(Authors note: Several readers have asked about the importance of covering the fact Madison, Hamilton, and others were pushing a nationalist form of government. This information is critical because the nationalist/monarchical form of government that was introduced and supported by Madison, Hamilton and others was repeatedly defeated, both in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and the subsequent state ratifying conventions. Unfortunately, what our founders intended, a Republic, has long since been abandoned for the nationalist form of government the majority opposed. In fact, our government has morphed into a National Socialist form of government not ideologically different than the National Socialist government of Germany in the 30’s and 40’s.)

Regardless of how many times you read it, or how many revisionist court historians write it, there is absolutely no evidence available which indicates there was a groundswell of support among the people for abandoning the Articles of Confederation.

Where might one go to discover the truth of my allegation? Why not to the words of the man who most wanted to change the limitations of the Articles to a form of government much more to his liking; a monarchy, and failing that, a strong centralized national government: Alexander Hamilton. Here it is in his words.

Men of intelligence, discovered the feebleness of the structure, [Articles of Confederation] but the great body of the people, too much engrossed with their distresses to contemplate any but the immediate causes of them, were ignorant of the defects of their Constitution.”

Patrick Henry of Virginia saw through the deception; he did not believe the Articles were weak. Speaking to the subject he said:

“The Confederation; this same despised Government, merits, in my opinion, the highest encomium: it carried us through a long and dangerous war. It rendered us victorious in that bloody conflict with a powerful nation: it has secured us a territory greater than any Monarch possesses. And a government which has been thus strong and vigorous be accused of imbecility and abandoned for a want of energy…Why then tell us dangers to terrify us into an adoption of this new Government? And yet who knows the dangers this new system may produce; they are out of sight of the common people. It is for them I fear the adoption of this new system. Sir, it is the fortune of a free people, not to be intimidated by imaginary dangers. Fear is the passion of slaves.”

We know that the framers of the Articles of Confederation had included the following in Article II of our first Constitution.

“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

This was one of the conditions present in the Articles that the nationalists/monarchists knew they had to eliminate. They simply did not want to contend with the ideas, questions and objections from 13 different colonies but instead wanted to have the people in aggregate (a nation) controlled by a central, all-powerful form of government, which they would, of course, lead. Just check how many so-called Federalists would serve in their newly created government. This would leave the states having very little to no voice in how they would be governed. Is any of this beginning to sound familiar?

The states, “retaining their sovereignty, freedom and independence” from the control of “men of intelligence” as Hamilton had described himself and his cronies would have as their government a confederated republic, the complete antithesis of a nationalist form of government. In addition, none of the “men of intelligence” wanted a government that would be limited to those powers which would be “expressly delegated” through the “consent of the governed.”

Again, understanding the difference between “expressly delegated” powers and “granted” powers is to understand the crucial difference in tyranny and limited, representative government. Expressly delegated means there is no room for “interpretation” by government employees and bureaucrats and clearly defines the intent of our founders.

It is of the highest importance that one understands that the federal government in the Articles of Confederation could operate only on the states; it had no control or power over individuals.

If an egregious or tyrannical law was passed by the federal government, the states had the ability to simply ignore it; known today as nullification or state interposition. The federal government could not arrest or imprison a state. Therefore, the “intelligent men,” in Hamilton’s view, realized they must have a national form of government that could and would act on the individual.

I believe this to be the very first confrontation between nationalists and advocates of State’s Rights, a battle that would surface again in the 1830’s with Justice Joseph Story and Senator Daniel Webster on the side of nationalism and Senator John C. Calhoun on the side of State’s Rights. (This battle of words and ideas will be covered later in our studies) This battle of ideas would eventually lead to an open, bloody war in 1861; a war that would take the lives of over 800,000 individuals and permanently install a nationalist form of government in our country.

Every malady and malaise that faces us in our country today can be traced to the implementation of nationalism instead of a strict adherence to the rights of the people of a state to nullify acts of government. Ah, but ignorance reigns supreme, for on any given day you can find a group of people somewhere who mistakenly believe they are being “patriotic,” robotically pledging allegiance to “One nation…indivisible,” a phrase which was written by a national socialist.

It is also of importance that when the Constitutional Convention of 1787 opened in May of that year, a time when representatives of only 6 states were in attendance, the first resolution adopted, stated, “a national government ought to be established.” Again, to illustrate that the idea of a national form of government was repeatedly voted down in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 once representatives from other states had arrived, the record of the proceedings as recorded by Robert Yates, delegate from New York, commonly known as “Yates Minutes,” stated the following:

“Ellsworth. [Oliver Ellsworth, delegate from Connecticut] I propose, and therefore move, to expunge the word ‘national’ in the first resolve, and to place in the room of it, government of the United States,’ which was agreed to nem con.”

Hopefully, this session has clearly illustrated that our current form of government which is totally nationalist in nature, though it was proposed and supported by several of our founders who declared themselves to be “intelligent men,” is not the form of government favored by the majority of our founders and ratified by the several states.

Almost entirely omitted from most writings on our founding era is one of the true motives of the nationalists was to take the power of governing from those in the state legislatures whom they deemed to be inferior to themselves and placing that governing power into the hands of the elite. For evidence of this I offer the following:

From Patrick Henry, “The Constitution reflects in the most degrading and mortifying manner on the virtue, integrity, and wisdom of the state legislatures; it presupposes that the chosen few who go to Congress will have more upright hearts, and more enlightened minds, than those who are members of the individual legislatures.”

James Madison, [the Constitution will lead to] “extracting from the mass of the society the purest and noblest characters which it contains.” (Is this the type of character we have in government today?)

John Quincy Adams saw the Constitution as “calculated to increase the influence, power and wealth of those who have it already.”

As stated by one of the Anti-federalists, the plan of the Constitution was “dangerously adapted to the purposes of an immediate aristocratic tyranny.”

If you maintain any thought that our present government is not an “aristocratic tyranny” just go to www.opensecrets.org and research the wealth and position of our current members of Congress and the “dark money” that drives our government.

(Part IV coming soon to an email near you.)


We left off our previous discussion with the 12 people who met in Annapolis Maryland in September of 1786. We learned that of the twelve, John Dickinson, a man who refused to sign the Declaration of Independence and supported England in the Revolutionary War was elected Chairman of that group unanimously. It also should be noted that John Dickinson drafted the Articles of Confederation in 1776, was a delegate to the Convention of 1787, but had a proxy sign the constitution in his stead.

We learned this convention had been called after the Congress found no interest in amending the Articles of Confederation as requested by Alexander Hamilton and it was apparent these twelve representatives wished to circumvent the Congress in their desire to “strengthen” the government and give it more “energy.”

History reveals that when men seek to strengthen and energize government, they do so believing such actions will benefit them directly and seldom if ever benefit those being governed.

Most interesting is that two delegates to the Annapolis Convention; Hamilton and Madison, would, along with John Jay, assume the title of Federalists when in truth their designs for a future government were anything but federal and were strongly nationalist or monarchical. Their presentations for a new form of government in the Convention of 1787 are proof positive.

Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers which are revered today by many. The problem is: these essays were simply an ad campaign or a marketing strategy to convince the people to accept the new constitution absent a Bill of Rights. Look at what the Federalist trio actually did, not what they said or wrote. The Federalist Papers were not read widely in other states before the Constitution was ratified.

When the nationalists/monarchists, masquerading as Federalists, left Annapolis in September of 1786, their goal was to completely overhaul the ruling documents and create a more centralized form of government while scrapping the restrictive Articles of Confederation. But, they knew presenting their plan as such would not gather the support they needed to secure delegates to a convention they intended to control.

The delegates to the Annapolis Convention were able to convince Congress that the Articles of Confederation were deficient and needed a convention of states to recommend amendments. These delegates were fully aware that in order to get a majority of people to vote contrary to their own interests, coercion of some form was absolutely necessary and the means of coercion were not to be found in the Articles. What occurred with the scrapping of the Articles of Confederation and the introduction of the Constitution was a counter-revolution to our War for Independence. The new Constitution provided a strong nationalist document with unlimited taxing powers. Not significantly different from the form of government the colonists had endured under King George III.

Historian Sheldon Richmond* said this relating to what the presentation of the Constitution as opposed to amending the Articles of Confederation actually accomplished.

“…it was a counter-revolution, in many ways a reversal of the radical achievement represented by America’s break with the British empire. The constitutional counter-revolution was the work not of radicals, but of conservatives who sought, in the words of Robert Morris, the ambitious nationalist Superintendent of Finance under the Articles of Confederation, a nation of “power, consequence, and grandeur.”

Like politicians of all ages in history, the nationalists/monarchists knew that to accomplish their goals, subterfuge was required. (Wait until we pass it, then we can see what is in it) Therefore, the rallying call for the Philadelphia Convention in May of 1787 was formed on the idea of “amending” the Articles of Confederation.

Notwithstanding the rhetoric of the nationalists/monarchist’s concerns of the weakness and inability to deal with issues of commerce and trade, when boiled down to the lowest common denominator, the real issue they had with the Articles was a lack of ability to coerce the populace to accommodate their political agenda. This excerpt from a letter from George Washington to John Jay in August of 1786 well illustrates my contention.

“We have probably had too good an opinion of human nature in forming our confederation. Experience has taught us, that men will not adopt and carry into execution measures the best calculated for their own good without the intervention of a coercive power.

Many are of the opinion, that Congress have too frequently made use of the suppliant, humble tone of requisition in applications to the States when they had a right to assert their imperial dignity and command obedience.”

The implication found in this short passage reveals the nationalists/monarchists belief the leaders of this new country had the “right to assert their imperial dignity” and to “command obedience” from the people. Not much different in structure and idealism from the words pouring forth from the political leaders of today.

The State of North Carolina is now fighting an edict from the central government to allow perverts in the restrooms and showers of their state while a federal judge this week issued a ruling requiring the State of Kansas to grant voting rights to people who cannot prove their citizenship; A perfect example of the central government “commanding obedience” from the states.

It is important to know that the Congress of the State of Massachusetts when initially asked to provide delegates to a convention that would strengthen the Articles of Confederation responded thusly:

“More power in Congress has been the cry from all quarters, but especially of those whose views, not being confined to a government that will best promote the happiness of the people, are extended to one that will afford lucrative employment, civil and military. Such a government is an aristocracy which would require a standing army and a numerous train of pensioners to prop and support its exalted administration.”

The nationalists/monarchists, posing as Federalists, must have been incensed at those words. John Jay wrote to George Washington:

“Private rage for property suppresses public considerations, and personal rather than national interests have become the great objects of attention.”

Is this not the identical argument that is now centered around events such as the attacks by the BLM and the USFS on private property rights? Are we not continually forced to accept the loss of rights and property for the “national interests?” The “private rage for property” rights recently landed several members of the Bundy family and journalist Pete Santilli in jail, the Hammonds in prison and LaVoy Finicum in his grave.

James Madison urged George Washington to allow his name [Washington] to appear on the list of delegates to the Constitutional Convention even though Washington had expressed his doubts about attending due to a prior commitment to the Order of the Cincinnatus. Madison would submit his proposal, known as the Virginia Plan, to Washington by mail in April of 1787 along with a letter which contained the following phrase:

“…the right of coercion should be expressly declared.”

Madison knew that Washington’s name as a delegate would create the much-needed confidence in the people for the upcoming convention. Washington did eventually attend the convention.

The fact Madison had written and eventually transmitted to Washington and others his plan for a new form of government before the convention began could certainly be considered prima facie evidence the nationalists/monarchists intended from the beginning to scrap the Articles of Confederation for a more centralized, nationalistic (read coercive) form of government.

The majority of the 74 delegates initially selected by their state legislators to attend the 1787 convention believed they were to travel to Philadelphia to “amend the Articles of Confederation.”

It should be noted the convention did not begin on time and it was the 25th of May before a quorum of states was seated; 19 of the selected delegates never attended a single session; New Hampshire’s delegation was two months late in arriving.

Conspicuously missing from the delegates who were in attendance when the convention began were several among those we refer to as “founding fathers.” Thomas Jefferson was in France; John Adams was in England; Thomas Paine, Samuel Adams, and John Hancock do not appear to have been invited while Patrick Henry, who was selected, chose not to attend, stated he, “smelt a rat in Philadelphia, tending toward the Monarchy.” What an astute, prescient statement by Patrick Henry!

Henry, who had been greeted with the chant “treason” from those in attendance when he presented his objections to the Stamp Act in the Virginia House of Burgesses while comparing King George III to Julius Caesar and Charles I, was now challenging Madison, Hamilton, and Jay who wanted to reestablish a monarchical form of government on the ashes of the Articles of Confederation and nullify the long bloody war for independence.

When it comes to the quest for Liberty, it should be noted that Nationalist Benjamin Rush from Pennsylvania, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, a member of the Pennsylvania Ratification Convention and the father of American psychiatry, diagnosed the passion for liberty as a form of mental illness. He wrote,

“The extensive influence which these opinions [excited by the excess passion for liberty] had upon the understandings, passions, and morals of many of the citizens of the United States constituted a species of insanity which I shall take the liberty of distinguishing by the name of Anarchia.”

Benjamin Rush, in order to counteract this “species of insanity,” induced by a love of liberty, taught his pupils they were, “public property.” Noted by political activist David Barton as “The Father of Public Schools Under the Constitution” Rush had this to say about the children of the founding era,

“Let our pupil be taught that he does not belong to himself, but that he is public property. Let him be taught to love his family, but let him be taught at the same time that he must forsake and even forget them when the welfare of his country requires it.”

All this from the man David Barton presents as a devout Christian in his writings and DVD series.

*America’s Counter-Revolution: The Constitution Revisited, by Sheldon Richmond.

(Part III to follow)



Authors note: This will be a multi-part presentation in response to several requests for more information on the founding era of our country, which in many cases is contrary to what we were all taught in history and government/civics classes. It is also beneficial to understand the motives of many at the very beginning of our country. Such motives will provide insight into what our government has morphed into during its existence.

Among us in our country today are those who are strong advocates of an omnipotent, centralized government whose every law must be obeyed and every wish granted without question or discussion, much less dissent. What are the origins of those beliefs? Could it be a desire for a king as one sees in the Scriptures (I Samuel Chapter 8) when the Israelites asked Samuel to “make us a king to judge us like all the nations?” (v 5 SKJV) Was this the first recorded act of people rejecting Natural Law in favor of the laws of man (a king)?

Of particular interest is the use of the word “nations” in the above passage. The definition of a nation is an “aggregate” of people united in one form or another. Today, this is most often interpreted as an aggregate of people united under one leader or form of government that cannot be divided. “I pledge allegiance to the flag…one nation…indivisible.” Was a nation the end results of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 or did the majority of our founders choose to implement a different form of government? To best understand this, one must comprehend what brought those delegates to Philadelphia in the summer of 1787.

To better comprehend the events of the convention of 1787 we must be aware of the motives of those who pushed politically for that convention and the type of government they would present to the other delegates. A great place for examining these motives can be found in what was called the “Proceedings of Commissioners to Remedy Defects of the Federal Government” held on the 11th of September in 1786 in Annapolis, Maryland.

Several among those known as our “founders” were troubled early on about the limitations that had been placed on the powers of government by the Articles of Confederation which were ratified in 1781. Troubling to anyone whose goal was a nationalist form of government as opposed to a federal one was Article 2 of these Articles.

 “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.” (Emphasis added. This is a critical phrase of understanding concerning forms of government)

Even more troubling to those desiring a more centralized powerful government was the following phrase of Article XIII.

“…nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.” (This is exactly what the proponents of a national form of government sought to avoid.)

Those who sought to use the government to exercise power and dominion over the people realized the citizens of the 13 colonies held wide and varying beliefs on the role of government in their lives and obtaining the affirmation of all 13 in the pursuit of a national government would be impossible. The first to strike upon a scheme for alteration of the Articles and the very limited government they formed was Alexander Hamilton. In 1782, the New York Assembly, at the urging of Hamilton, asked the Congress to call for a convention of the states to revise the Articles. In 1785, the Massachusetts Legislature seconded the request to Congress. Congress considered the request but could not find a consensus for such an assembly in the other states.

James Madison then moved through the Virginia Assembly in January of 1786 for a meeting in Annapolis, Maryland in September to discuss “commercial problems” alleged to be in the Articles.

Only 12 delegates from 5 states met in Annapolis to discuss these commercial issues. Obviously, the assemblies of the other 8 states saw no compelling reason to attend this convention nor were they overly concerned about “defects of the Federal Government.” Illustrative was the fact that even though the convention was held in Annapolis, Maryland, no delegates from Maryland were in attendance.

I believe to understand the importance of who these delegates were and what their individual motives were is critical to understanding this important but overlooked part of our country’s history.

What should be most revealing is the fact John Dickinson of Delaware was unanimously elected Chairman of the proceedings. Why is this important you ask? Well, Dickinson steadfastly opposed American Independence from the beginning and refused to vote on or sign the Declaration of Independence. This alone should cause one to question his motives concerning alteration of the Articles of Confederation.

Interesting also is the fact the other 11 delegates to the Annapolis Convention were politicians and/or lawyers. Possibly, the only attendee who believed in a limited form of government was St. George Tucker from Virginia. It should be noted that Alexander Hamilton, one of the delegates from New York, had founded the Bank of New York in 1784 which was referred to as a “global financial services” company.

Ironically, Hamilton in September of 1789, acting as our first Secretary of the Treasury, would initiate a loan from the bank he helped found to the new United States Government. Surely we can all agree on how helpful and supportive global financial interests have been toward limited republican government over the course of our country’s history.

But, James Madison, who is called the Father of our Constitution was instrumental in promoting the Annapolis Convention and was, in fact, a delegate you exclaim! True, but, I do believe Madison was a nationalist and fostered an agenda contrary to a federal/republican form of government. This became most apparent with his authoring of the Virginia Plan in April of 1787, at least a month before the convention. A plan in which Madison believed the “states should be reduced to corporations.” An idea later supported by both Abraham Lincoln and Adolf Hitler.

The background and agendas of some of the other delegates to the Annapolis Convention deserve some investigation. One such delegate was Tench Coxe from Pennsylvania. After the British Army occupied Philadelphia during the Revolution, Coxe continued to carry on a thriving business with both Loyalists and the British Army. When the Patriots took over Philadelphia, Coxe left, only to return when the British Army retook Philadelphia under British General Howe in 1777. Several Patriots accused Coxe of having “British sympathies” and he was also accused of briefly serving in the British Army.

Important was the fact delegates from only 5 states, certainly not a majority, fully admitted in their report to exceeding the “strict bounds of their appointment(s)” as delegates to the Annapolis Convention. It is important to note this fact, for it will continue.

“If in expressing this wish, or in intimating any other sentiment, your Commissioners should seem to exceed the strict bounds of their appointment, they entertain a full confidence, that a conduct, dictated by an anxiety for the welfare, of the United States, will not fail to receive an indulgent construction.”

Again, it is important to note that “the anxiety for the welfare of the United States” was never shown to be present in a majority of the states, indicated by the lack of attendance at this convention, but was present only in these select few whose motives would, because of their past actions, be at best, suspect.

At the convention in Annapolis, which led directly to the call for delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 we have the following:

  1. A chairman (Dickinson) elected unanimously who had refused to sign the Declaration of Independence and had opposed American independence and separation from the Crown.
  2. An influential member of the delegation (Hamilton) who had been the first to call for this convention and had recently formed a bank with at the time professed global financial interests. Were those interests connected to the Bank of England perchance, and is it simply coincidence Hamilton would become our first Secretary of the Treasury and would then call for a United States Bank which Thomas Jefferson called “unconstitutional?”
  3. Another member of this delegation (Coxe) was known to give aid and comfort to the British during the revolution while profiting from the act and is alleged to have possibly served briefly in the military of the British.
  4. Then, of course, there was James Madison who, months before the Convention of 1787 wrote a new plan for government that was nationalist and not federal and who throughout his political career would change his political views to comport with the exigencies of the moment. Ample evidence of this fact can be found in his vacillations concerning States Rights.

Conspicuously absent from this convention was any support or mention of the motives and principles of the Articles of Confederation which led to our country’s independence or the values of Liberty expressed by patriots such as Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams. Would it be of interest to know why these two patriots were not selected as delegates?

There can be little doubt that the Annapolis Convention led to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and a departure from several key principles of the Articles of Confederation; arguably, some good—some bad.

Should we the people be alarmed that the proponents and leaders of the Annapolis Convention were perhaps still loyal to England and perhaps even the Bank of England and desirous of either a return to a monarchy in which they would be the leaders, or at the very least a government of a national character not at all unlike the despotic government we have today?

There are no doubt those delegates from the Annapolis Convention sought to bring about change outside of the dictates of the Articles of Confederation and the Congress of the United States. Why? I believe the answer to that question will be revealed as we continue with our study of the founding era of America.




*Author’s note: With the recent events surrounding allowing perverts and sexual deviants unfettered access to potential victims now being dictated by the central government as vividly seen with the lawsuit against North Carolina for having a governor and a legislature with the courage to just say no to a tyrannical central government, I thought back to this article I had written some time back. Now, we see our diversity centric Attorney General associating perverts in the bathroom with the Civil Rights movement. This makes the words of George C. Wallace as quoted below even more relevant than they were 50 plus years ago. It also illustrates the value of our 10th Amendment.)

“There is not a dime’s worth of difference between the Democrat and Republican Parties” ~George Wallace, 1966-1968

Arguably, one could state the above quote by the late iconic political figure, George Wallace, was the very epitome of the “separate but equal” legal doctrine that has been used as a political football by the American Oligarchy I have referred to as “Clowns in Black Gowns.”

As it has done hundreds of times, the US Supreme Court reversed itself from a previous ruling in Plessy v Ferguson 1896 to Brown v Board of Education in 1953-54. The numerous vacillations of the black robed oligarchs demonstrates vividly our Constitution is subject to the arbitrary political agendas of nine people with questionable motives and frequently ignores the hundreds who participated in the State Ratification conventions in 1788-89.

If the Supremes reverse themselves, which ruling was constitutional and which was not?

In the interest of full disclosure, I will state that I totally agree with Governor Wallace’s assessment of our two major political parties in 1966 and 1968 and believe that statement to be true today even more so than when he made it.

George Wallace garnered almost 10 million votes in his quest for the presidency back in 1968 running on the American Independent Party ticket. Wallace carried 5 Southern states with the attendant 45 electoral votes. Wallace’s realistic goal was to gain enough electoral votes to throw the election into the House of Representatives. He failed to accomplish this goal.

While there are very few people today who will remember Wallace’s quote above, many more will remember another quote from his gubernatorial inaugural address in January of 1963 in which Wallace would say, “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever.” This statement would forever brand Wallace as a “racist” and a “bigot.”

To understand this article one must have a working knowledge of the word, segregation. Segregation is defined as “the action or state of setting something apart from other people or things.” Would any form of segregation constitute racism or bigotry? Can a segregationist act by one group which is considered racist or bigoted by popular definition be seen as acceptable by another or is that the very definition of hypocrisy? Let’s examine a few possibilities.

  • If one group or race of people has a month set aside to honor their history when others do not, is that not segregation?
  • If one group or race of people is allowed to form a congressional caucus exclusive to their race, religion or ethnicity, does that not constitute segregation?
  • If one group or race of people is allowed to have a college fund designated specifically for members of their race or group, does that not constitute segregation?
  • If a group or race of people can establish Chambers of Commerce specifically to address issues relative to their group or race, does that not constitute segregation?
  • If a group or race of people is allowed to form an association that specifically addresses advancement of their race or group, does that not constitute segregation?
  • If a group or race of people have institutions of higher learning that cater specifically to their own race to the exclusion of others, is this not segregation?

Had George C. Wallace stated in his Inaugural address in January of 1963:

“Black History Month, Congressional Black Caucus, United Negro College Fund, The Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the top 25 Colleges for Black Students; today, tomorrow and forever,” would he have been labeled a racist and a bigot? Why not? All of the above certainly meet the definition of a segregationist organization, do they not?

George C. Wallace was not feared by the power cabal because he was a racist or a bigot; Wallace was feared because of his unflinching support for State’s Rights and his utter disdain and condemnation of interference in the affairs of the states by the federal government, especially the federal courts.

While all of the government lapdogs, both in and out of the media demonized Wallace for being racist, their true fear was his growing popularity among the common man and woman in America. Historically, the power elite has always feared such an awakening. This growing fear would eventually lead to a felt need to eliminate the man behind the movement.

Various statements from Wallace’s address before assuming the office of Governor of Alabama loomed much more dangerous to the powers that be more than any statement about segregation. Are Wallace’s words of 1963 relevant in this country today?

“People produce wealth; Free people. And as they learn there is little reward for ambition – that it requires faith to risk, and they have none – as the government must restrict and penalize and tax incentive and endeavor and must increase its expenditure of bounties, then this government must assume more and more police powers and we find we are becoming a government-fearing people, not God-fearing people. We find we have replaced faith with fear. And though we may give lip-service to the Almighty, in reality, the government has become our god. It is therefore basically ungodly government and its appeal to the pseudo-intellectual and the politician is to change their status from servant of the people to master of the people—to play at being God—without faith in God—and without the wisdom of GodIts pseudo-liberal spokesmen and some Harvard advocates have never examined the logic of its substitution of what it calls ‘human rights’ for ‘individual rights,’ for its propaganda play upon words has appeal for the unthinking.” (Emphasis added)

“Let us send the message back to Washington by our representatives who are with us today. That from this day we are standing up, and the heel of tyranny does not fit an upright man…”

“It is an idea of government that encourages our fears and destroys our faith; for where there is faith, there is no fear, and where there is fear, there is no faith. In encouraging our fears of economic insecurity it demands we place that economic management and control with government; in encouraging our fear of educational development it demands that we place that education and the minds of our children under management and control of government, and even feeding our fears of physical infirmities and declining years, it offers and demands to father us through it all and even into the grave. It is a government that claims to us that it is bountiful as it buys its power from us with the fruits of its rapaciousness of the wealth that free men before it have produced and builds on crumbling credit without responsibilities to the debtors—our children.”

I recommend you read the address in its entirety, for in it you will find a description of what has happened to our country during most of our lives that have led us to a government of, by and for the privileged elite.

George C. Wallace was shot in Maryland in May of 1972 by Arthur Bremer. The circumstances around this attempted assassination, the growing popularity of Wallace’s message, the possible involvement of several government agencies and President Nixon’s “plumbers,” who would later become famous in the conspiracy that was Watergate, and the circumstances of the mysterious death of J. Edgar Hoover just weeks before, make for very interesting reading.

I certainly do not have the time or the space to pursue all of the possibilities of a conspiracy to eliminate Wallace from political power, but the following information about Arthur Bremer, the alleged shooter, should suffice to peak interest in the particulars of this event.

The income tax returns found in Bremer’s apartment after his arrest indicates a previous year’s income of $1,611.00. Remember that he had to pay for rent and food out of that amount. In the months before the assassination attempt Bremer paid cash for a car; paid for a plane ticket to New York where he stayed at the Waldorf Astoria; drove back and forth to Ottawa, Canada where he stayed at The Lord Elgin, where coincidentally the US Secret Service was staying at the time; bought three firearms; took a helicopter ride in NYC; paid for a chauffeured limousine and tipped a lady who gave him a massage $30.

The powers that be decided that the life and ideals of George C. Wallace presented impediments to their agenda that had to be eliminated. They saw that their demonization of Wallace as a racist and a bigot had not gained the necessary traction, so other means to accomplish their goals had to be implemented.

When you read the entirety of Wallace’s address you will notice many references to the dedication and history of the people of the South, especially those who were instrumental to the founding of our country.

No country can long endure whose government politically and legislatively promotes the destruction of the heritage, both cultural and racial, of its founding generation. Since the 1860’s those in power in this country have worked tirelessly to destroy the very concepts of Liberty espoused by Jefferson, Patrick Henry, James Monroe, and others.

George Washington is alleged to have said of government:

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

Whether Washington actually said this or not does not detract from its basic truths. What another Southerner named George said in the frigid temperatures of January in 1963 have also proven true. Since 1861, the government of our country has used force to accomplish its goals of total domination using draconian unconstitutional laws and a compliant media in that pursuit.

The goals of tyrannical government are diametrically opposed to the culture and principles of the founders of our once free country. The ideals of Jefferson, Henry, Samuel Adams and other men of Liberty have long since fallen victim to progressivism, diversity, and a socialist agenda.

No matter what the endeavor, if it was successful at one time, but is currently in decline, the only way to recover that success is to return to the basics which led to the previous accomplishments and prosperity. Continuing down the path of Nationalism/Socialism will never lead to such a recovery, no matter which party you support or which candidate you vote for. A recovery of this once great country will only be accomplished with a return to virtue, morality and unwavering support for our Bill of Rights.

Freedom of thought and the right of private judgment, in matters of conscience, driven from every other corner of the earth, direct their course to this happy country as their last asylum.” ~Samuel Adams

The “happy country” mentioned by Adams was not at all unlike the country Wallace yearned to return to in his 1963 Inaugural Address. It certainly does not exist now.

RIP, George C. Wallace


We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false. – William Casey, Ronald Reagan’s first CIA Director (from Casey’s first staff meeting, 1981)

On September 18, 1947, the National Security Act became law. This new law created multiple layers of unaccountable bureaucracies that have controlled our government since that date. Among those new bureaucracies were the Department of Defense, a subtle change in wording from Department of War to lull the American people to sleep believing their military would only be involved in defending the country. Of course, this has morphed into a force which, while leaving our borders unprotected, has embarked on a quest for empire with a US military presence in over 140 different countries, a massive albatross of choking debt, hundreds of thousands of dead and maimed military personnel and unconstitutional, perpetual wars for peace with nothing to show in the “win” column.

Also brought to us with the National Security Act were the agencies tasked with intelligence gathering. Among those were the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) with several smaller bureaucratic siblings. Initially charged with ferreting out intelligence from our enemies, these two monoliths of government have instead turned their attention on what our government deems its most threatening enemy: the American people.

While the NSA is busy listening to your phone conversations, reading your emails and texts and monitoring everyone on social media, the CIA has devoted much time and effort into its programs of disinformation and propaganda supporting the central government and its criminal activities waged against the people who pay their exorbitant salaries, healthcare and pensions.

Vital to the continuance of these deceptions is the ability of the government to convince a majority of the people being victimized by their crimes that the crimes are committed by others without any involvement by the government itself. This serves two purposes. First, it keeps the citizens ignorant and afraid. Second, the fear generated is used to justify ever increasing budgets which fuel the crimes and those tasked with covering them up.

Folks like myself and many others who saw through the ruse used to cover our government’s involvement in false flag operations many years ago have been castigated and discredited through the disinformation arm of our government using the pejorative term of “conspiracy theorist, or conspiracy nut.” This disinformation arm of our government long ago brought the media, which includes, newspapers, most of the TV shows you watch along with the broadcast news agencies into the fold with “Operation Mockingbird.” Below are some interesting quotes for your consideration which speak to my point.

“The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.” — William Colby, former CIA Director, cited by Dave Mcgowan, Derailing Democracy

“There is quite an incredible spread of relationships. You don’t need to manipulate Time magazine, for example, because there are [Central Intelligence] Agency people at the management level.” — William B. Bader, former CIA intelligence officer, briefing members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, The CIA and the Media, by Carl Bernstein

“For some time I have been disturbed by the way the CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the government…. I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations.” –former President Harry Truman, 22 December 1963, one month after the JFK assassination, op-ed section of the Washington Post, early edition.

It is not really hard to get the mentally illiterate of this country to go along with the government’s propaganda for they have been educated in the public fool system to accept anything told to them by their lord and masters—at all levels; they avoid uncomfortable truths like they did doing homework in high school. Besides, the truth is much too uncomfortable for them and could lead to depression and a bevy of new prescriptions.

Those of us who have tried to point out the crimes of our government from the assassinations of JFK, MLK, and RFK to 9/11, TWA 800, the OKC bombing, the attack on the USS Liberty, foreknowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor, The Gulf of Tonkin incident, the Boston Marathon Bombing, and several school shootings—especially Sandy Hook, have been called conspiracy theorists or nuts for as long as I can remember. Many of us have experienced lost friends and acquaintances for our trouble and have also been the victims of personal attacks by those who cling desperately to government lies, especially those who would have to face the truth of their own crimes if they were to admit our government’s involvement in our own deception and economic slavery.

Facts roll off the minds of the indoctrinated and functionally illiterate like water off a duck’s back. Proof such as that offered by official documents such as those in “Operation Northwoods” seem to drive these people further into the abyss of ignorance and denial. “Please don’t make me think—it depresses me!”

Could there be evidence of the CIA’s actual intent to mislead the American public found somewhere in the bowels of government? But, more importantly, would the naysayers, functionally illiterate government shills and those who claim those who attempt to educate and reveal the truth are theorists and nuts ever admit to the truth, even if presented irrefutable evidence? I have no such hopes!

I believe Emma Goldman to be precise in her description of these people. “True freedom requires sacrifice and pain. Most human beings only think they want freedom. The truth is they yearn for the bondage of social order, rigid laws, materialism. The only freedom man really wants is to be comfortable.”

The problem is: most of these comfortable folks will be the ones who rush to rat out their neighbors who have prepared for the coming tyranny when the defecation hits the fan as a result of our institutionalized ignorant population’s ready acceptance of government lies and crimes. Never forget the admonition from the Department of Homeland Security, “If you see something, say something.”

So, is there documented proof that the CIA purposely set out to cover for government crimes by describing those who caught onto the game as conspiracy theorists and nuts? Yes, it can be found in CIA document 1035-960. Here, read it for yourself.

‘Conspiracy theory’ is a term that strikes fear and anxiety in the hearts of most every public figure, particularly journalists and academics. Since the 1960s the label has become a disciplinary device that has been overwhelmingly effective in defining certain events as off limits to inquiry or debate. Especially in the United States, raising legitimate questions about dubious official narratives destined to inform public opinion (and thereby public policy) is a major thought crime that must be cauterized from the public psyche at all costs… CIA Document 1035-960 played a definitive role in making the ‘conspiracy theory’ term a weapon to be wielded against almost any individual or group calling the government’s increasingly clandestine programs and activities into question.

There you have it; read ’em and weep’ for your country!

Sources: Global Research, “Weaponizing the term, Conspiracy Theory: Disinformation Agents and the CIA.”

Whatreallyhappened.com, “Operation Mockingbird; The Subversion of the Free Press by the CIA.”

Gladly brought to you by your local “thought crime” practitioner, conspiracy theorist and nut, the Rebel Madman.




No groups of people are more easily enslaved than those who are functionally illiterate or have been successfully indoctrinated to the point they do not understand they are slaves, and no groups of people are more criminal than those who believe their criminal acts are necessary and sanctioned by a god called government.

It started with John Dewey in 1898 and continues today with complete government sanction, operating under sanitized, euphemistic phrases such as “Goals 2000, No Child Left Behind or Common Core.” Collectivism has brought us to the point where approximately 50% of the population of our country is functionally illiterate. If you doubt this for a moment, have your server at a local fast food restaurant make change without a programmed cash register or ask almost anyone to explain why the people known as Anti-federalists opposed ratification of our Constitution.

Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.” Vladimir Lenin

Dewey wrote “Change must come gradually. To force it unduly would compromise its final success by favoring a violent reaction.” Dewey’s ghost and those who continue the destruction of individualism and the promotion of collectivism need not worry. Violent or concentrated reaction to one’s children being indoctrinated, molested and drugged by the government is nothing but a long forgotten pipe-dream.

The only people who actually see what is happening, those most usually of group mentality, operating within the framework of some organization that claims to be “constitutional” or “patriotic,” are basically tilting at windmills. They have their little group-think meetings where collectivism is condemned in word only, then meander on home to worship their god of war and a militarized police state while watching sports or reality TV. Violent reaction to anything has long since been bred out of these folks.

These groups believe the answer to all problems is to petition their betters in politics, or if that fails, elect new people to fill the positions of those who have previously betrayed their trust. Either path is analogous to asking the person or persons who broke into your home and killed your family to please attend the funeral and mourn the dead. To quote Robert LeFevre, “Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure.”

People just do not understand that governments do not derive their power from force, guns, and unconstitutional laws without first having their power and corruption sanctioned by a majority of the people who are willing to support such a government with elections, conventions, and votes. Participating in an electoral process that brings tyrants to power is condoning the actions of those elected regardless of for whom you voted. Voting for any candidate who never mentions during the entirety of their campaign the object [Constitution]of the sacred oath they will take when elected is voiced acceptance of a government that operates outside of the restraints of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

If you vote for a candidate, no matter how better they appear than their opponent, who does not have a working knowledge of the document they swear to “uphold and defend;” to expect them to honor that oath is more indicative of your insanity than it is the character of the candidate you will later condemn for their tyranny and crimes.

All forms of government lean toward the collective mentality. No one probably states that axiom better than Professor Butler Shaffer. “In varying degrees, every political system is collectivist in nature, each being premised upon the centralization of state authority over the lives and property of individuals. Communism is only the more aggressive and far-reaching form of state socialism. But every political form is grounded in the belief that the state may rightfully preempt the decision-making authority of individuals.”

The collectivist educational agenda is to have all so-called learning done in the group setting. No individualism is allowed. An individual is never permitted to rise above the collective good of the group. The perceived need to be part of something larger than one’s self begins early in the educational process. The young mind full of mush is oriented toward gang mentality from day one in the public fool system. The only question that remains is: which gang to join?

Considering the family structure has been under attack in this country for decades, those without the benefit of such upbringing lean toward gangs that are most often referred to by their alleged criminal actions. The violence and death witnessed on the streets of our inner cities are proof positive. What have we become when the shooting deaths of eight people and the shooting and wounding of many more on the streets of Chicago on Mother’s Day goes virtually unnoticed in the national media?

“Destroy the family, you destroy the country” ~Vladimir Lenin

The “goody-two-shoes” segment of our society, hiding behind the façade of the “religious right,” have abandoned the tenets of the Bill of Rights that provides for individual free will, to embrace instead the god of government and its mandates on individual choices, in particular, the “war on drugs.” In so doing, they have provided fertile soil for the gangs involved in providing drugs the government has deemed “illegal” in favor of those lobbyists in the pharmaceutical industry who have paid huge numbers of dollars to obtain the government sanction of “legal.”

Arguably, no other government action has produced more slavery and criminal activity, at least since the insane period of our history called prohibition. One would be hard pressed to prove the majority of “criminal” gangs in this country do not derive a great deal of their money from the sale of “illegal” drugs. In addition, this overwhelming desire of the goody-two-shoes class to use the coercive powers of government to impose their will on others has done more to destroy several provisions of our Bill of Rights and to empower the militarized police state than any other act in history. In a terribly misguided attempt to dictate the choices of those they wish to control, the do-gooders in our society have destroyed forever several essential rights deemed by our Declaration of Independence to be unalienable.

Karl Marx, his disciples like Dewey, and the leadership of both political parties have created a collectivist form of government which has rapidly morphed into totalitarian form. Several decades back, the Marxist collectivists convinced those who refer to themselves as “conservative” that they must embrace tenets of collectivism in order to gain the votes of an increasing number of functionally illiterate citizens. Conservatives have responded in spades.

In the mad rush to add to their voter base, both parties have been equally instrumental in creating an “entitlement” society. The liberal progressives (Marxists) have convinced those who will not work that they are “entitled” to the fruits of the labor of those who do, but not one iota more than the conservatives (Fascists) who promote the entitlement culture of the military/industrial/national security/banking/pharmaceutical community.

If one has any interest in what is happening to our country or what is happening each and every day in the public fool system, reading Dr. Samuel Blumenfeld and Alex Newman’s book, “Crimes of the Educators: How Utopians are using Government Schools to Destroy America’s Children” is an absolute must. In their work, the authors cite six criminal acts that are visited on our children and grandchildren in the collectivist educational system in this country.

As the collectivist/totalitarians worked diligently for decades using public education to convert the majority of this country’s population into functional illiterates and cultural Marxists, it also instilled the concept of collective morality and purposely omitted the theory of individual morality. Fortunately, for the educational collectivists, the functional illiterates are incapable of differentiating between the two. Simply stated, collective morality provides for the theft of the production of the individual as long as that theft is seen as benefitting the collective. While this usually begins as the theft of tangible assets/property taken from the individual, it progresses to the point that the individual must be willing to sacrifice their morality and even their lives for the benefit of the collective.

Young adults leave the collectivist based public education complex with a degree in “Who am I.” They have no concept of operating in the new world they face as an individual; everything they have been taught for over a decade is: success can only be achieved by belonging to a group, mob or gang. What their influences outside of education have been, determines which “group” they choose to belong to.

The conversion from individual to collectivist mentality has had devastating effects on our society. One of the most telling products is the loss of respect for human life as individuals and their rights cease to matter; the collective reigns supreme. It is not by accident that the result of this loss of respect for individual human life has manifested itself in the schools of our country. Dozens of school shootings have left death, destruction and anguish, and questions as to why. Could it be the loss of respect for individual human life taught in those same schools contributes heavily to those shootings?

Young people in our society have a choice of collective groups which they can join. Their influences outside of the collective education system are most often the deciding factor as to which group or gang with which they will associate. Regardless of that choice, the common denominator of the loss of respect for human life pervades the beliefs and actions of those groups. There is the “criminal gang” that has come to prominence usually because of the colossal failure known in society today as the “war on drugs.” As a Hollywood celebrity once said, “It is hard to tell a young person to just say no when they can a make a thousand dollars a week working part-time on the local street corner.”

Then, of course, there are political gangs and prison gangs to which one can aspire. Most times it is extremely hard to differentiate between the two, for the common denominator of both is power and control over others.

I can’t help but wonder what folks like Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, Robert Yates, John Lansing, George Mason, Robert E. Lee, Thomas Jonathan (Stonewall) Jackson and many others would say today if they could see what this country has done with the birthright of Freedom and Liberty they worked so hard to provide for us. Talk about squandering an inheritance!




About this time last year, there was much speculation on a projected military operation that would be carried out within the confines of the United States that was being called Jade Helm 15. Here is what the Washington Post had to say about that operation last September.

“The military exercise Jade Helm 15 generated enough conspiracy theories this year that it garnered mockery on late-night television, commentary from presidential candidates and reaction from the Texas governor. The basic thrust of the concerns: The military was laying the groundwork for martial law — if not now, then sometime in the future.”

Then TV commentator Jon Stewart, in support of his master, the US Government, gave this admonition to Governor Abbot of Texas who had ordered the Texas State Guard to monitor the US military in his state.

“Oh dear Lord, Yet another waste of Texas funds that could have been spent on actual threats, like your infamous chainsaw massacres. Texas, it’s not that I don’t find it adorable that your governor thinks your State Guard could take on the United States military. It’s like a little dog growling at a big dog, or an 8-year-old picking a fight with the Predator.”

In one way, Stewart was correct; There is very little the people could do were they to be subjected to martial law and what could only be termed an invasion into their state by military forces. Of course, we have been told for decades belief in such an event constitutes being a “conspiracy nut.” Who in their right mind would believe the troops everyone supports blindly would ever invade a state and implement the wishes of the government over the people? Of course, when it happened in New Orleans after Katrina, that was an anomaly, right?

What would be the reaction today if a sitting president was to order the military into a state and destroy all forms of civilian authority? What if he/she confiscated the firearms of anyone they thought to be disloyal to the central government? What if local and state police were relieved of their duties and put out of work? What if the military went into a courtroom in said state and arrested the presiding judge and when that judge resisted and questioned their authority to do so, he was attacked, pistol whipped and put into prison without any charges being filed—ever? What if the mayor of a city was arrested without charges? What if civilians who openly protested such actions were shot in the streets? What if the military closed or suppressed any factions of the press who were deemed disloyal? What if many more unconstitutional, criminal acts were perpetrated on the citizens of a state?

On many occasions, local authorities have been asked what they would do if the federal government were to perform such acts on the citizens they have sworn an oath to protect and defend. The pat answer from those who lack the courage to address the question is: “That could never happen here.” But, it has already happened and the majority of people in this country rate the president who perpetrated these crimes on citizens of a state as one of the country’s very best.

In the early part of 1861, Maryland became very strategic to Abraham Lincoln and his beloved Union. If Maryland were to secede and join the Confederate states that had already seceded, Washington, D.C, the capital of the Union, would find itself in a very precarious position. While Lincoln was traveling to Washington in anticipation of his inauguration, he had been informed of a possible plot in Maryland to assassinate him. History shows this plot was ferreted out by Alan Pinkerton, who donated money to the alleged conspirators, and Lincoln slipped into Washington, D.C. in disguise.

In May of 1861, the state of Maryland was invaded by Union Army forces under the command of General Benjamin Butler. Lincoln had previously placed the decision on suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus with the military—a clear violation of the Constitution. But, when it comes to violating the Constitution, Lincoln was a tyrant and a master politician, and to that point in history he has no equal.

According to Charles B. Clark of the Maryland Historical Magazine in September of 1959, citing from public records of the period 1861-1865, on May 13, 1861, General Benjamin Butler, with 1,000 Union troops, occupied the city of Baltimore and instituted martial law. Arbitrary arrests of citizens immediately became the order of the day. All shipments South were halted. The treatment of the citizens of Maryland became totally bizarre. Under the command of General Dix, barber poles were banned because they contained the color red which was considered to be symbolic of the Confederacy. A broadside, alleged to have been signed by General Dix, commanded all people with red beards, hair or moustaches to “dye them blue.” (Source: Raphael Semmes, “Vignettes of Maryland History, Maryland History Magazine XL No. 1 (March 1945), p.51)

All exhibitions of anything relating to the Confederacy were forbidden. This included any “flag, banner, ensign or device of the so-called Confederate States… or any of them deemed and taken to be evidence of a design to afford aid and comfort to the enemies of the country.” So much for the First Amendment.

General Butler then turned his attention to disarming the public. Over 2,700 privately owned firearms were seized including “all manufactories of arms supplies and munitions.” Obvious encroachment of the Second Amendment.

All of those troops under General Butler had to be quartered somewhere, so private property was seized for the purpose. A violation of the Third Amendment.

Obviously, private homes had to be searched by military authorities in order to confiscate the aforementioned weapons. Since martial law had been declared and the civilian courts shut down, no search warrants were issued. A clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.

With the civilian courts suspended and with hundreds of people being detained and Habeas Corpus eliminated, the people were imprisoned for alleged serious crimes, including treason, without the presentment of a Grand Jury. A violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Some of those imprisoned in early 1861 were detained indefinitely, without formal charges, with many not released until after the war. Obviously, there were no speedy or public trials and those who were tried by a military court were certainly not given an impartial jury of their peers. A violation of the Sixth Amendment.

The right of “trial by jury” was eliminated and the “common law” was ignored. A clear violation of the Seventh Amendment.

Being arrested by military officials, denied a trial and imprisoned for years certainly constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment.” So, the Eighth Amendment was trashed by Lincoln and his minions as well.

Certain rights, retained by the people, were trodden asunder in the mad rush to prevent the people of Maryland from voicing their opinion on secession. Therefore, the Ninth Amendment was also obliterated.

The fact the Tenth Amendment was destroyed with the military invasion of a sovereign state goes without explanation. In fact, the invasion of Maryland, and then Missouri by Union military forces, constituted treason on the part of Lincoln, the Radical Republicans in Congress and military personnel. Article III, Section III defines treason as “levying war” against them [The States].

Yes, the Constitution states federal forces can be called to “execute the laws of the Union or “suppress insurrections” in Article 1 Section 8, but one must remember the original Constitution was amended with the Bill of Rights. It states that very clearly in the Preamble of that document as noted here:

“The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:...”

Therefore, the Bill of Rights is “declaratory and restrictive” clauses on the original Constitution.

Article IV, Section IV of the original Constitution outlines the parameters under which the central government can enter a state in order to “enforce the laws” or “suppress insurrections.” Stated clearly, the legislature, or the governor, if the legislature cannot be convened, must request central government intervention in the event of domestic violence. This article also guarantees to each state a “republican form of government.”

Lincoln’s army destroyed a republican form of government in Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, other states in the North and the Southern states as well. For all of this Lincoln has a monument in Washington, his picture on our currency and coin and is considered one of our “greatest” presidents. The Republican Party of today is proud of its Lincoln heritage referring to the party as “The Party of Lincoln.” Also, many in the party celebrate each year with a “Lincoln Day Dinner.” Coincidentally, Democrats love to point out their political relationship to Lincoln as well.

Abraham Lincoln was not the first person to run for president under the Republican Party banner. The first was John C. Fremont who ran under the banner, “Free Men! Free Soil! Fremont” in 1856. Abraham Lincoln would relieve General Fremont of his command of the Department of the West early in November of 1861 when Fremont issued orders freeing the slaves in Missouri and refused a direct command by Lincoln to rescind his proclamation emancipating the slaves. This sort of kicks the idea of Lincoln being anti-slavery right in the keister does it not? Why don’t the Republicans refer to themselves as the “Party of Fremont?” At least Fremont had the courage of his convictions and didn’t fold to political pressure like a 50 cent pocket knife.

Over the course of the past 7 plus years, I have received countless emails bemoaning the travesty that has been the Obama administration. As terrible as Obama has been—and he has been terrible—absolutely nothing he has done can hold a candle to the travesties against our Constitution and Bill of Rights that was an everyday occurrence during the Lincoln administration.

Although the revision of true history began to occur shortly after the war was over, there were literally hundreds of books written detailing the crimes of Lincoln and the Radical Republicans during the war; in the South, in the Border States, and in the North. Suddenly, near the end of WWII, with a few noted exceptions, the crimes of Lincoln began to be whitewashed by authors, court historians, academia, the media and members of our political class. I believe this occurred when our government became hostage to the National Security Complex and the pursuit of empire among those in public office instead of strict adherence to our Constitution.

Lincoln and the Republican Party, heavily influenced by rabid Socialists such as Marx, Engels, Charles A. Dana, Joseph Weydemeyer, Ivan Turchaninov, Horace Greeley and others, perfected the socialist type of warfare on the people of the South and then turned that same scorched-earth policy loose on the American Indians in the West.

American politicians at the end of WWII saw the necessity of such tactics as the road to Empire and therefore it was essential they deify the man who brought that form of warfare to the American continent and suppress all mentions of the tyranny of his administration.

The national debt soared during the Lincoln administration, just as it has under every war for empire since 1945. Our freedoms and liberty as stated in our Bill of Rights have received a withering fire from politicians who owe their money and power to the military/industrial/congressional/international banking complex. Those rights have been almost totally extinguished, especially since 2001. We owe it all to the fine example set by King Abe the First. All hail!








Recently, on a website that originates in Chicago, I asked one of the regular commenters who was blaming the “socialist liberals” for the crime, violence and corruption that is rampant in Chicago, who, in his opinion, was the first president to connect with Karl Marx and his socialist philosophy on government. He responded it had to be Bill Clinton. I responded that in the eyes of the International Socialist Review, he was incorrect.

Even though countries all over the globe are failing economically due to years old, implemented socialist programs, all of our present candidates for president in 2015 embrace socialism to some degree. On the left, Bernie Sanders is proud of his Marxist socialist principles and Hillary Clinton openly embraces a combination of Marxism and National Socialism such as that embraced by Mussolini and Hitler. On the right, Trump, from his campaign speeches, believes in a highly centralized government, an imperial presidency, and forms of National Socialism as well. (Boots on the ground in Syria)

As we look around us and see countless examples of colossal failures in government directly linked to socialist policies and programs, why would any of the electorate in this country believe that somehow we can defy the odds and lessons from history and make socialism work for us? Could the answer be found in the visions of those seen by the masses as anointed in our society?

Socialism requires a highly centralized government to implement its agenda. Socialism and a Republic, such as that envisioned by our founders, cannot exist on the same political plane.

For years, I have heard politicians, political pundits, media whores, members of academia and others refer to our system of government as a “democracy.” Nothing could be further from the intent of our founders. John Adams said “there never was a democracy that did not commit suicide” while Marx himself said, “Democracy is the road to Socialism.” Well, we have been on that road for over 150 years now and are nearing our final destination and the attendant political and economic suicide.

Is it simply coincidence or just fate that the American president who first implemented the tenets and doctrines of socialism is also considered one of our greatest presidents? What American president had close ties to Karl Marx himself? What president received a letter praising his political stance from Marx? Which president’s political strategies were praised by the National Socialist, Adolph Hitler?

What if the abolition of slavery was the conduit used by the socialists of the failed 1848 revolution in Europe to implement their socialist doctrine in these United States, a doctrine which in its maturity is destroying the government intended by our founders? A strong case can be made that those who embraced a combination of Marxism and National Socialism rode the Civil War and the abolition of slavery into power in our country. Talk about doing the wrong thing for the right reasons!  What if these socialists influenced an American President in 1860 into going along with their plans?

The answers to many of the above questions can be found in a book by Professor Robin Blackburn, former editor of the New Left Review titled “An Unfinished Revolution: Karl Marx and Abraham Lincoln. The question about Hitler’s praise for Abraham Lincoln’s policies can be found in  Hitler’s Mein Kamph. Here is an excerpt:

“The mischief of individual federated states… must cease and someday will cease… National Socialism as a matter of principle must lay claim to the right to force its principles on the whole German Nation without consideration of previous federated state boundaries.”

This was exactly the principles espoused by Abraham Lincoln when it came to “preserving the Union.” Lincoln sought to enforce the tenets of Socialism on the people of the South at gunpoint, just as Hitler did to many countries in Europe in the 1930s and 40s.

Today, as we look around us at the loss of private property to government bureaucracies such as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Forest Service (USFS), we see the fruits and end game results of the policies of Hitler, Marx, and Lincoln. It was Marx who said, “The theory of Communism can be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property.”

At the very center of all the rhetoric about transgender bathrooms and dressing rooms are the base principles of Marxist culture. If you own a bathroom or dressing room facility you have no say so over who uses that facility; as a state you have no right to pass laws that would limit the central government’s Cultural Marxists or as Hitler’s agenda previously stated: “National Socialism as a matter of principle must lay claim to the right to force its principles on the whole… nation without consideration of previous federated state boundaries.” (Good-bye 10th Amendment) The principles of the Cultural Marxists, using the powers Lincoln initiated upon this country in the form of a highly centralized government, will force your daughter or granddaughter to use the same bathroom and dressing facilities as a pervert.

The very essence of a highly centralized government is simply raw force. We see in North Carolina that a people who supported a law that would require people to use the bathroom or dressing facility which corresponds with their sex at birth will be forced by the central government to accede to its wishes. Here we see the basic tenet of socialism at work: the tyranny of the minority. The principles of reconstruction again are foisted on the people of the South using a strong centralized national government.

A great case can also be made that after Lincoln, a later socialist in history looked to Lincoln’s actions during our misnamed Civil War as an example. This would be none other than Joseph Stalin. Lincoln and Stalin both jailed people simply because they disagreed with their political programs. Proof of Lincoln’s crimes in this regard can be found in the book “American Bastille: A History of the Illegal Arrests and Imprisonment of Americans in the Northern and Border States on Account of their Political Opinions during the late Civil War. by John A. Marshall. Lincoln imprisoned thousands, expelled a sitting elected member of Congress from the country, shut down the civilian courts and replaced them with military tribunals. Lincoln had arrested members of the legislature of Maryland and the Mayor of Baltimore to prevent a vote for secession in that state. He issued an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court because he disagreed publicly and in writing with the jailing of innocents. Lincoln disenfranchised voters, shut down opposition newspapers and unconstitutionally created new states. Both Stalin and Hitler could have looked on these accomplishments as inspiration.

So, what was Lincoln’s connection with the Socialists of his time, including Karl Marx? Lincoln and Horace Greeley had served together as one term members of Congress. Lincoln often referred to Greeley as “Friend Greeley.” Greeley was also a political associate of William H. Seward who would become Lincoln’s Secretary of State.

Greeley had the most widely read newspaper of the 1850’s and 60’s called the New York Tribune. One of Greeley’s managing editors at the Tribune would become Lincoln’s assistant Secretary of War (Charles A. Dana.) Greeley often railed against the free market and favored the “working class” over the free market in his paper. In addition, none other than Karl Marx would write hundreds of editorials for the Tribune. Karl Marx’s biographer Francis Wheen wrote of Marx’s contributions to Greeley’s Tribune:

“The Tribune was by far the largest publisher of Marx’s (and to a lesser extent, Engels’s) work…. The Tribune articles take up nearly seven volumes of the fifty-volume collected works of Marx and Engels—more than Capital, more than any work published by Marx, alive or posthumously, in book form.” The “singular collaboration” between Greeley’s paper and Marx continued from the early 1850s until the time of Dana’s departure to join Lincoln’s White House staff.”

There, we see it again, the mention of Charles A. Dana who Lincoln would appoint his assistant Secretary of War. Dana was a dyed-in-the-wool Socialist, a friend of Marx, French socialist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, and his Brooks Farm Association (A Communist organization in Roxbury, Mass.) Dana is credited with saying, “We are all Socialists now.”

Dana would use his influence with Lincoln to bring several raging European Marxists into service with the Union Army. John Nichols wrote in his recent book The “S” Word: A Short History of an American Tradition…Socialism”  

“Lincoln’s circle of supporters would eventually include some of Karl Marx’s closest associates and intellectual sparring partners, including Joseph Weydemeyer and August Willich. Weydemeyer, who maintained a regular correspondence with Marx and Engels, soon formed a national network of Kommunisten Klubs to promote what the New York Times decried as “Red Republicanism.” Weydemeyer then allied with the new Republican Party and the presidential campaign of Abraham Lincoln, who would at the start of the Civil War appoint the former Prussian military officer as a technical aide on the staff of General John C. Fremont.”

As stated by Nichols, Lincoln would later appoint Weydemeyer to the rank of Brigadier General in the Union Army. A book has been written about Weydemeyer titled: “Joseph Weydemeyer: Pioneer of American Socialism.” This book was written by Karl Obermann and is published at “Red Star Publishers.” I recommend this read to anyone who wants to see the influence of Marx and his associates on Lincoln’s Union Army.

Time and space does not permit a thorough exploration of Karl Marx’s influence and connection with the administration of Abraham Lincoln in this venue. The Socialists of yesterday and today are most proud of the connection between Lincoln and Marx. There are a number of original sources that confirm and elaborate on that connection. Several of these sources are mentioned above.

How terribly irresponsible is anyone who claims the brave men and women of the South who fought against the socialist plague of the Lincoln Administration were racists, and these Southrons, their statues, history, culture and symbols such as the Confederate Battle Flag and the song Dixie should be destroyed and cast on the scrap heap of history?

It defies all logic to believe the 6% of residents of the South who owned slaves could convince the 94% that did not, to fight and die for their “peculiar institution.”

“I am with the South in life or in death, in victory or in defeat . . . I believe the North is about to wage a brutal and unholy war on a people who have done them no wrong, in violation of the Constitution and the fundamental principles of government. They no longer acknowledge that all government derives its validity from the consent of the governed. They are about to invade our peaceful homes, destroy our property, and inaugurate a servile insurrection, murder our men and dishonor our women. We propose no invasion of the North, no attack on them, and only ask to be left alone.” ~ Major General Patrick Cleburne, CSA, “The Stonewall of the West.”










There is a movie out there that everyone with children or grandchildren must see. The title of the movie is “Vaxxed.” Information on the movie can be found here. Many thanks to my friend Kristen who has been working very hard to promote this movie and the truths behind it.

One of the greatest signs of the idiocy of the group in this country I refer to as Ignoramus Americanus is the usual response to parents who don’t vaccinate their children. In their socially perverted minds, they somehow believe a child who is not vaccinated (poisoned) is a danger to their child who has been vaccinated. Is this not a repudiation of the belief a vaccinated child is shielded from acquiring the disease they have been vaccinated for? As an analogy, why would a person wearing body armor fear the person who is not in a shootout? Darn—sorry—didn’t mean to upset your day with a dose of common sense.


Breaking Stalin’s Nose by Eugene Yelchin

Although this book is aimed primarily at young people, it is a great read for adults as well. It focuses on a young man in Soviet Russia during the reign of Joseph Stalin. Saisha Zaichik has long aspired to be a member of Stalin’s Young Pioneers. This book details the tragic events leading up to Saisha attaining his goal.

This book is a good look inside the old Communist regime and offers a prescient insight into what is soon coming to a city/county near you by an author who witnessed it firsthand. Well worth the read.

The Secret Six by Edward J. Renehan Jr.

John Brown conducted a campaign of terror in Kansas in May of 1856, murdering five men on Pottawattamie Creek. The method of execution was especially heinous; they were hacked to death in full view of members of their families. Equipment including saddles, guns and horses were stolen. This event precluded Brown’s attack on the armory in Harper’s Ferry in 1859 where Brown attempted to seize arms in order to promote a slave revolt. Ironically, the first person killed by Brown’s forces was a free black man, Heyward Shepherd. Brown had asked Fredrick Douglass and Harriet (Twenty dollar) Tubman to join him on this raid. Douglass declined because he thought the raid was poorly conceived. Tubman was unable to participate due to illness.

Brown paid English mercenary, Hugh Forbes, $600.00 (a tidy sum in 1859) to “train” his forces. Brown also had a cache of weapons he brought with him to Virginia for his men and to arm the slaves he hoped would rush to his cause.

Brown’s actions inflamed the fears of people of the South and along with Nat Turners earlier slave revolt and the revolt and massacre in Haiti in 1791 where revolting slaves had killed both whites and free blacks and destroyed the fields and infrastructure. Brown’s actions have been attributed to the increasing tensions between the North and the South that led to secession and war.

The question arose as to who financed Brown’s criminal efforts to murder and incite riots. This book covers the six Northern Aristocrats who provided the financial funding for Brown’s murderous efforts. Six aristocrats who never faced the consequences of their participation in Brown’s crimes. Another good, informative read.


One item in particular jumped out at me as I watched nauseating comments by the resident bimbos on CBS news this morning who metaphorically drool on themselves at the mere mention of any socialist politician or policy. This bit of news had to do with schools closing and water being turned off in the People’s Republic of Detroit.

A history of Detroit provides a unique insight into what a complete socialist society brings to its inhabitants. The leaders of Detroit, not unlike the current and aspiring leaders of this country, when faced with declining jobs, plummeting incomes and inflationary prices, decided the answer was borrowing more money, creating new bureaucracies and promoting racial discord. In essence, they continually raised taxes but refused to curtail spending. (sound familiar)

Detroit has borrowed and borrowed to keep their schools afloat. Yet, they have schools in ruins, terrible scholastic achievement and now the great majority of schools are closed because the money for teachers salaries no longer exists.

Water has been turned off to approximately 1,000 residents because they cannot pay their bills. Obviously, using the socialism of FDR, there should be a “chicken in every pot.” The trouble is now they don’t have any water to boil that chicken or even water to drink. The people who haven’t paid their water bills in months claim “water is a human right.” Can’t find that listed in the Bill of Rights but I’m sure some socialist politician will fix the problem with higher taxes and more debt.

People, look at Detroit, look at the inner cities of this country. Look at the crime and the poverty. Remember, most of these folks vote and they outnumber the people who work in this country and are being taxed to death by a large margin.

What we see in these cities is the culmination of years and years of failed Socialism; failed socialist politicians, failed socialist programs, and ever growing socialist bureaucracies. Look closely at the scenes in Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore and other cities led by socialist policies for soon what you see there will be seen all across this country.

Socialism does not work. Never has—never will—no matter how many believe in and promote it. Socialists must have government to force their programs on the unwilling, because honest, hard working people understand socialism is, at its core, unmitigated evil.







In 2009, most of the folks who referred to themselves as conservatives decided the answer to the defeat of the progressives and their political change artist was to rejuvenate the Constitution with support, increased knowledge, and understanding of the intent of our founders. Almost everyone who called themselves a conservative was carrying a pocket constitution and attending Tea Party or 912 meetings. Erroneously, they believed adherence to the Constitution could be accomplished by supporting republican candidates for elected office. In quick order, so-called conservatives began to support and vote for any candidate who mentioned the constitution regardless of how they had voted or performed in the past. They became known as “Tea Party” candidates.

Now, it is the 2016 election season and a great many of those “constitutional conservatives” are voting for a candidate who I have yet to hear mention the Constitution or what constitutes constitutional government—even once. Yes, I am speaking of “The Donald.”

Is Trump better than Cruz? Of course, he is—Cruz is constitutionally ineligible to be president no matter how often he or his supporters claim fidelity to the Constitution or how many bought and paid for federal judges rule differently. So, how can people support for president a man who does not qualify for the office he seeks according to the Constitution they claim to embrace? Cruz is an avid supporter of neoconservative wars. This guarantees large financial donations from the Israel lobby. Perhaps you have heard of Sheldon Adelson.

Is Trump better than Kasich? Of course, he is. Kasich received all too much financial support from one of the world’s other leading progressive liberals—none other than George Soros himself. Kasich supporters who claim to be all about anti-progressive socialism, don’t seem to notice their own hypocrisy. Of course, Kasich is also a neoconservative warmonger, thus the money from Soros.

Is Trump better than Hillary? Of course, he is. Hillary should still be in prison for crimes committed in Arkansas and then of course as co-president in the 1990s, Senator from New York and certainly as Secretary of State. She is also a supporter of neoconservative wars. Perhaps more so than Cruz or Kasich. Thus her huge support from Goldman Sachs and AIPAC. When it comes to starting and supporting unconstitutional wars, she is way ahead of both Cruz and Kasich.

But, you ask, if Trump is better than all of the others, why would anyone write an article asking others if they are considering Hillary?

Yes, Trump is better than all his opponents, but one flat tire is better than four; one failed engine on a plane is better than all failed engines on an airplane, and, depending on the location, one gun-shot wound is better than 4. Better does not necessarily mean good, it simply means not as bad and certainly does not equate with constitutionality.

In 1964, Johnson was better than Goldwater; in 1968 Nixon was better than Humphrey; in 1972, Nixon was better than McGovern; in 1976, Carter was better than Ford; in 1980, Reagan was better than Carter; in 1984, Reagan was better than Mondale; in 1988, George H.W. was better than Dukakis; in 1992 Clinton was better than George H.W.; in 1996, Clinton was better than Dole; in 2000 George W. was better than Gore (at least the Supreme Court said so); in 2004, George W. was better than Kerry; in 2008 Obama was better than McCain, and in 2012, Obama was better than Romney. These are the ones that have been declared “better” than their opponent by the voters during my adult life. With all these “betters,” are we more constitutional as a country than we were in 1964?

There are millions of Trump supporters right now who would cheer wildly if Trump would reverse some of the idiocy of the progressive left, even if he violated the Constitution to do so. But—isn’t that how we got this tyrannical, oppressive, socialist government—violating the Constitution in order to cater to a segment of the voting public? If Trump violated the Constitution in order to please so-called conservative voters, how would he be any different than Obama and all of the “betters” listed above who violated the Constitution to bring us to the political and economic abyss we are staring into today?

Why is it so-called conservatives are only concerned about constitutional government when the opposition party is in power?

Choosing a “better” candidate over the past several decades has brought us the highly centralized, omnipotent, unconstitutional government we have today—the same government our founders warned us two and one-half centuries ago would destroy our constitutional republic.

A highly centralized government such as the one initiated in this country by Abraham Lincoln eliminates the concept of “consent of the governed” and destroys the people’s input into how their government operates and more importantly what becomes law. Agencies like the CIA, FBI, NSA, BLM, USFS, DOE, EPA etc. quickly become the creator of laws through regulation without any oversight by the people or Congress while agencies such as the Department of Education (DOE) makes emotional idiots of our children. The Congress is neutered and quickly becomes a rubber stamp mechanism for the imperial executive.

We watched as George W. Bush issued signing statements and executive orders which circumvented Congress and the people. Conservatives sat quietly because George W. was “keeping them safe” and he was an “R”. “Constitution—we don’t need no stinkin’ constitution.”

We watched the last 7 plus years as Obama has circumvented Congress repeatedly with executive orders and his latest promise to move forward without Congress on the issue of “Smart Gun Technology.” Liberal progressives are quiet because Obama is one of their own. I believe this makes my point. Neither side really wants constitutional government—they just want their perceived “better” candidate to be in office.

A strong, central, imperialistic, unconstitutional government whose leadership passes back and forth between competitive political parties, neither of which stands strong on constitutional principles, creates a national electorate that will never again elect a small, constitutional government advocate. We saw this in spades in the 2008 and 2012 elections. Ron Paul, who stood more for a government operating under constitutional restraints than any other candidate in the past 100 years was shunned by both political parties because he was a perceived enemy to the goals of both progressives and conservatives. Progressives don’t want a candidate who will stop hand-outs, same-sex marriage, abortion and unisex restrooms while conservatives don’t want anyone who will refuse to unconstitutionally bomb any and all perceived enemies.

Lost on all too many conservative nationalists is the fact sending troops to be maimed and killed in unconstitutional wars is not “supporting” them, their families or our country, it destroys lives and families in order to line the pockets of the military industrial complex.

So, considering the current political climate in this country, a candidate who will truly support and defend our Constitution and Bill of Rights does not have a snowball’s chance in the Arizona desert in July of being elected. Besides, if a candidate gained traction with a constitutional agenda, the military/industrial/national security apparatus would off him or her before the illegals or progressives could hire a qualified hit man.

Simply stated, this country will never again witness constitutional governance because most of the voting public does not want it. In the words of Emma Goldman,

“Most human beings only think they want freedom. In truth they yearn for the bondage of social order, rigid laws, materialism. The only freedom man really wants is the freedom to become comfortable.”

In my humble opinion, considering the facts listed above, the only hope for a return to the principles of our founders is a total collapse of our current political and economic system. The socialist system we have now is embraced by both political parties and the majority of people in this country. We have government bureaucracies which support all ten planks of the Communist Manifesto.

Donald Trump is certainly “better” to millions than any other candidate on the horizon—but he is not constitutional and will see using the imperial executive as a means to promote his agenda. He sees the presidency as a CEO sees his company. Believing Trump will bring us constitutional government is analogous to believing the proper treatment for a malignant tumor is antiseptic and a band-aid. While a Trump administration would certainly be “better” than Hillary, it would eventually reinforce our centralized government and take us farther down the road to a totalitarian form of government, while a Hillary administration would get us there much faster.

So, as odd as it may appear, the fastest way to a complete and total collapse of this flawed system of governance would be to “reconsider Hillary,” because there is not enough knowledge and courage in the national electorate to return this country to the tenets of our Constitution and Bill of Rights on its own.