The Truth Is Out There

Posts tagged ‘history’

The gross, and I do mean gross injustice of slavery reparations


It’s absurd to hold Americans, let alone ordinary ‘Britoneons’ responsible for the slave trade.

The gross injustice of slavery reparations

Commonwealth leaders concluded last week’s summit in Samoa by announcing that Britain should commit to reparations for its role in the transatlantic slave trade.

UK prime minister Keir Starmer had tried to refocus the summit around ‘future-facing’ challenges such as climate change. His chancellor, Rachel Reeves, was more blunt. She told the BBC last week that ‘We’re not going to be paying out the reparations that some countries are speaking about’. Yet in the end, it was to no avail. A day later, the 56 heads of government, including Starmer, signed a letter agreeing that ‘the time has come’ for a ‘meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation’ about Britain paying reparations.

This outcome was hardly a surprise. Over the past few years, the demand that the UK pay vast sums to the descendants of slaves has gained momentum. In August 2023, Patrick Robinson, a judge at the UN, argued that Britain owes £18 trillion in reparations. In March this year, the Church of England announced it would raise £1 billion to address its historic links to slavery. An All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Afrikan Reparations has been launched to push the issue in Westminster. And in David Lammy, we now have a foreign secretary who has repeatedly endorsed calls for reparations.

The reparations movement has gained so much traction because of the lack of any well-articulated rebuttal, especially from Britain’s political class. This has allowed pro-reparations campaigners to shape the narrative without challenge.

The argument for reparations rests on the contention that slavery and colonialism are solely responsible for both the wealth of former colonial powers and the poverty of former colonies. As Kehinde Andrews, an academic and staunch advocate for reparations, put it recently on BBC Two’s Politics Live: ‘The wealth we have today directly comes from slavery and the former British Empire.’

This narrative is widely propagated. It is also incredibly simplistic and overlooks the complex web of factors that has influenced global economic development over the past few hundred years. As then business and trade minister Kemi Badenoch rightly pointed out earlier this year, Britain’s prosperity cannot be attributed solely to colonial exploitation – and the economic challenges facing Britain’s former colonies cannot be blamed entirely on British rule, either.

Singapore, for example, was a British colony between 1819 and 1965. Despite this legacy, it has emerged as a global economic success story, largely due to political and economic reforms under former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew. At the same time, slave trading is hardly a guarantee of future wealth. Quite the opposite. The slave trade in the American South arguably stunted the region’s economic growth by creating an over-reliance on an outdated agrarian economy.

Reparations campaigners will also point to what they consider to be a monumental injustice – namely, the then British government’s decision in 1835 to take out a loan of £20million (worth over £2.5 billion today) to compensate slave-owners for their ‘loss of property’. Yet, in many ways, the nature of this payment is misunderstood. The British government was effectively paying for the slaves’ liberty, rather than ‘rewarding’ slave-owners. It was a pragmatic decision taken to overcome the resistance of slave-owners and to expedite the emancipation of their slaves.

Moreover, Britain was hardly a nation of slave-owners. In fact, only about 40,000 British individuals actually owned slaves during the abolitionist era and only 3,000 received reparations. The vast majority of British people at the time were economically marginalised themselves and did not directly benefit from the slave trade. Asking today’s working and middle classes to ‘compensate’ for the actions of a small elite from two centuries ago is wrong and historically misguided.

Here we come to the nub of the problem. Too often reparations campaigners distort the tragic and painful history of slavery to make their arguments. They overlook inconvenient historical facts, such as the role of the African rulers who actively participated in the slave trade and frequently resisted abolition. African leaders such as King Ghezo of Dahomey (modern-day Benin) directly benefitted from slavery, amassing wealth and power by selling captives from rival tribes to European traders. When the British sought to end the trade, King Ghezo reportedly resisted, declaring that, ‘The slave trade is the ruling principle of my people – it is the source and the glory of their wealth’.

I am far from opposed to reparations per se. I would support reparations for living victims of state injustices, from Holocaust survivors to Japanese Americans interned during the Second World War. If individual families wish to pay reparations for their forebears’ role in the slave trade, as the Trevelyan family has done, then that is their choice. However, it is a very different matter to make vague demands of the entire U.S. and British public for reparations for events from centuries ago.

Chattel slavery and colonialism were devastating and morally abhorrent chapters in human history. But the best path forward is to treat individuals from all backgrounds as equals, free of the reductive labels of historical victimhood and unburdened by grievance.

Rather than obsessing over the past, Britain and its former colonies should look toward opportunities for partnership, development and trade. The reparations movement risks becoming a drain on moral and political discourse in both countries and beyond, shifting responsibility from modern elites who can enact change to a defeatist focus on historical grievances.

In the U.S. and Britian, the issue of reparations only fosters division and resentment. If our leaders want to prevent the call for reparations from gathering yet more momentum, they need to come up with a clear and reasoned response – one that acknowledges the complexities of history without conceding to misguided demands for financial atonement. Instead of allowing past injustices to dictate future policy, the focus should be on building a future that upholds true equality, freedom and shared prosperity.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Democracy Futures Project Prepares 175 Top US Leaders For Violent Resistance Against Trump Victory


With the election just five days away, the rhetoric from Democrat leaders and their allies has taken a distinct and ominous turn. It is becoming increasingly clear that the Democrat Party is actively preparing its constituency for what it perceives as an existential threat: a Republican victory next week. Leading figures in the party, from the sitting president to the vice president and beyond, are cultivating a narrative that dehumanizes Republicans, primes their supporters for violent resistance and sets the stage for a crisis that could threaten the very stability of the republic. These efforts go hand-in-hand with a series of wargames, including the Democracy Futures Project held less than six months ago in Washington, D.C., where 175 of the most senior and influential government officials, academics, activists, governors, cabinet members, military officers and grassroots leaders came together to normalize the concept of overturning the outcome of the presidential election if Donald Trump wins in November.

The Anatomy of an Existential Crisis

When Kamala Harris refers to Donald Trump as a fascist—or when President Joe Biden calls his supporters “garbage”—these are not slips of the tongue. They are calculated declarations designed to ignite fear and loathing within their base. Democrats, armed with the propaganda of mainstream media, paint a picture of Trump and his supporters as a malignant force in American society. It is rhetoric not unlike that used in history to set the groundwork for total warfare against an internal enemy—the kind that makes dehumanizing your opposition not just acceptable but moral. The Rwandan Genocide of the 1990s serves as a grim reminder of where such rhetoric can lead. In Rwanda, Hutu extremists used dehumanizing language, referring to the Tutsi minority as “cockroaches” that needed to be exterminated, which paved the way for one of the worst genocides in modern history. The parallels in language should serve as a stark warning of the dangers inherent in normalizing such vilification.

The modern Democrat Party has leaned heavily into invoking imagery reminiscent of one of history’s darkest periods. Not coincidentally, Trump’s rally at Madison Square Garden has been compared by media outlets to the Nazi rally held there in 1939. The vice president and her allies are not simply signaling their opposition to Trump’s policies—they are explicitly calling Trump Adolf Hitler. By invoking the name of Adolf Hitler, the Democrats are drawing comparisons to a figure responsible for the Holocaust, where six million Jews were systematically murdered, alongside millions of others, including political dissidents, disabled individuals and various ethnic minorities. Hitler’s tyranny extended to brutal concentration camps, where prisoners faced unimaginable horrors—forced labor, starvation and mass executions. The Democrats are portraying their political adversaries not as opponents in a democratic contest but as an evil that must be stamped out to preserve democracy itself. By equating Trump to one of the greatest villains in human history, Democrats are subtly yet effectively setting the conditions for widespread, potentially violent civil resistance if the outcome doesn’t go their way.

Unknown photographer from the Auschwitz Erkennungsdienst. Several sources believe the photographer to have been SS officers Ernst Hoffmann or Bernhard Walter, who ran the Erkennungsdienst., Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Dehumanization and Its Perils

The Democrats’ reliance on incendiary rhetoric should not be surprising. When Hillary Clinton referred to Trump’s supporters as a “basket of deplorables” in 2016, she laid the foundation for a more aggressive form of disdain for half of the electorate. Fast forward to the Biden-Harris era, and the dehumanizing rhetoric has only escalated. President Biden labeled Trump supporters as “garbage,” echoing and amplifying Clinton’s infamous comment. But it doesn’t end with the leaders at the top.

Daytime television has become a platform for reinforcing these narratives. Joy Reid, a host on MSNBC, along with members of The View, like Whoopi Goldberg, have referred to Trump supporters as “cockroaches.” Such language is significant, as it has deep historical resonance. It is the exact same description used by the Hutu-led government and media in Rwanda in the 1990s to lay the psychological groundwork for genocide against the Tutsi minority. Under the leadership of Hutu President Juvénal Habyarimana and with the complicity of mainstream media outlets like Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM), Tutsis were labeled as “cockroaches,” which paved the way for the massacre of 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus in just 100 days. By equating a group of people to pests that need extermination, the Democrats and their media partners are invoking a chillingly familiar language of dehumanization. The objective here is not simply political victory; it is to paint any Republican or conservative—especially those aligned with Trump—as something less than human.

Conditioning for Conflict

While the rhetoric is alarming on its own, it serves a larger, more dangerous purpose: conditioning the military, law enforcement and Democrat base for conflict. The Atlantic‘s Jeffrey Goldberg and others, have been particularly prolific in advancing the idea that Donald Trump not only disdains the military but seeks to use it as an extension of his will—akin to fascist leaders like Hitler and Mussolini. According to recent articles, Trump supposedly envies the respect that Hitler commanded from his generals, a claim that’s both absurd and deliberately incendiary. Consider admissions by General Mark Milley in Bob Woodward’s book, where Milley openly stated that he sought to prevent Trump from being able to order the military to take actions that Milley did not agree with. He admitted to preventing the National Guard from being deployed to stop the January 6th riot. Furthermore, Milley even claimed that he had contacted the Chinese military, promising them he would personally warn them if Trump planned any attacks. These actions reflect an alarming trend of senior military figures feeling empowered to circumvent the established chain of command, further fueling the narrative of distrust and division.

In this narrative, the Democrats do not merely critique Trump’s policies. They paint him as someone contemptuous of America’s values—someone who, if given the reins of power, would commandeer the military to crush dissent. This is not only an affront to Trump’s record, where he reduced endless foreign interventions, but it serves to turn those in uniform against him. Consider General John Kelly’s recent claims that Trump admired Hitler and wished his generals were more like Hitler’s—claims that are difficult to believe given that Kelly waited five years to make them. As chief of staff, Kelly not only failed to follow orders but actively sought to undermine Trump’s efforts to bring U.S. troops home, build the border wall and implement economic policies that were central to his platform. These actions reflect an effort from within to subvert a sitting president, positioning the military to view Trump and his supporters as a threat—a narrative that could justify disobedience to presidential authority or worse, a schism within the Armed Forces.

John F. Kelly speaks at the 53rd Munich Security Conference in 2017.

Democrats such as Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) have even floated scenarios involving Congress using the 14th Amendment to prevent Trump from taking office, citing insurrection. In one viral video, Raskin made it 100% clear that if Trump wins on November 5th, he and his Democrat allies in Congress have a plan to ensure that Trump will never take the oath of office or set foot in the White House again. Raskin even acknowledged that their actions would likely result in civil war, stating that he is ready for that outcome—an allusion to the fact that the Biden-Harris regime had already purged conservatives from the ranks of the military using COVID as a pretext. This purge, along with the ongoing efforts to paint Trump and his supporters as dangerous, less-than-human opponents, was carried out to ensure that the military would willingly turn their weapons against the American people, believing it to be necessary for the preservation of democracy. The reference to January 6 looms large in these scenarios, treated not as a one-off riot but as a precursor to future violence—a violence that Democrats argue can only be avoided by nullifying a Trump victory. The implication is clear: if Trump wins, violence is inevitable, and extreme measures, including possibly undermining democratic processes, will be justified.

A Pretext for Violence

One might wonder why the Democrats are engaging in such extreme language now, even before the election results are in. The answer lies in the strategic nature of their rhetoric. The aim is to establish a pretext for violence. Figures like Robert Kagan, Rosa Brooks and Barton Gellman have all laid the intellectual groundwork for what would be, in essence, a mass mobilization of Democrat voters against the result of a democratic election. Following Trump’s win in 2016, anarchists, Black Bloc and Antifa took direct action, resulting in numerous violent incidents. In Washington D.C., rioters injured over 200 Capitol and D.C. police officers during protests, set fire to vehicles and even burned St. John’s Church near the White House. The level of damage to public and private property was extensive, with millions of dollars in damage. This was only the beginning, as the same groups used the death of George Floyd as a pretext to conduct over 100 days of violent riots, resulting in at least 25 deaths, hundreds of injuries, countless buildings burned, and over $2 billion in damages nationwide. The message is clear: this time, the response will make the previous actions look minor in comparison. It won’t just be Antifa; it will be the entire Democrat party supporting and legitimizing these actions, as they see it as necessary to resist and destabilize a potential Trump victory.

The Wargames: Normalizing Election Overturning

Multiple wargames have been held by various groups to simulate scenarios where Trump wins and to strategize how he could be stopped. However, the real scandal lies in the fact that these were not just simulations or games—they were propaganda efforts designed to indoctrinate key figures into viewing Trump’s victory as an existential threat to America. The Democracy Futures Project, backed by George and Alex Soros and led by Rosa Brooks and Barton Gellman, organized five tabletop exercises in May and June 2024, featuring 175 of the most senior and influential individuals in government, academia, activism and military ranks. Participants included former governors, cabinet members, retired military officers, grassroots leaders and more. These exercises were not merely hypothetical scenarios—they were aimed at normalizing the idea of overturning a legitimate election outcome if Trump were to win. The wargames included discussions on potential cabinet responses, military actions, civil resistance and law enforcement maneuvers—all geared toward disrupting a Trump victory and fostering division.

This effort is reminiscent of “The Simulation,” a wargame organized by The Transition Integrity Project in 2020, which was featured in Unprecedented, a documentary series by Alex Holder. In that series, political strategists and former officials, including James Comey, John Podesta and Michael Steele, role-played scenarios involving contested election outcomes, simulating responses to a Trump victory. The true purpose of these exercises is not about ensuring free and fair elections; it is about legitimizing resistance, including violent resistance, to outcomes that do not align with the preferences of the Democratic Party.

The New York Times and The Washington Post have run extensive pieces on the supposed need for mass mobilization if Trump wins, calling on private industry and civil society to ostracize Trump supporters. The messaging is eerily consistent: in the event of a Trump victory, resistance must not only be political but physical. These are not the words of a party preparing to abide by democratic norms; these are the words of a regime setting the stage for conflict.

The Coming Crisis?

At the center of all this lies a calculated and deeply coordinated effort by our nation’s top leaders—often referred to as the “Deep State”—to normalize the rejection of Donald Trump’s election. They are ready to lead a violent resistance. The propaganda effort has been thorough, and for months, the electorate and the Democrat voter base have been conditioned to see Trump and his supporters as non-human—labeling them as garbage, fascists and even comparing them to Hitler. Should Trump emerge victorious, the narrative of violence will already be in place, with a moral justification for “defending democracy” by whatever means necessary. This is dangerous not just because it undermines the legitimacy of elections but because it risks tearing apart the social fabric of the nation, creating a deeply divided populace and potentially inciting widespread conflict that could have devastating consequences for American democracy.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

The Bleaker it Gets, the Better our Odds


Authoritarianism is back across the West — from Europe to the Biden-Harris censorship regime that would fit perfectly in Communist China.

I think many of us were surprised during Covid to realize just what the supposedly liberal west has become: Essentially the Soviet Union but with better uniforms — well, better video games, anyway.

Of course, it was decades in the making — Covid just showed their cards.

The question, as always, is What’s Next.

For better or worse, authoritarianism has happened many times in history — it’s kind of the human default. The original state.

Humanity has a lot of experience with authoritarianism.

So how did people protect themselves last time?

Dodging Tyranny in the 1940’s

An elegant illustration is the 1940’s, where essentially the entire globe went authoritarian socialist and then — as always — went to war.

And the correct response very much depended where you were.

If you were in New York, you adjusted your stock portfolio.

FDR’s 52nd birthday party, dressed as Caesar. The fasces bottom right is unintentionally apt.

If you were in Britain you moved to the countryside and stockpiled canned food.

If you were in Switzerland you packed a go-bag in case the German army decided to fill in the map.

And if you were in Germany, of course, the only plan was get the heck out.

The problem is when to pull each trigger: When do you adjust the portfolio. Buy the canned food. Pack the go-bag. When do you get the heck out.

Each of these preparations has a cost. And the more successful you are — the more you’ve built or achieved — the higher those costs go. Moving your family, your business, converting your career to location-independent where you can support your family.

Many ask why people didn’t leave Berlin before it was too late, and those costs are why.

Most Will Stay and Fight

The good news is that this means the vast majority of us will stay and fight.

I mean, true patriots will always stay and fight. But those mounting costs mean even apolitical people will fight.

They will fight in proportion to the risk — because the cost rises with it. And they will fight in proportion to what they’ve built.

That is, the people with the most to lose — the natural elite — are the most likely to stay.

Every election since George W we’ve been treated to Hollywood liberals threatening to leave the country. You don’t hear influential Conservatives saying that.

We will stay.

The Bleaker it Gets, the Better our Odds

And stay we should.

Why? Partly tactical. They launched their takeover too soon. Because Covid fell into their lap, and they were still a generation away from the brainwashing it would take for a totalitarian takeover.

Instead, the people rejected it. The Covid state left dangerous remnants, to be sure, that will become malignant if not excised.

Still, it’s striking — perhaps unprecedented — the degree to which a totalitarian regime, once installed, was almost entirely removed. And the reason is encouraging: Because it polled atrociously — you may remember the Dems turning as one just after Biden assumed office.

In other words, even with our shabby election infrastructure, they still fear the people.

What remains post-Covid is an institutionalized left that has lost credibility with the majority. That is overextended, that has completely lost touch with the people.

This loss of legimacy means they are far weaker than pre-Covid.

And Democracy is coming for them.

Liberty’s Moment

We’re already seeing the backlash with Trump surging in the polls, with Canada on-deck next year, and European countries electing populists.

Even more encouraging, if you zoom out rarely in history has liberty had so many advantages. Thanks to the internet — with a big assist from Elon.

Of course, liberty starts out with the advantage that man is not by nature a slave. Slavery is an unstable equilibrium. It’s fragile. Just waiting for the right push.

Put this is up against the natural advantage of authoritarianism — it has the money. And money buys guns.

It has the money because it seizes half of what you earn and uses it against you, then prints up whatever else it needs at the central bank. Then it uses that money to control the levers of society, education to media to finance.

We have the numbers. They have the money.

Trust in Government Collapsing in Both Parties

What’s Next

If it comes down to numbers vs money, our numbers are growing fast. Moreover, gloriously, the more they push the more we grow.

Meaning they only have 2 options: pull back and hold on for dear life against the backlash. Or keep pushing and they’re out of power. It’s only a matter of time.

In the 1970’s, the great economist Murray Rothbard noted you could fit the entire liberty movement in a New York living room.

Now there are literally a billion of us.

Forget a living room. We couldn’t reasonably fit in a state.

Meanwhile their advantage — money — is collapsing before our eyes. Crashing in crippling debt, nervous financial markets, the limits of inflationary printing and the moribund stagflation that always accompanies it.

In short, we’re getting stronger. They’re getting weaker. And the longer it takes the more spectacular will be the victory.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Why is the U.S. even in the U.N?


Did the United States join in with the other world leaders to build a safe and altruistic organization? Only if your definition of safe and altruistic is akin to believing your mother is the tooth fairy.

Nope! The instigators of, first, the League of Nations and then the United Nations had no room for charitable instruments; the plan was to set up a governance system that would eventually be used to take control of the entire world. Alger Hiss, a known Russian spy, had been Director of the Carnegie Foundation and then right-hand man for Franklin Delano Roosevelt, orchestrated the writing of the U.N. Charter.  It was built by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) (in concert with Hiss) and funded by the Rockefellers (and other globalists) to control the world – courts, weapons, economy, and even our minds. And it usurps our sovereignty.

With those travesties born at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1945, the CFR also gave us the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. The IMF was set up to “control international exchange rates and to stabilize currencies. President Franklin D. Roosevelt took us off the gold standard so a world currency could be established. Nixon signed an executive order declaring that the U.S. would redeem its paper dollars for gold – and the IMF would serve as the world’s central bank. 

Again, why is the U.S. in the U.N? 

“The Council on Foreign Relations, established years after the Federal Reserve was created, worked to promote an internationalist agenda on behalf of the international banking elite. Where the Fed took control of money and debt, the CFR took control of the ideological foundations of such an empire — encompassing the corporate, banking, political, foreign policy, military, media, and academic elite of the nation into a generally cohesive overall world view.” Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope. 

What’s happening? “In 1957, a congressional investigative committee revealed the following finding: In the international field, foundations, and an interlock among some of them and certain intermediary organizations, have exercised a strong effect upon our foreign policy and upon public education in things international. This has been accomplished by vast propaganda, by supplying executives and advisers to government and by controlling much research in this area through the power of the purse. The net result of these combined efforts has been to promote. ‘internationalism’ in a particular sense — a form directed towards ‘world government” and a derogation of “American nationalism’. The CFR has become, in essence, an agency of the United States government. [and its productions are not objective but are directed overwhelmingly at promoting the globalist concept.” 1

Why should the U.S. be out of the U.N?

Sponsored by the CFR, Count Richard Nicholas von Coudenhove-Kalergi, considered the “father of the European Union”, argued for the dissolution of national borders and the promotion of mass allogenic (genetically dissimilar) immigration. 2 He also called for the “elimination of the Caucasian race for the sake of a superstate”. 3

In rebuttal, Senator Pat McCarran on immigration legislation he co-authored:

“I believe that this nation is the last hope of Western civilization, and if this oasis of the world shall be overrun, perverted, contaminated, or destroyed, then the last flickering light of humanity will be extinguished. I take no issue with those who would praise the contributions which have been made to our society by people of many races, of varied creeds and colors. … However, we have in the United States today hard-core, indigestible blocs which have not become integrated into the American way of life but which, on the contrary, are its deadly enemies. Today, as never before, untold millions are storming our gates for admission, and those gates are cracking under the strain. The solution of the problems of Europe and Asia will not come through a transplanting of those problems en masse to the United States. … I do not intend to become prophetic, but if the enemies of this legislation succeed in riddling it to pieces or in amending it beyond recognition, they will have contributed more to promote this nation’s downfall than any other group since we achieved our independence as a nation.”

This could go on and on. It could be slid over the brainwashing/dumbing-down/corruption of our children in the schools through the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), a vile part of the U.N. set up to make youth into brain-dead, useful idiots. You can read more in the Cancel Culture articles and so many good books written in the past 10-20 years exposing the lies and schemes of the United Nations anti-American, anti-Western Culture schemes.

As Tom DeWeese recently wrote: “The UN was wrong from its very beginning and wrong now because it has always sought to interfere with national sovereignty rather than to provide a unique forum to help keep the peace”.

The question is now: Why aren’t we doing everything we can to get the U.S. out of the U.N? That will solve most of the civilized world’s problems.

It’s time to slay that dragon.

Sources:

  1. Hearings before the Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations, House of Representatives, 83rd Congress., Second session on HP. Res. 217, Part 1, pages 1 to 943.
  2. Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, Ein Leben fur Paneuropa pp. 28-32.
  3. Browne and Williams, The Killing of Uncle Sam, p.310

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

How the US Government Turned on the People


The catastrophic mismanagement of Hurricane Helene relief is a showing sign to the American people that Washington is not only dysfunctional, but worse, it doesn’t even seem to be trying to serve the people.

Instead, the people serve it. Like livestock.

So how did we get here?

The Long March of Bureaucracy

As with the economy, the seeds of our political crisis began a hundred years ago in the Progressive era.

The Progressives big year for taking over the economy was 1913, with income tax and the Federal Reserve Acts.

But the political takeover was earlier — according to historian Murray Rothbard, it began precisely 30 years earlier with something called the Pendleton Act of 1883.

The Act made bureaucrats professionals who are independent of politicians. This was allegedly to fight corruption, but note that a bureaucracy that’s independent of politicians is also independent of voters.

After all, politicians are the only part of the government who answers to voters. So if bureaucrats don’t answer to them, then who do they answer to?

Simple: they answer to nobody. The government bureaucracy becomes a self-serving occupying army. By design.

Bureaucrats and Angels

Progressives did this because they’ve convinced themselves that government workers are omniscient angels — that the act of collecting a government paycheck is a kind of purifying bath that washes away the greed and malice of the unwashed masses over whom the government lords over as if the people are parasites.

This may sound goofy, but talk to a Progressive.

Of course, after Covid, anybody who thinks bureaucrats are omniscient angels needs a lobotomy.

The Union of Bureaucrats and Socialists

Once installed with Pendleton, this independent bureaucracy was, of course, captured by the left — socialists, because they both wanted the same thing: increased government control.

They began in the Progressive Era with widespread regulations that were billed as ‘reining in’ Big Business, but were of course, written by Big Business, marketed by their paid socialist activists, then implemented by bureaucrats whose funding came from politicians on the payroll — well, the donor lists — of Big Business.

And so was born our Corporatist system — of course, there’s another word for it that begins with F and ends in -ism, but then I’m not trying to get censored.

Socialism’s “Inevitability”

This capture is why it feels the world is grinding ever more socialist: the bureaucracy partners with socialists to a common end: government control over the people.

They then use government money — your money — to propagate the takeover through academia, media and corporations who are punished if they don’t toe the line. Elon Musk’s regulatory harassment being just one example.

It can feel intimidating: Covid showed us there is essentially no institution in the country that has not been infiltrated by this toxic combination of government money and intimidation.

The cartels call it plata o plombo. Silver or lead. And the socialist Deep State uses both.

Crisis and the Deep State

Over the past century, every crisis grew this Deep State: world wars, Great Depression. Even made-up crises like global warming and, of course, Covid.

Covid was their dream come true: total control.

The problem, of course, is that once a wild animal tastes human blood you can never trust it again.

That’s exactly what happened in a moment that I believe is very close to today: The wartime socialism of World War I.

The men who pushed World War I — men like Herbert Hoover — imposed Soviet-style economic and social control during the war.

Once the war ended, they were very reluctant to hand that power back, and they spent the rest of their careers trying to get it again.

Unfortunately, the stock market crash of 1929 was the excuse they needed. They used it to seize the commanding heights of the economy — the administrative state, and, 100 years later, they still run it.

So that all takes us to today: a totalitarian Deep State that progressively seizes economic, social, and political power. Enslaving us with debt, mandates, taxes, and surveillance.

The administrative state can be defeated, but not by fighting the hydra head by head. That only works with single head snakes and make no mistake about it, our government has no single head. Rather, you go to the source: the independent bureaucracy.

To end the totalitarian deep state, politicians must have the ability to fire and hire anybody they like. Because the people must have that power, and until we abolish governments, politicians are their only voice.

The only alternative is progressive enslavement by bureaucratic commissars until the people rise up and fix it by other means that few will enjoy.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

The WHO continues its march for power


Back in June, there was encouraging news that the World Health Organization’s (WHO) pandemic agreement failed to pass. This agreement would have surrendered American sovereignty to unaccountable and unelected international bureaucrats operating at the behest of special interests. Thankfully, this agreement failed to pass.

But the WHO isn’t giving up. It is continuing its march for power.

The issue was brought up to members of Congress for a press conference on the Hill to raise awareness about the ongoing power grab attempt by the United Nations (UN) and the WHO.

The globalists at the UN and the WHO want power over America’s public health policy. If they are successful, their proposed pandemic agreement will irreparably harm American national sovereignty. Family Research Council Action (FRC Action) has been working on this matter and keeping you updated over the past year. Would you consider supporting our work by making a donation today?

This past weekend, the UN hosted a conference called “Summit of the Future” where certain international agreements, including the Pact for the Future, were discussed. The Pact would give the WHO power over the response to future pandemics, large-scale climate events, major events in space, and much more.

During the press conference, Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.) told reporters there were “enough examples and enough reasons” listed in the Pact for the Future’s emergency platform “for them to get involved pretty much whenever and wherever they want to.”

He later said on Washington Watch, “They want authority. They want global governance. And they’ll do whatever they can to achieve that. This agreement that we’re trying to stop would give them authority, global authority, in multiple categories of catastrophic events that might happen around the world.”

Congressman Crane also pointed out that Americans will not be able to vote the WHO’s bureaucrats out of office, meaning they will not be held accountable to we the people. This would be a terrible infringement upon American sovereignty, which is why FRC Action has been sounding the alarm for quite some time.

Recently, the U.S. House passed the No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act. This important bill would require the Senate to ratify the WHO’s pandemic agreement since it would function as a legally binding treaty. The Senate should also pass this measure to protect American sovereignty.

That’s one reason why the upcoming election is so important. Our nation needs leaders who will protect American sovereignty, not those who will hand it over to bureaucrats overseas. After all, our elected members of Congress are supposed to be the ones who represent the people of the United States.

Also discussed during the UN conference was the UN’s Global Digital Compact, which would require member states to control misinformation and disinformation. Under said Compact, even communications critical of the WHO could be characterized as “misinformation.” The UN’s Common Agenda document would provide “accountability criteria for discrimination and misleading content.”

We cannot allow this dangerous power grab to go unchallenged. I am convinced that the UN and the WHO think we are not paying attention to what they are trying to do. They would be mistaken.

Tens of thousands of you have already signed petitions to Congress urging them not to allow Washington to cede American sovereignty to the WHO.

The United States should defund the UN and the WHO, and any pandemic agreement or treaty should be submitted to the Senate for ratification.

While many ignore the WHO’s continual march for power, actions will continue sounding the alarms and work to stop it. Our members of Congress must act to protect American sovereignty from the WHO.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Guest Column: DOJ Dusts Off Civil War-Era Statute to Replace 1512(c)(2)


In the aftermath of SCOTUS ruling that overturned DOJ’s most common felony against J6ers, the Department of Justice is using an antiquated law to keep punishing Trump supporters.

This is a guest post by David W. Fischer, a Maryland and D.C.-based criminal defense attorney and the senior partner at Fischer & Putzi, P.A.  Most recently, Fischer defended January 6 defendant Thomas Caldwell, who was acquitted on seditious and other conspiracy charges.

If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. 

That’s what Attorney General Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice (DOJ) is doing in their over-zealous prosecution of January 6 defendants.  In June, the Supreme Court in United States v. Fischer effectively nuked hundreds of “obstruction” of Congress charges against January 6 defendants, ruling that a post-Enron statute, 18 U.S.C. §1512, designed to punish document destruction, did not apply to a Capitol Hill protest “gone wild.” 

Nonetheless, obsessed with targeting Trump supporters, the DOJ is now charging multiple defendants with a Civil War-era statute—18 U.S.C. § 372—which punishes (up to 6 years in prison) those who intimidate “officers of the United States” from their posts.  The DOJ charges that J6ers conspired to chase Members of Congress from Capitol Hill in violation of Section 372.  Once again, the DOJ is unfairly prosecuting J6ers under a statute that does not apply to their conduct.

Title 18 U.S.C. § 372 punishes conspiracies “to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed[.]”  The DOJ’s position is that Members of Congress hold the “offices” and are the “officers of the United States” that are covered by Section 372 and, accordingly, that J6ers can be prosecuted for allegedly causing their evacuation from Capitol Hill.  The DOJ is obviously wrong from both a historical and statutory construction standpoint. 

Enacted During the Civil War

In April 1861, confederate soldiers and sympathizers began forcibly seizing federal property within the southern and border states, chasing Union soldiers (Fort Sumpter), postmasters, custom house managers, and other federal officials from their posts.  Congress quickly responded by passing a series of laws that included what is now Section 372.  The obvious purpose of Section 372 was to protect “officers of the United States,” a term of art used in the Constitution, which applies to those individuals who hold federal jobs in the government thanks to the “Appointments Clause,” Art. II, § II, cl. II.  Members of Congress, however, are not constitutional “officers of the United States.” 

Members of Congress are not ‘Officers of the United States’ Under the Constitution

That Members of Congress are not “officers of the United States” is widely accepted among constitutional scholars.   As the Supreme Court observed in Bowsher v. Synar, which struck down portions of the 1980s Gramm-Rudman Act, “[N]o person who is an officer of the United States may serve as a Member of the Congress.”  Additionally, Members of Congress do not hold an “office, trust, or place of confidence” as that term is used in Section 372. 

In fact, this phrase is boilerplate language used in ubiquitous commissions given to presidential appointees, e.g., military officers, federal judges, etc., since the days of President George Washington.  Presidential commissions of “trust and confidence” are issued to “officers” pursuant to the Commissions Clause of the Constitution, Art. II, § 3, cl. 4 (“[The President] shall commission all the officers of the United States.”).  A Member of Congress does not receive a “commission” because he or she, unlike federal judges, executive branch appointees, and military officers, is not an “officer of the United States” and, hence, does not hold an “office, trust, or place confidence.”

The DOJ’s Counter-Argument is Baseless

 In court filings, the DOJ has not disputed that, under the Constitution, Members of Congress are not “officers of the United States.”  Instead, the DOJ argues that the 1861 Congress that enacted Section 372 used the term “officer of the United States” in a sense broader than the technical, constitutional definition.  According to the DOJ, because Members of Congress “hold office,” they are covered by Section 372’s use of the term “officers of the United States.”  This argument, however, is baseless. 

In fact, binding Supreme Court precedent from the 19th century holds that, when used in federal criminal statutes, the terms “office,” “officer,” and “officer of the United States,” absent unambiguous language to the contrary, refer to individuals who received positions via the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.

In one of those cases decided in 1878, United States v. Germaine, a surgeon hired by the Commissioner of Pensions was indicted for extortion while serving as, in the words of the statute, an “officer of the United States.”  Arguing for the indictment’s dismissal, the surgeon argued that because he was not appointed to his position pursuant to the Appointments Clause, he could not be convicted of violating a statute, which applied only to “officers of the United States.”  The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that absent unambiguous language to the contrary, the term “officer of the United States,” when used in criminal statutes, is limited to individuals appointed pursuant to the Appointments Clause.  In 1925, the Supreme Court in Steele v. United States summarized its numerous 19th century: “It is quite true that the words ‘officer of the United States,’ when employed in the statutes of the United States, is to be taken usually to have the limited constitutional meaning.”

Other Language in Section 372 Supports the J6ers

Section 372’s wording, moreover, proves that Members of Congress are not covered by the statute.  This statute punishes conspiracies aimed at preventing individuals “from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States[.]” Members of Congress, obviously, do not “accept” their positions—instead, they assume or take office.  A person “accepting” an “office, trust, or place of confidence” presupposes that someone offered that person position they accepted.

Members of Congress, by contrast, run for their offices and are elected by the voters. They do not “accept” government job “offers.” Accordingly, the phrase “office, trust, or place of confidence” in § 372—which lists stations that can be “accepted,” obviously does not include Members of Congress

Additionally, Congress’s use of the phrase “any person . . . holding any office . . . under the United States” in Section 372 further proves that Members of Congress are not covered by the statute’s language. This language, tellingly, appears to have been lifted from the Constitution’s “Ineligibility Clause,” pursuant to which Members of Congress are prohibited from simultaneously holding “offices”: “[N]o Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.”  (Art. I, § 6, cl. 2).  It is beyond belief that Congress intended to include itself in Section 372 by using verbatim language from the Constitution’s Ineligibility Clause, which actually bars Members of Congress from holding “offices.”

More Abuses of the Law

One of the unfortunate aspects of the lawfare that has been unleashed against Donald Trump and his supporters has been the misuse of federal criminal statutes.  Section 372 was enacted with a very specific purpose:  to protect commissioned officers in charge of various federal outposts throughout the United States, especially in southern states.  Additionally, the Supreme Court has made clear that criminal statutes that use the terms “office” or “officer of the United States” do not apply to individuals other than commissioned, presidential appointees. 

As Members of Congress were not covered in Section 372’s language, the DOJ’s use of this statute against J6ers is a total and complete miscarriage of justice just as everything else this bully agency is.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with: