses, our social life go to pieces.
That we with great, first-line medicines like Ivermectin, Tegenhouden, only accelerate experimental injections to the status of “authorized vaccine” that can be given.
That we chatter over, “Oh, the infection will come back,” while this past year naturally, it also happened, just as it happens every year, just as, naturally, that with autumn, comes the new infection, just like always happens.
And we pretend that it is because of Corona while what we earlier called the flu, would seem to have completely disappeared.
But it is most important, and these will be my closing words, that we realize that with a pretext, one or another hysteria over this Chinese flu, an infrastructure has been put together that in any arbitrary moment, because of any arbitrary event, the authority can be applied again. Lockdowns, masks, keeping distance, no more travel, no more handshaking, allowing absurd experimental injections.
This Corona period was obedience training. The Tweede Kamer and the Rutte government have carried out this training brilliantly. Congratulations.
Klaus Schwab can be proud of you. The globalist plan can find the passageway, and the next step toward mass surveillance and total control can be set. —Thank you.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
For many of us, Christmas is the most wonderful time of the year. Christmas is special for old and young. As Charles Dickens once observed, “For it is good to be children sometimes, and never better than at Christmas, when its mighty Founder was a child Himself.”
Several American presidents have made interesting observations about Christmas.
John Calvin Coolidge, our 30th president, was a man of few words. He noted, “Christmas is not a time nor season, but a state of mind. To cherish peace and goodwill, to be plenteous in mercy is to have the real spirit of Christmas. If we think on these things, there will be born in us a Savior and over us will shine a star sending its gleam of hope to the world.”
During World War II, on Christmas Eve 1943, our 32nd president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, gave an address to reassure the nation that we can hope for peace since Christmas marks the birth of the Prince of Peace. Said FDR: “I can say to you that at last, we may look forward into the future with real, substantial confidence that, however great the cost, ‘peace on Earth, goodwill toward men’ can be and will be realized and ensured.”
As I write this, I am looking at my dad’s edition of the pocket New Testament issued by the U.S. Army in 1942 (although dad served in the Navy). This mini-Bible included a forward by the commander-in-chief, Franklin D. Roosevelt, in which he wrote, “Throughout the centuries men of many faiths and diverse origins have found in the Sacred Book words of wisdom, counsel, and inspiration.”
Somehow, it’s hard to picture today’s military issuing a copy of the Bible to the Armed Forces.
Meanwhile, on Dec. 24, 1945, on the first Christmas Eve since the end of World War II, President Harry S. Truman described some of the events of the very first Christmas in Bethlehem.
Our 33rd president stated, “Let us not forget that the coming of the Saviour brought a time of long peace to the Roman World. It is, therefore, fitting for us to remember that the spirit of Christmas is the spirit of peace, of love, of charity to all men. From the manger of Bethlehem came a new appeal to the minds and hearts of men: ‘A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another.'”
He went on to say that love is the answer to our world’s needs —and love is found in that baby in the manger: “In love, which is the very essence of the message of the Prince of Peace, the world would find a solution for all its ills. I do not believe there is one problem in this country or in the world today which could not be settled if approached through the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount.
“The poets’ dream, the lesson of priest and patriarch and the prophets’ vision of a new heaven and a new earth, all are summed up in the message delivered in the Judean hills beside the Sea of Galilee. Would that the world would accept that message in this time of its greatest need!”
Just one example of a nugget to be found in that Sermon on the Mount of which Harry Truman speaks is the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Christ’s teaching has universal application and meaning to all mankind.
No wonder our third president, Thomas Jefferson, although not orthodox in his understanding of Christian doctrines, understood that no one taught morality better than Christ.
Jefferson said, “Of all the systems of morality ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus.” (Letter to William Canby, September 18, 1813). Surely, the Golden Rule would be an example of that.
Our 34th president, Dwight Eisenhower noted in 1954, “This year, even as two thousand years ago when the Prince of Peace was born into the world, the drums of war are still. … Mankind’s unquenchable hope for peace burns brighter than for many years. … As I light the Nation’s Christmas tree, ‘God rest you … Let nothing you dismay.'”
Finally, Ronald Reagan, the 40th president, went further than many of his predecessors, rightly looking beyond Jesus’ moral teachings to the deeper and more essential point of His incarnation.
Reagan pointed out on December 24, 1983, “Some celebrate Christmas as the birthday of a great teacher and philosopher. But to other millions of us, Jesus is much more. He is divine, living assurance that God so loved the world He gave us His only begotten Son so that by believing in Him and learning to love each other we could one day be together in paradise.”
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
When the U.S. was founded in 1776, Christmas was not celebrated the way it is today. In fact, historians found that some settlers who came to America brought the colonial Christmas debate over Christmas with them. Some wanted to remove Roman Catholic traditions that they believed were excessive, such as Christmas, whose roots were in the pagan Roman winter festival of Saturnalia and the Norse festival of Yule.
According to History, however, other settlers who arrived in the early 1600s in Virginia held Christmas with high regard, preserving it as “a sacred occasion and a day of rest.” Jumping forward to June 26, 1870, the American government declared Christmas a federal holiday. By the 1900s, most Christmas traditions had been established. Such traditions can be traced back to America’s Founding Fathers, who each celebrated Christmas in their own way.
According to CBN News, George Washington, the very first President of the United States and Commander of Continental Army during the American Revolution, celebrated Christmas with his family at Mount Vernon, where the entire family spent not one but 12 days to celebrate the holiday. The Mount Vernon website reported that the Washingtons celebrated from Christmas Eve on December 4 up to the Epiphany or Twelfth Night on January 6.
Washington and his wife, Martha were congregants of the Pohick Church, an Episcopalian congregation, in Lorton, Virginia. They would host family and friends to celebrate Christmas during the lengthy 12-day holiday.
Meanwhile, Founding Father of the United States Benjamin Franklin, who was also a polymath, writer, scientist, inventor, and philosopher, was vocal about his faith in God, who he called “Creator of the universe” who “governs it by his Providence.” Because of this, Franklin believed that God “ought to be worshipped.” He remarked in his Poor Richard’s Almanac in 1733, “A good conscience is a continual Christmas.”
The first White House Christmas party can be attributed to the second President of the United States, John Adams, who hosted the event in December 1800. They held the Christmas party for their then-four-year-old granddaughter Susanna Boylston Adams, who lived with them. The event was attended by government officials and their children.
Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States and Founding Father, held Christmas close to his heart and described it as a “the day of greatest mirth and jollity.” He also recounted how he celebrated Christmas with his grandchildren. In 1809, he spent Christmas day with his eight-year-old grandson Francis Wayles Eppes, who he said was “running about with his cousins bawling out ‘a Merry Christmas.'”
Upon inheriting the White House from Jefferson, James Madison, the fourth President of the United States continued the Christmas tradition of hosting parties at the White House with First Lady Dolley. They also began the tradition of sending out Christmas cards to their family and friends.
John Quincy Adams, the sixth President of the United States and the son of John Adams, wrote, “Why is it that next to the birthday of the Savior of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day on the Fourth of July?”
“Is it not that in the chain of human events, the birthday of a nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation?” Quincy Adams wrote. “Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?”
It is through reflecting on the thoughts of the Founding Fathers on Christmas and their faith that Americans can understand how deeply rooted the holiday is in America’s identity and culture even today, no matter what those who don’t appreciate it may say.
Robert George (Catholic) Remarks: CIC 2016 John Paul II New Evangelization Award
Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. He is a recipient of the U.S. Presidential Citizens Medal and the Honorific Medal for the Defense of Human Rights of the Republic of Poland, and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
How to Curb Federal Government Overreach With A Convention of States—Mark Meckler Explains [TPUSA]
At Turning Point USA’s 2019 Student Action Summit, we sit down with Mark Meckler, President of the Convention of States, which seeks to limit the power of the federal government by returning some of that power to the states. Meckler is also co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots.
Chuck Cooper at Convention of States Leadership Summit 2019: The Real Threat to the Second Amendment
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
For years, many constitutional conservatives have been warning fellow conservatives about being taken in by the Convention of States (COS) Project and others calling for a constitutional convention to alter our present Constitution. Warnings that such a convention could result in scrapping the document that created our present constitutional republic have been ridiculed — with convention proponents arguing that they are not wanting an entirely new document, but only want to rein in the federal government.
Here is more cause for concern: A Legal Advisory Board member of COS has co-authored a model “Conservative Constitution” for the Constitution Center’sConstitution Drafting Project as a replacement for our present document, potentially to be adopted at any constitutional convention — or, as advocates prefer to call it, a “Convention of States.”
That board member is Robert P. George, a supposed conservative, whom COS Action President Mark Meckler calls “the foremost conservative constitutional scholar in America.” George occupies an endowed professorship at Princeton, previously held by progressive Woodrow Wilson. (Interestingly enough, while at Princeton, Wilson advocated drastically altering our form of government, to make it more like the British system.) George is a member of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) who “fiercely opposed” the candidacy of Donald Trump in 2016, later calling Trump’s efforts to restrict immigration “unjust.”
This background should explain why, while George’s draft of a new constitution for America is called the “Conservative Constitution,” the document is actually quite radical in places.
No doubt supporters of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms will be rightly alarmed at the draft’s language on that subject:
Neither the States nor the United States shall make or enforce any law infringing the right to keep and bear arms of the sort ordinarily used for self-defense and recreational purposes, provided that States and the United States in places subject to its general regulatory authority, may enact and enforce reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms, and the keeping of arms by persons determined, with due process, to be dangerous to themselves or others. [Emphasis added.]
Those familiar with the rhetoric of the anti-gun Left will quickly recognize that this portion of the draft creates opportunities for federal and state governments to so regulate the private ownership of firearms to render such a right practically null and void.
But the draft goes far beyond essentially gutting the right to keep and bear arms.
As one reads through the draft, its similarity to the language used by the Founding Fathers is striking. Mixed in with that language, however, are changes that, rather than making the document friendlier to the concepts of limited government and liberty, would create a constitution transferring vast swaths of power to the federal government.
The “Conservative Constitution” would reduce from two to one the number of senators that would represent each state. While returning the election of senators to the respective state legislatures (rather than through a popular vote as required under the 17th Amendment) is a good thing, the draft adds language that is silly at best, and dangerous at worst. “Before taking office, each Senator shall pledge by oath or affirmation to promote the common good and long-term welfare of the nation and not the interests of any party or class.”
As it stands now, each member of Congress takes an oath to follow the Constitution of the United States, an oath that is routinely ignored by almost all members. We can only speculate how promoting the “common good and long-term welfare of the nation” might be interpreted. Some members might decide that following the restrictions of a written constitution is not for the common good and long-term welfare of the nation.
The draft also modifies the impeachment process, lowering the threshold for conviction from two-thirds to three-fifths. Presently, the grounds for the removal of a president from office are limited to four offenses — treason, bribery, and high crimes or misdemeanors. This draft only says that the House “shall set forth specific grounds in written articles of impeachment.” In the two Trump impeachments, advocates of his removal from office tried to skirt the four constitutional grounds, charging him with the more ambiguous “abuse of power,” which is, of course, not mentioned in the present Constitution. Under the draft’s proposal, Congress would have no limitations on any chosen grounds to remove a president from office.
Not only does the document make it easier for Congress to remove a president from office, but it also makes a dramatic change in how that person is to be elected, specifically requiring a “national popular vote” to choose the president. Thus, the draft proposes to eliminate the Electoral College system that we now use. And, the draft removes the requirement for a president to be a natural-born citizen, changing that to “any” citizen.
Under the provisions of the proposed “Conservative Constitution,” Congress is given the power to “create a central bank with the authority to issue currency and to make it legal tender for debts,” and to expand the power of that central bank in order to “protect its independence.” The central bank we now have — the Federal Reserve — already possesses immense power, but this draft proposes that a central bank be given even greater “independence” from our elected officials.
Finally, the draft proposes that “there shall be nine judges of the supreme court” — arguably a good thing — who shall hold office for 18 years, with a vacancy occurring every two years by staggering the terms. If a judge were to die, resign, or be removed by impeachment before the end of his term, “a new judge shall be appointed for the duration of the term only.” This is a proposal that has received much support from the Left, angry that President Donald Trump was able to nominate one-third of the present Supreme Court.
In fairness, there are good provisions included in this draft, but that raises a very serious question. If a provision is worthy of changing the fundamental law of the country, then our present method of amending the Constitution should be sufficient. What we do not want is a wholesale change of our Constitution, which would include the abolition of the Electoral College, the gutting of the right to keep and bear arms, and other such bad provisions.
The very fact that a Legal Advisory Board member for the Convention of States Project has proposed a new model Constitution should serve as further evidence that an Article V Convention could open up our present Constitution to massive revisions, or even being replaced by an entirely new document. Our present Constitution is not the problem. The problem is that our public officials, in all three branches of government, do not adhere to it.
Instead of expending energy and money promoting a Convention of States, citizens should focus their efforts on electing good men and women to Congress and the presidency. At best, a convention would meet, adopt a few positive reforms, and adjourn. At worst, the convention would meet and overthrow our present system of government. As the draft demonstrates, it is highly unlikely that we would have a better constitution than the one James Madison, George Washington, and the other Founders crafted back in 1787. As the late Justice Antonin Scalia opined, our century is a poor one in which to write a constitution. Could anyone elected to such a convention today produce a document as good as the one adopted in the 18th century?
This coup d’etat against our republican form of government can be stopped by our state legislators, but citizens informed of the dangers of a constitutional convention absolutely have to let those state legislators know those dangers.
One cannot presume that they know what is wrong with having a constitutional convention. Even legislators who believe in our form of government can be misled by those intent on destroying our institutions. We must counter the propaganda, such as this coming from the Constitution Center, with accurate information on the dangers of a constitutional convention.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
It is time for Christians to acknowledge that modern Christianity has been badly damaged by the pagan values of the Enlightenment. For the first 1600 years of the Church, our fathers in the Faith and the flesh held as central to the Christian life two principles that spanned all denominations and sects. First, God’s will must be central to the life of every man and every Nation. Second, God’s providential hand is powerfully active in Creation every day.
When the first brave European explorers set foot in the New World, they fell to their knees on dry land and thanked God for bringing them safely across the unknown, treacherous sea. The next thing they did was to claim those lands for God and King. Both of these acts are a direct reflection of these two principles. They came here for God’s glory, and they made it here by God’s mercy. None of those men would dare place any other factor above these. Even the ones who also sought fame and wealth confessed that it would only come to them if God granted it.
The first Thanksgiving meals and days of worship in the 1620s were–like the harvest festivals of Europe that stretch back before recorded history–explicit thanks given to God for the bounty of nature that sustains every man. Every agrarian society, pagan and Christian alike, has acknowledged that weather, pestilence, and the health and growth of the crops are all entirely in God’s hands. We do not pray “Give us this day our daily bread” for nothing.
Fast forward 150 years from the first Thanksgiving, and things in the Colonies have taken a dramatic spiritual turn. The Enlightenment has been raging on the European continent for nearly a century. John Locke’s philosophy laid the groundwork for mechanistic Deism or the clockmaker theory. In this fundamentally new religion, a non-Trinitarian “God” created the universe, natural laws, and forces. He set them in motion, and then withdrew entirely to watch from a distance. This was the religion of men like Thomas Jefferson, who denied Christ’s Divinity. Jefferson was so convinced that Jesus isn’t God and that there were no miracles, that he chopped up, rearranged, and censored the Gospels until they reflected the solely human Jesus of his pagan mind.
Another principal architect of the Colonies’ revolt against England was James Madison. Immediately before helping to foment the Revolution, Madison was shaped directly by the philosophical teachings of the Scotsman John Witherspoon, who had just arrived to run what is now known as Princeton University. Witherspoon imported the very latest Enlightenment radicalism onto our shores, and his students reveled in the new and exotic wisdom from the Continent. Madison and Jefferson together championed Locke’s firm conviction that Christianity must be expelled far from the halls of government, in the name of progress.
Despite the fact that these foreign, pagan beliefs were contrary to the Christian morals of the majority of the Colonies’ population, they were imposed from the top and then spread as the founding myth of this new Nation. The winners wrote the history books, and nine generations later, everyone knows that of course, we have to keep Faith away from politics. The alternative is simply unthinkable. And this is the status quo of “Christianity” in America and the West today. This pagan Enlightenment principle is a foundational belief across virtually all denominations, regardless of where they fall in other “liberal/conservative” doctrinal battles.
We’re told that to be a 21st century Christian is to go to church, remain faithful in our beliefs, raise our families well, and be a spiritual and earthly blessing to those around us. That is all well and good, except for one critical thing: we’re told that is as far as we can go. Don’t like what’s happening to your Nation? That’s your right privately, but you’d better keep politics out of the pulpit. You can say your prayers, and you can hold your charity drives. And if you’re really upset, you can hold a prayer vigil or maybe even a march. But you may go no further. Anything beyond these passive means, and you’re committing the cardinal crime of “mixing church and state.” Stick to your prayer and soup kitchens, and leave the politics to the politicians.
The idea of Christian Nationalism is a lightning rod for all sides. The left is terrified because if this Nation returned to its God-fearing, God-worshipping, God-serving roots, it would undo their centuries’ work inside of a decade. And many conservative Christians are freaked out by the notion simply because we’ve been programmed that way. But to be fair, there are some very good reasons to be wary of the idea.
The most obvious objection from a Christian is that it opens the door for someone unscrupulous to cloak himself in Christian garb and take advantage of the latest fad; and frankly, they’re correct. This is happening right now on the right, where multiple big personalities have latched onto the burgeoning popularity of open Christian belief so that they can raise hundreds of thousands of dollars a year from Christian supporters who just want a voice speaking for them. But the solution for grifters isn’t silencing all Christians. The solution is for the faithful to exercise spiritual discernment. As 1 John 4:1 records, “Beloved, do not believe every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.”
The second and more theologically sophisticated objection is hinged on Jesus’ own words, “My kingdom is not of this world.”This is a very good objection because the confusion of political and spiritual power plagued Christ’s entire earthly ministry. The Israelites had been punished by God for their disobedience and unbelief and subjected to many centuries of rootlessness, subjugation, and political persecution. Jesus made clear to all that He did not come as an earthly ruler to free the Israelites from Roman rule, but as a Heavenly ruler to free all mankind from our bondage to sin and death. That is all true and correct, and not one word of it rebuts the idea of Christian Nationalism. God’s command to all believers is to be a faithful servant in whatever your calling is in life. He commands fathers to be faithful fathers, husbands faithful husbands, wives faithful wives, children faithful children, masters faithful masters, slaves faithful slaves. Our duty to God is to bear His image faithfully in the world for the benefit of those around us.
This duty to God must necessarily include the political sphere. Ephesians 5:25 says, “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her…” Can a husband fulfill his duty to love his wife as Christ loves the Church if he won’t lay down his life for her?The scope of such duty goes far beyond “well maybe if someone breaks into my house.” The same duty holds if someone breaks into your Nation. This duty is fundamentally political. Can a father and husband be faithful to God if he does nothing while evil men overrun his Nation? No.
What then is Christian Nationalism? It is the acknowledgment that God’s will must be central to the life of every Christian. It is the acknowledgment that every temporal blessing comes from God. It is every man leading a faithful life as husband and father, not only under his roof, but in his neighborhood, his community, and the Nation into which God created him. It means we don’t stop being Christian when we step out our front door in the morning, and we don’t keep it a secret.
Some say that Christian Nationalism is contrary to the Gospel. This is because they don’t actually know what the Gospel is. The Gospel is utterly meaningless without the Law. “Jesus died for you” means nothing to someone who does not understand what sin is, why sin matters, or against Whom sin is committed. The only way we can possibly spread the Gospel message is to also spread God’s Law. To do so is Christian love.
For the believer, God’s Law is the rule for our lives, not condemning us, nor justifying us, but showing us how to live in accord with God’s will; it is a source of joy to live in Christ. For the believer and ignorant unbeliever alike, the Law is a mirror that shows us our own sin, revealing our need for a Savior and forgiveness. And for the malevolent unbeliever, the Law is a curb, binding his wickedness from harming those around him. The faithful Christian who has been taught God’s will has no choice but to bring that understanding to bear in forming the curbs of the political law which preserves godly order and civilization itself. This is Christian Nationalism.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- The Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist goal is to dismantle the Republic.
To accomplish that task it is necessary to disrupt the underpinnings of our society. That society is predicated on the tenets, precepts, and principles of Individualism and on the Judeo-Christian ethic, not the amoral tenets, precepts, and principles of Collectivism, permeating throughout society. The manipulation of language plays an important part in the attempt to transform America into a Collectivist Dictatorship.
Language offers a more emphatic and critical need for serious discussion. For political theorists and sociologists, the politico/socio import of reshaping language is important. It is certainly important to the Destroyers of a free Constitutional Republic. It is important for the Destroyers of our Nation to change our perception of it; of its basic underpinnings. Manipulation of language becomes an important tool in the arsenal of those forces bent on dismantling a free Republic.
If language is perception, and reality is built on perception, and a million people say the “emperor” is wearing fine apparel, when he is stark naked, is this delusion, then, to be taken as reality? Perhaps not; probably not. But, if a few sane people exist in a Nation that has gone insane, who claim to see the emperor as he really is, “in the buff,” and dare to say it is so, then all the worse for those rational people. They will not be long tolerated. They must play along, just as the masses have played along, pretending the emperor is fully draped in his finest apparel, lest they be targeted for special, unpleasant treatment.
But, through time, the delusion becomes more entrenched. And as more and more people seemingly “buy into” the delusion, to avoid negative repercussions for pointing out the delusion, then the distinction between reality and illusion will truly become blurred, distorted, and at some point, the intellect will not be able to tell the two apart.
But we are not quite there, yet. Sanity may still prevail.
Many Americans are coming to perceive the imminent threat the Marxist/Globalist poses to the preservation of a free Constitutional Republic.
Americans see that the Marxist/Globalist aims are not compatible with the continued existence of natural law rights go unchecked. One or the other must go.
The tenets, precepts, and principles of Marxism/Globalism require are incompatible with natural law rights. And so the Marxists and Globalists censor free speech and constrain free association, and undermine the right of personal autonomy, and the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and restrict one’s control over one’s own personal property.
But Americans are also coming to see that the Marxists and Globalists abhor one natural law right, in particular over all the others: the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Marxists and Globalists view the right of the people to keep and bear arms as not only dangerous to their well-ordered, tightly controlled society, but incoherent. The language of the Second Amendment implies that the people are sovereign over Government. That notion is the obverse of that held by Marxists and Globalists because, for them, Government is the supreme sovereign. For them, hundreds of millions of common people are merely viewed as cattle and the idea that cattle should be allowed to keep and bear arms is an anathema to them.
Marxists and the Neoliberal Globalist “elites” view the very concept of ‘natural law rights,’ and especially, the right to keep and bear arms as inimical to the maintenance of a well-ordered Collectivist society they envision.
And, in fact, the exercise of basic natural law Rights is dangerous to a society that is predicated on principles that have no use for them because the continued exercise of them would upend a rigidly controlled society.
The Marxists and Globalists see the exercise of these fundamental rights as wholly incompatible with a new world order grounded on Collectivism. And, the armed citizenry is seen as especially dangerous to the Collectivist society. Anyone who insists on arming him or herself will be seen and is coming to be seen as engaging in behavior considered toxic to the operation of a well-ordered Collectivist society.
The public is, from child to adult, slowly, methodically, inexorably being conditioned to perceive guns and the wish to exercise one’s right to keep and bear them in defense of one’s self, and home, family business, and as the ultimate fail-safe mechanism to thwart tyranny as unacceptable, as a neurotic or psychotic aberration that is not be condoned!
The insanity of a renegade Federal Government isn’t going to cure itself. And the failure of the public to recognize and acknowledge the insanity of a renegade Government will only serve to entrench all the postulates of an insane Government on the psyche of the American people.
The illness will only get progressively worse, the rot infecting more and more of the Nation until the Nation dies. It happened to Rome. But, then, Rome didn’t have access to modern information technology. Nor did the civilization of Rome see advances in communication. Nor did Rome have access to precise social engineering tools, or knowledge of psychology and neurology and other neurosciences that has made possible the Government’s ability to successfully indoctrinate, “reeducate,” and condition the minds of the people, and on an industrial scale.
Pay close attention to the manner in which the Government, the Press, and social media handle the Rittenhouse case. And pay close attention, in the next several months, to the weaponization of the Department of Justice as it begins to target more and more average citizens.
And pay particular attention to Governmental policies that slowly and increasingly negatively impact speech, gun rights, privacy, and the application of justice, in the next several months.
The puppet-masters through their toadies in Government and in the Press will continue to aggressively attack anything they find detrimental to their intention, goal, desire to destroy the Republic. Even the sanctity of the Judicial system in the United States is considered fair game to these powerful, ruthless forces. They are getting the Marxist and Anarchist rabble to unleash its mindless, senseless, radical, and rabid vindictiveness once again against a City and against the Country.
Many Americans are beginning to fight back, asserting their sovereignty over the Government. They are beginning to fight back against the destruction of the Republic. The U.S. Supreme Court can assist in this effort through the Bruen case. A strong, unequivocal statement of the right of armed defense outside the home would go a long way in strengthening the Nation’s Bill of Rights upon which the American people depend to maintain their sovereignty over the Government.
About The Arbalest Quarrel:
Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.
Former White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany talks about her upcoming book and the importance of her faith throughout her story. As Thanksgiving approaches, it's worth looking back at moments we are thankful for – and remembering how we can use our faith in this crucial time.
