“Conspirators do not make minutes of their machinations, progress, and objectives. Seldom, therefore, can conspiracy be proved by other than circumstantial evidence. It is only by assembling the results, with such evidence as may be of the progress thereof by the participants, that the victim can ever make a case of conspiracy. If in the end there is a completed structure of result, the frame of which has been furnished piecemeal by several individuals, the parts when brought together showing adaptation to each other and fitness for the end accomplished, it is at least reasonable to infer concert in both planning and fabrication.” ~Scheele v. Union Finance & Loan Co., 200 Minn. 554 at 560, 274 N. W. 673 at 678 (1937). (Emphasis added)

Prior to, during, and shortly after our Second War for Independence, the Constitutional Republic designed and ratified by our forefathers was hijacked and destroyed by members of the International Banking Cartel and their bought and paid for members of our government including members of Congress, Cabinet Members and the US Supreme Court. This form of unconstitutional governance has continued to the present day, continually utilizing bought and paid for members of our government and we are today reaping the full whirlwind of that wind sown in the 1860s.

These politicians, members of the Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches of government and their useful idiots throughout the last 156 years are, in actuality, the “conspirators” referenced in the court case quoted above.

Our government is operated by criminals and we are hopelessly mired in a debt from which there is no recovery. Members of our military who should be protecting our borders and our Bill of Rights are dying and being maimed, or taking their own lives, not for God and Country but for the financial bottom line of those who have bought influence in our government. Our basic individual rights are falling away like leaves in a hurricane and we are slaves today to those same interests who hijacked our government those many years ago.

All of the above has occurred, not because our Constitution does not work, it has occurred precisely because it was abandoned and justified with the blatant and patently false belief that it was necessary to perpetuate a union by force of arms, inflicting hundreds of thousands of deaths and to free a race of people who today are in bondage, not where they are held to labor against their will, but slaves to a welfare system, black on black crime, abject poverty, and institutionalized ignorance, just as, if not more heinous and unjust than chattel slavery.

We can no more change this pattern of corruption and mendacity by electing new members to the criminal cabal who will, in turn, appoint and support more unconstitutional bureaucrats than we could change the overall goals of organized crime by electing or appointing a new “kingpin” or hitman for the Sinaloa drug cartel.

One of those “hitmen” in our history who was bought and paid for and spent most of his adult life destroying our Constitutional Republic was Salmon P. Chase. Chase was one of the “founders,” if you will, of the Republican Party and was elected Senator from Ohio in 1860. When Lincoln was elected president, he appointed Chase Secretary of the Treasury, not because of any special talent for that position, but because Chase had supported Lincoln at the Republican Party Convention.

Chase is often mentioned as a “civil rights activist” or “abolitionist” by historians; again the unmentioned intimation is: if someone of that era was an abolitionist, then whatever they did must be seen in history as acceptable. Any form of corruption is acceptable and even laudable if it is cloaked in the color of “civil rights.”

It is irresponsible to mention Chase without also mentioning the “Hazard Circular.” In all probability this is an object in history that is almost completely unheard of to most people, but, using the theory established in the quote at the beginning of this article one must not discount the object if the results are obvious, even if by so doing we are called conspiracy theorists.

It is necessary to demonize those who might present the Circular as evidence because it was circulated to the American Bankers by none other than the Bank of England. The Bank of England was founded by William Paterson in 1694 who once said, “The bank hath benefit of interest on all monies which it creates out of nothing.” Need I say more?

Hazard Circular: “Slavery is likely to be abolished by the war power, and chattel slavery abolished. This, I and my European friends are in favor of, for slavery is but the owning of labor, and carries with it the care of labor, while the European plan, led on by England, is that capital shall control labor by controlling wages. (minimum wage anyone?)

The great debt that capitalists will see to it is made out of the [Civil] war must be used to control the value of money. To accomplish this, the Government bonds must be used as a banking basis.

We are now waiting for the Secretary of the Treasury [Chase] of the United States to make this recommendation. It will not do to allow greenbacks, as they are called, to circulate as money any length of time, as we cannot control that, but we can control the bonds and through them the bank issues.” (Emphasis added)

We can discern from the Hazard Circular that Secretary Chase was being manipulated or controlled by the banking cabal. While there are those on the left and right who deny the existence of this circular* and the cabal’s control of Chase, and by default Lincoln, we must ask ourselves did the events as predicted in the circular actually occur. Facts are history.

Secretary Chase proposed and supported the National Banking Acts of 1863 and 1864.

“Government bonds must be used as a banking basis.” “We are now waiting for the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States to make this recommendation.” ~Hazard Circular.

Secretary Chase, realizing the necessity of collecting taxes in order to continue the war of aggression on the people and property of the South, also created the Bureau of Internal Revenue or what we commonly refer to today as the IRS.

Chase was ambitious and challenged Lincoln for the presidency in 1864 and would eventually run for president again in 1868 and 1872 while sitting as Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court.

Chase would use his position on the Supreme Court to further the interests of the banking cabal, especially in Texas v White. Chase, as Chief Justice, also presided over the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson, whom the Radical Republicans who supported Reconstruction schemed to impeach, in part because Johnson called the Reconstruction Act of 1867, a “bill of attainder against 9 million people, absolute despotism” and stated in his veto, “such a power has not been wielded by any Monarch in England in 500 years.”

In Texas v. White, Chase completed the destruction of the Constitutional Republic as established in 1788, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of 1791 and obliterated the “consent of the governed” clause of the Declaration of Independence of 1776. Chase converted the “free and independent states” of our founders to the highly centralized and controlled government of oppression we have today.

For many decades, students in accredited law schools have been taught the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it does, as if our founders had no meaning in mind when they wrote the words and phrases; that these meanings were founded on Natural and Common law; were thoroughly explained in the Ratification Conventions and are not subject to radical judicial interpretation. The trouble is many of the politicians running for office today and all too many ordinary citizens believe judges to be the gods of wisdom as to our founders’ intent.

Therefore, when the question of nullification or secession is brought up, the almost immediate referral is to Texas v White. It is imperative we know that when Texas v White was litigated, Texas was living under martial law and had no representation in the US legislature or free elections.

There was a motion made during the legal proceedings to dismiss the case on the basis Texas was not a “state’ at the time of the proceedings but was in fact, a “conquered territory under military occupation.” Of course, to accommodate his banking cartel handlers and forever taint legal precedent, Chase denied the motion and stated despite Texas being prostrated under military rule, she was still a state. Against all intentions of our founders and those who ratified the Constitution, Chase claimed that this country is an “indestructible union of indestructible states.”

To ensure the interest is paid on their fraudulent loans and bonds to our central government, the banking cabal cannot allow any state to remove themselves from the obligation to pay by simply opting out of the violated contract. Therefore, Chase stepped up to the plate for the bankers and rendered the desired decision. In return, Chase’s likeness was placed on the $10,000 note and his name is forever memorialized by one of the most powerful financial institutions in the Federal Reserve District on Wall Street.

“They [Radical Republicans in Congress] insisted that the existing governments of the Southern states be abolished. Also, to the Radical Republicans, the defeated Southern states offered a unique opportunity for a large-scale social experiment. They viewed the population of the South as simply a human chessboard. Central planners in Washington could micromanage the region and Federal troops would force compliance with their dictates. It was a bureaucrat’s dream come true. (Different from today, how? We have federal agencies and militarized law enforcement.)

Radical Reconstruction laws, which were passed over Johnson’s vetoes, consolidated the 10 excluded Southern states into 5 “military districts.” The responsibility for most civic functions, including elections, was removed from local communities and assumed by military governors. These governors were appointed by the Federal government and given unheard of powers. Registered voters, suspected of having aided or abetted the Confederate war effort, could be removed from voting lists at the discretion of the appointed governor. He could also add voters to the list if he believed they had been incorrectly omitted.

Entrances to polling places were controlled by Federal troops. When voting was complete, ballots were sealed and transported to military headquarters to be counted. Next, the ballot tally had to be certified behind closed doors by the military governor and his appointees known as a “returning board” who would determine the “intent” of the voters. Needless to say, the Republican ticket carried every election in the occupied Southern states. ~Gail Jarvis, Evil Republicans. (Emphasis added)

Is the unconstitutional view that “might makes right” and we are slaves to a large central government without the right to peacefully remove ourselves from tyranny and oppression common today? Of course, it is; just listen to people who say that the law is whatever the Supreme Court says it is and if that fails to convince you read the words of one of the former “conservative” members of the Supreme Court.

When asked by a playwright if a state could legally secede, the very “conservative” Justice Antonin Scalia replied:

“I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, “one Nation, indivisible.”) Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit…”

Here, in one fell swoop, Scalia claims that the war, coercion, force, guns and bullets settled a constitutional issue, not the intent of our founders. He also referenced the Pledge of Allegiance, a piece of national socialist drivel of which Hitler would have been proud, written by  a Socialist minister who preached “Jesus the Socialist” from the pulpit and was a founding member of Boston’s First Nationalist Club.

The pledge, a ritual chant in support of a government that compels one to ask is such a pledge appropriate for a free people? Since the banking cartel controls our government are we chanting allegiance to them as well? Would a free and independent people not be better served pledging allegiance to our Bill of Rights?

We labor today under a tyrannical, de facto government that is diametrically opposed to the government our founders believed they were creating and the delegates to the State Ratification Conventions believed they were agreeing to.

Our government is the evil spawn of the bankers and their bought and paid for splendid dupes in the White House, Congress, courts and unconstitutional bureaucracies that Patrick Henry referred to as “federal sheriffs.” This government, under the guise of preserving the Union and freeing an oppressed people, has made slaves of us all. It cannot be remedied at the ballot box by voting for incumbents or those endorsed by the leadership of the two major parties.

“War is peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is strength.” ~George Orwell, 1984

  • The Hazard Circular, the existence of which has been denied by our government and court historians, was recently discovered, It can be found here with the following explanation: “This is evidence on the infamous Hazard Circular document, which contains information a giant conspiracy by the Bank of England to enslave the people of America through the control of the money supply. It appeared in the book The Little Statesman.”

Author’s note: This concludes the four-part series on the facts and true causes behind our Second War for Independence. I have dedicated this series to my friend Joey from Ft. Smith, Arkansas who has devoted untold personal resources, including, but not limited to, his considerable legal skills in a continuing battle against the Cultural Marxists [better known as Carpetbaggers and Scalawags to true Southrons] of Ft. Smith. All who care about the preservation of the ideals of our founding generation, our culture and our symbols owe a debt to Joey.  (Rebel Madman)


The financiers’ motives in the war were not as glorious as the motives of many fine young men when they marched in ranks mowed down at Second Manassas, Fredericksburg, the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, Second Cold Harbor, and other such battles. The true object, for which those boys were uncaringly and needlessly sacrificed, was to transform national debt into private control of banking and currency in the United States.” ~John Remington Graham, Blood Money: the Civil War and the Federal Reserve (Emphasis added)

The capitalists and stock gamblers in Europe, by their alliance with the political adventurers of America, carefully planned this war in the interest of despotism and the funding systems. They anticipated every argument, and prepared the public mind for war in advance. During the war they prepared for the debt and continued the war that the debt might reach its present enormous extent.” ~Henry Clay Dean, Crimes of the Civil War and Curse of the Funding System, Innes and Company, Baltimore, 1868 (Emphasis added)

For decades, the people of this country have been told by politicians, bureaucrats, members of the Supreme Court, school teachers, professors and many authors that the cause of the War for Southern Independence was fought to free an oppressed people and to preserve the Union of our forefathers. How surprising it will be for many to learn the real reason for the war is the same reason our country is currently financially destitute and governed by unconstitutional tyrants, all the while simultaneously involved in empire building around the world.

Every war this country has entered into in my lifetime has been to secure for the international bankers the assets of other countries and increasing the debt of our country using our military as the means of procurement; all the while lining their pockets with untold wealth while pushing this country farther and farther into financial and moral bankruptcy.

Who is to blame?

Of course, it is those ruffians in the South who insisted on perpetuating the practice of Slavery—-if one listens to the shills in the government and anyone else who profits from the above.

And to keep the fires of hatred and bigotry going it is necessary to hate the symbols of the South, not just the people. There is a large problem with all of these symbols of racial hatred and slavery. The Confederate Battle Flag has been the center of the attention for those who love to hate whatever the government tells them they are supposed to hate, but yet few could even tell you anything about the Bonnie Blue Flag or the three separate flags of the Confederacy. Why have the bigots and haters of anything to do with the Confederacy picked out only the Confederate Battle Flag on which to spew their hatred and venom?

The Cross of St. Andrew, a saltire on a background of blue, has a long and storied history seeming to originate in the Dark Ages at a battle between the Picts and Scots on one side and the Angles of Northumbria on the other. It represents the diagonal cross on which St. Andrew was martyred for he believed he was undeserving of the cross of Jesus.

The St. Andrew’s cross was the ensign carried into battle by none other than the Scotsman William Wallace, known to most folks of today as Braveheart. Throughout history, like Wallace’s reported last words, the ensign has represented Freedom. Could it be that the St. Andrew’s cross has been singled out for hatred and demonization because it is first of all a religious ensign and secondly it has been used for centuries by those who have engaged superior forces in their quest for Freedom and Liberty?

There has to be a reason that the lovers of big government chose the Battle Flag to demonize instead of the Bonnie Blue or the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd flags of the Confederacy. In the interest of full disclosure, the 2nd and 3rd flags of the Confederacy did feature the St. Andrews cross in the upper left-hand corner but the First National and the Bonnie Blue have no such markings.

Would any student, at any school, be expelled for wearing a shirt or other clothing bearing a likeness of the 1st Confederate Flag or perhaps even the Bonnie Blue? probably not, because people haven’t been instructed by the government and those ignorant of history to hate it. 99% of the teachers in our Public Fool System wouldn’t recognize either of the two flags as being flags of the South.

Those indoctrinated into government worship seem to have a problem explaining how a flag (US) that flew over the institution of Slavery for 89 years somehow represents freedom while a flag that flew over the Confederacy for 4 years is racist. It has to be emotions, for logically this makes absolutely no sense.

Is the hatred and condemnation of the Confederate Battle Flag by those who love and cherish a huge, centralized, unconstitutional government based on racism or could it be a deep seated bigotry directed toward the spirit of the Scots-Irish and their religious heritage as represented in the St. Andrew’s Cross?

“In such a wild, uncharted place the book of God was vital, for it nourished their spirit and laid boundaries for their conduct. Other subjects simply had no relevance.” ~James Webb, Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America

So, can we assume that all who fly the St. Andrew’s Cross are racists? Well, that would include the people of the country of Jamaica whose population is listed as over 90% Black. The National Flag of Jamaica is a St. Andrew’s Cross in Jamaica’s National colors: Green, Yellow and Black.

“The Jamaica National Flag was first raised on Independence Day, August 6, 1962. It signifies the birth of our nation. The Flag brings to mind memories of past achievements and gives inspiration towards further success. It is flown on many triumphant occasions, showing the pride that Jamaicans have in their country and in the flag itself.” ~Jamaican government website.

If you are confused as to why a country that is overwhelmingly populated by people of the Black race can see pride, inspiration and achievement in their ensign (St. Andrew’s Cross) but those of us who are Sons of the South harbor racist ideas because we have pride in our heritage and ensign (St. Andrew’s Cross) of our forefathers, a crack is beginning to show in your big government idolatry.  Quick, tune your TV to your favorite reality show or sporting event and have another beer, it will pass.

The national debt in 1860 was roughly equivalent to the national debt in 1791 but through the efforts of starting and prosecuting an unconstitutional war, the International Bankers were able to multiply that figure to over 5 billion dollars by 1866. Every month of the war perpetrated on the South and its people by Lincoln and his minions, including Salmon P. Chase, increased the debt by more than the entire cost of the Revolutionary War. In 1866, the interest on this massive debt required the payment of 292 million per year. The national debt of England was approximately the same as the US though the US was paying almost twice the interest that England was paying. Important to know and understand is who was receiving these interest payments.

The war was planned to generate a stupendous national debt, mostly represented by bonds, and such a national debt was in fact generated. The private interests acquiring these bonds successfully plotted to secure the passage of legislation which enabled them to convert the paper by them acquired in financing the war into a new and dominant system of banking and currency under their ownership and control. And those private interests fully succeeded in their sinister program, and set up a huge financial empire centered on Wall Street from which they have ever since governed the United States from behind the scenes.” ~John Remington Graham, Blood Money: The Civil War and the Federal Reserve. (Emphasis added)

To hide the behind the scenes manipulations of the debt, Congress then proposed the 14th Amendment which contained in its 4th Clause wording that made the questioning of the national debt unconstitutional. Of course, it had to be adorned with an emotion plea to the masses concerning pensions for veterans but it still made questioning of the debt unconstitutional. The 14th Amendment was never properly ratified according to Article V of the US Constitution but the government and their willing dupes haven’t let a small thing like that slow them down.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned… ~14th Amendment (Emphasis added)

(Authors note: A failsafe method of discerning when one is approaching the truth as it relates to activities of the central governments and their supporters is to notice at what point does the government, its house servants, willing dupes and useful idiots began to throw an endless stream of invectives towards those who refuse to accept the government’s version of events. Common among those invectives are racist, neo-confederate, conspiracy theorist, homophobe, intolerant, anti-Semite, etc. When those words and descriptions are used one must compare them to the actions of any threatened animal, for the central government sees the exposure of its actual unconstitutional operations as a possible death sentence. They will always act accordingly.)

Before and during the Second War for Independence, the International Bankers had been involved with the economy of our Country since the days of Robert Morris, Alexander Hamilton and the First Bank of the United States.

“The reason Hamilton gave for favoring a large public debt was not to finance any particular project, or to stabilize financial markets, but to combine the interests of the affluent people of the country — particularly business people — to the government. As the owners of government bonds, he reasoned, they would forever support his agenda of higher taxes and bigger government. (He condemned Jefferson’s first inaugural address and its minimal government message as “the symptom of a pygmy mind.”) ~Economics Professor Thomas DiLorenzo (Emphasis added)

To finance their war the Lincoln administration first issued simple fiat currency (Greenbacks) which were backed by nothing. The International Banksters saw this as a threat to their domination. This is certainly made clear by the below editorial which appeared in the London Times:

“If this mischievous financial policy which has had its origin in the North American Republic during the late war should become endurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debts. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the world. The brain and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.” ~Who Rules America, C.K. Howe (Emphasis added)

Congress passed the “Exception Clause” on 25 February 1862 which had the strange effect of having the government refuse to accept the recently adopted “Greenbacks” for payment of duty on imports and interest on its own debts.

“Good for all debts both public and private except duty on imports and interest on Government debts.”

Obviously, the banking cartel owned enough members of congress (déjà vu all over again) to force the growing debt and bond market into the hands of the International Bankers.

(Author’s note: In part IV we will conclude with a study of Secretary of the Treasury, Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court; presidential candidate and namesake of the Chase Manhattan Bank and his efforts and successes in the destruction of our Constitutional Republic. We will also study how the unconstitutional disease of Chase extends to current Supreme Court Justice Roberts and the recently deceased, conservative icon, Scalia.)


“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” ~Soren Kierkegaard

Written in the pages of our own sometimes inglorious history is the true facts, obscured by those who wish to govern by force and intimidation and see individual freedom and liberty as an impediment in their path to power, money and glory.

As a people, we can choose to deny our history, warts and all, or we can ignore it to our own detriment and to any chance for liberty for the citizen of today, or our posterity. Regardless of the path taken, the truth is the truth; no amount of obfuscation or false hero worship can change that.

We can embrace the comfortable lie known as political correctness, but to do so requires a moral and ethical price a truly free people cannot afford to pay. Political correctness is nothing but a denial of the truth and is a very frangible defense against the eventual onslaught of reality.

We can continue to ignore the truths of our history, but it does not alter reality in the least. How can we deal with any of our problems, present and future, if we refuse to acknowledge the historical lessons of the past?

The Constitution of our founders, as ratified, contained the tools needed by a people determined to live free without the encumbrances and violations of individual rights witnessed when government follows the inevitable path and becomes despotic and tyrannical.

To boil down the motives of Lincoln and his Republican Party leadership one must understand that to rob, destroy and murder a group of people and to avoid condemnation for that act, it is vitally important that the group so targeted must somehow appear to be the villains and deserving of such actions.

The unconstitutional, tyrannical government of 1861-2016, their house servants, better known in polite circles as the Mainstream Media and various and assorted shills and sycophants who inhabit the leadership/membership of both major political parties would have us all believe this country’s Second War of Independence was visited on the people of the South because the inhabitants of those states were prejudiced against people of color. Again this flies in the face of true history.

Seven Southern states seceded between December of 1860 (South Carolina) and February 1 of 1861. (Texas) Four states, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee did not secede until Lincoln unconstitutionally ordered up 75,000 volunteers to invade the states that had, at that point in time, seceded “because laws were being opposed and obstructed.” Lincoln ordered up these troops after Fort Sumter had been fired upon by Confederate Forces.

When Lincoln offered to make slavery constitutional in perpetuity, (Corwin Amendment) the Southern states still refused to rejoin the Union. This proves, beyond any question the war was not about slavery. Lincoln was willing to place the issue of slavery outside of the control of Congress in order to protect the increased flow of money gained with the recently passed Morrill Tariff into the coffers of the central government, the majority of which, like the previous tariffs, went into improvements in the North.

In actuality, when it comes to the resupply of Fort Sumter, Lincoln was advised by many in his cabinet such an act would be foolhardy and could lead to war.

“No answer could be made to this point, and the President saw that he was misled, and immediately ordered the reinforcement of Fort Sumter. . . It is impossible to exaggerate the importance and merit of this act . . . . It was (undertaken] by Lincoln with only the support of a single member of the Cabinet and he represented no State, and was the youngest and least distinguished member; and he was opposed by all the others, who were the leaders of the Republican Party and the representative men of the great Republican States. Lincoln himself was inexperienced, and those who opposed the stand he took had not only great experience in public affairs, but they were regarded by Lincoln himself as his superiors. [He resolved] to stand by his convictions . . . .” ~Letter from Montgomery Blair to Samuel Crawford, May 6, 1862

Most interesting is the Ordinance of Secession from the state of Virginia. In this proclamation, the State of Virginia was legally exercising an option that was made part of their ratification document of 1788, which by any definition constituted a contract or compact between the people of the state of Virginia and the central government. Here is the wording of that contract which was signed by the people of Virginia’s representatives on June 25, 1788.

“We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will…” (Emphasis added) Virginia Document ratifying the US Constitution, June 26, 1788

Now, copied below is an excerpt of the Ordinance of Secession constituted and signed by the people’s representatives of the State of Virginia on 17 April 1861.

“AN ORDINANCE to repeal the ratification of the Constitution of the United State of America by the State of Virginia, and to resume all the rights and powers granted under said Constitution.

The people of Virginia in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression, and the Federal Government having perverted said powers not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slave-holding States:

Now, therefore, we, the people of Virginia, do declare and ordain, That the ordinance adopted by the people of this State in convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and all acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying and adopting amendments to said Constitution, are hereby repealed and abrogated; that the union between the State of Virginia and the other States under the Constitution aforesaid is hereby dissolved, and that the State of Virginia is in the full possession and exercise of all the rights of sovereignty which belong and appertain to a free and independent State.

And they do further declare, That said Constitution of the United States of America is no longer binding on any of the citizens of this State…” ~Convention of Virginia, April 1861 [Vote 132, 201 Yea, 37,451 Nay on 23 May 1861.]

Very plainly stated, in legal terms, ratified by a vote of the people of the state of Virginia, their ratification contract with the central government of the United States was repealed, not because of slavery but because the central government had broken the contract by exceeding the powers delegated to them in the original ratification contract. In very simple terms, the consent of the people of Virginia to be governed by the central government was withdrawn with prejudice.

Yes, the term “slave-holding states” was included in this Ordinance of Secession, but one must remember that slavery was indeed constitutional in 1861 as previously stated by President Lincoln in his First Inaugural Address and had been since the founding of the country. The flag of the United States Government had flown over the institution of Slavery for 73 years at that point in time. Most obviously Slavery was/is not morally correct and, in fact, reprehensible, but neither are many of the unconstitutional acts of our central government today. The illustrations of this fact are too numerous to mention.

Venturing forth into the arena of doing the wrong thing for the right reason(s), especially, allowing government and its employees any latitude outside the proper restraints of our Constitution are always devastating.

There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end, it leads to death.  ~Proverbs 16:25

Again, referencing Article IV Section II of the Constitution, if Virginia had the right to withdraw from their compact or contract with the central government then so did the other 10 states which voted on Ordinances of Secession, or any of the states for that matter.

In Early 1861, many of the newspapers of the North agreed with the right of the states to secede/nullify. The precedent had been set with the New England states who threatened to secede because of the Louisiana Purchase, the Hartford Convention of 1814 and the New England states who refused to participate in the War of 1812.

“[W]e sympathize with and justify the South…their rights have been invaded to the extreme limit possible within the forms of the Constitution.” ~Albany (NY) Atlas and Argus, November 1860

“[F]anatics and demagogues of the North waged war on the institutions of the South”   ~November 1860 Concord (NH) Democratic Standard

“We believe that the right of any member of this Confederacy to dissolve its political relations with the others and assume an independent position is absolute — that, in other words, if South Carolina wants to go out of the Union, she has the right to do so, and no party or power may justly say her nay.” ~Cincinnati Daily Press, November 1860

Perhaps the above will help the doubting Thomases come to grips with the reality that Lincoln shut down over 300 Northern newspapers along with arresting, according to the Columbia Law Journal, over 38,000 US Citizens without due process for daring to oppose his actions. In fact, Fort Lafayette in New York Harbor became known as the “American Bastille.”

Such actions should and can be associated with other political tyrants and despots in history. Lincoln actions closely resemble more modern tyrants such as Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot and Idi Amin Dada. Hitler did, after all, mention Lincoln’s actions favorably in Mein Kampf.

“[T]he individual states of the American Union . . . could not have possessed any state sovereignty of their own. For it was not these states that formed the Union, on the contrary, it was the Union which formed a great part of such so-called states.” ~Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, pg. 566

“[T]he Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence . . . by the Articles of Confederation in 1778 . . . and establishing the Constitution. . . . It follows from these views that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union . . .” ~Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, 4 March 1861

Please read thoughtfully and carefully the below  excerpt from Hitler’s magnum opus, Mein Kampf, and contemplate if the government system described by Hitler resembles at all the form of government we live under today in our country. A system of government where the states rights have been destroyed.

“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, and to educate in its ideas and conceptions. Just as the churches do not feel bound and limited by political boundaries, no more does the National Socialist idea feel limited by the individual state territories of our fatherland. The National Socialist doctrine is not the servant of individual federated states, but shall some day become the master of the German nation. It must determine and reorder the life of a people, and must, therefore, imperiously claim the right to pass over [state] boundaries drawn by a development we have rejected” (p. 578). (Emphasis added)

Also, does the political system described above, by Hitler, resemble what we commonly call Reconstruction in the Southern states from 1865-1877? Was the Central Government led by the Radical Republicans “master’ over the people and did it “determine and reorder” their lives?

(Author’s note: This concludes Part Two. In Part Three, I will address the insanity that is the bigoted hatred toward the people of the South, their heritage and their symbols fostered by the Central Government, its employees, house servants, shills, willing dupes and useful idiots.)


(Author’s note: About two years ago I wrote a series of articles under the title of this piece in order to bring the light of truth to the events in our history known incorrectly as the Civil War. Since I wrote these articles there have been several events that have occurred in this country which have led to continued demonization of the people of the South, their culture, and their symbols. In reaction to the horrific shooting in Charleston, South Carolina, in June of 2015, several entities across this country began political, not historical, attacks on Southern symbols. Ironically, today, one can purchase an ISIS flag at Amazon but cannot purchase a Confederate Battle Flag. A personal friend has taken on the fight in Ft. Smith, Arkansas to challenge the local school board which made the decision to remove a school mascot, the school fight song and the name of a dance team as a personal sacrifice to the gods of Cultural Marxism. To this man and his efforts, I dedicate this series of articles. Thanks, Joey)

“Mr. Pendleton, if the Republicans lose their little war; they’re voted out in the next election and they return to their homes in New York, or Massachusetts or Illinois, fat with their war profits; if we lose, we lose our country, we lose our independence, we lose it all.” ~ General Thomas Jonathan Jackson (Stonewall) 1862.

At some point in late 1862, the Abraham Lincoln led republican administration realized their unconstitutional, immoral war, perpetrated on the people of the South, was generating a tremendous loss of life and property and at some point history would demand an explanation for what could only be considered treason. They also realized that should they lose this war there would certainly be legal repercussions for their blatant disregard for the limits of the Constitution. Lincoln had ordered up an Army of 75,000 soldiers to invade citizens of his own country without congressional approval.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. ~Article 3 Section 3, Constitution FOR the United States. (Emphasis added)

When their unconstitutional, immoral war(s) are killing thousands each and every week, tyrants are forced to seek some form of legal or moral high ground on which to base the reasoning for their crimes. Sometimes this requires the refutation of what one might have claimed previously.

“Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the amplest evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that–

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them;” ~Abraham Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address.

Killing all these people and destruction of private property, not to mention shutting down newspapers in the North, imprisoning members of the Maryland State Legislature and issuing an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, all because they dared challenge the war on constitutional principles, Lincoln was forced to come up with justification based on the same moral principles he had abandoned when he started his war. But, Lincoln and the Republicans had to be very careful for there were several states in the North which were most intolerant of the person of African descent.

“[R]ace prejudice seems stronger in those states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists, and nowhere is it more intolerant than in those states where slavery was never known.”

“So the Negro [in the North] is free, but he cannot share the rights, pleasures, labors, griefs, or even the tomb of him whose equal he has been declared; there is nowhere where he can meet him, neither in life nor in death.

In the South, where slavery still exists, less trouble is taken to keep the Negro apart: they sometimes share the labors and the pleasures of the white men; people are prepared to mix with them to some extent; legislation is more harsh against them, but customs are more tolerant and gentle.”  ~Alexis De Tocquville Democracy in America, p 343

“Both Indiana (1816) and Illinois (1818) abolished slavery by their constitutions. And both followed the Ohio policy of trying to prevent black immigration by passing laws requiring blacks who moved into the state to produce legal documents verifying that they were free and posting bond to guarantee their good behavior. The bond requirements ranged as high as $1,000, which was prohibitive for a black American in those days. Anti-immigration legislation passed in Illinois in 1819, 1829, and 1853. In Indiana, such laws were enacted in 1831 and 1852. Michigan Territory passed such a law in 1827; Iowa Territory passed one in 1839 and Iowa enacted another in 1851 after it became a state. Oregon Territory passed such a law in 1849. Blacks who violated the law faced punishments that included advertisement and sale at public auction (Illinois, 1853).” ~Slavery in the North (North of Slavery. The Negro in the Free States 1790-1860, University of Chicago Press)

So, Lincoln fell upon the idea of the Emancipation Proclamation; moral high ground on which to base his tyrannical, murderous war. Not a child goes through the Public Fool System without hearing of the Great Emancipator and his Emancipation Proclamation, but how many are told of the conditions of the Free Blacks in the North, the duplicity of Lincoln witnessed by his statements in his inaugural address, or the horrid treatment of those in the North who dared oppose Lincoln’s unconstitutional acts? Is withholding the truth any different than lying?

Conveniently, for those who worship at the feet of Lincoln and the unconstitutional government that has existed since what was actually the Second War for Independence in this country; intentionally left out of most descriptions of the Emancipation Proclamation is the fact it only freed the slaves in the parts of states where Lincoln had no control. It did not free any Blacks in the Border States or in the areas of the Southern States controlled by the Northern Army. Lincoln, acting through his military subordinates such as Benjamin “Beast” Butler in New Orleans, continued to use Blacks as slave labor to construct forts and other “needful” buildings.

Despite this expansive wording, the Emancipation Proclamation was limited in many ways. It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal Border States. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control. Most important, the freedom it promised depended upon Union military victory.

Although the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery in the nation, it captured the hearts and imagination of millions of Americans and fundamentally transformed the character of the war. ~National Archives and Records Administration

There we have it; the official government position from the National Archives, a branch of the central government. The truth does not matter—only how do you feel (Cultural Marxism) about any issue; in fact, it is not important you even know the truth, especially if it has to do with overreaching, therefore, unconstitutional government.

The Emancipation Proclamation, a piece of intentionally deceptive legislation, continues to this day to capture “the hearts and imagination of millions of Americans” but in so doing, it obfuscates the truth and does absolutely nothing to correct the inaccuracies of revisionist history taught to our children and the adults of this country. More importantly, it carries with it the automatic acceptance of a highly centralized and despotic government structure that is diametrically opposed to the true intent of our Constitution as ratified.

During the Reconstruction era in the South, the right to vote and own property was removed from anyone who had given “support” to the government of the Confederacy. Yankee near-do-wells came in droves to the Southern states to see the people of the South were properly chastised and punished for daring to stand for the concept of “consent of the governed.” Many of these people came from Northern states that did not allow Blacks to vote.

“Following the Civil War, Radical Republicans in Congress introduced a series of laws and constitutional amendments to try to secure civil and political rights for black people. This wing of the Republican Party was called “radical” because of its strong stance on these and other issues. The right that provoked the greatest controversy, especially in the North, concerned black male suffrage: the right of the black man to vote.

In 1867, Congress passed a law requiring the former Confederate states to include black male suffrage in their new state constitutions. Ironically, even though African American men began voting in the South after 1867, the majority of Northern states continued to deny them this basic right.” (Emphasis added) ~Constitutional Rights Foundation, African Americans, and the 15th Amendment.

These wonderful Yankees sent their holier-than-thou hypocrites into the South as teachers to indoctrinate the young people into acceptance of the tyrannical Reconstruction Act of 1867 and the casus belli of the war: freeing the Black man. Of course they were also there to teach the young people that the unconstitutional, highly centralized, tyrannical, despotic government they were living under was for the greater good of all.

Today our children are still taught the above by those indoctrinated in the so-called field of education and many so-called intelligent adults regurgitate the government provided pablum on demand. Again, it is all about the emotions of the situation and the truth is often irrelevant. We now see the manifestation of that doctrine in what is called “Common Core.”

“… [E]very man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late.  We can give but a faint idea when we say it means the loss of all we now hold most sacred … personal property, lands, homesteads, liberty, justice, safety, pride, manhood.  It means that the history of  this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy;  that our  youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the War, will be impressed by all influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, our maimed veterans as fit objects for their derision, it means the crushing of Southern manhood … to establish sectional superiority and a more centralised (spelling in the original) form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.” ~Gen. Patrick Cleburne, C.S.A. … 2 Jan 1864

(To be continued)



As I have written previously, the government we presently are controlled by, as opposed to performing their constitutional obligation to defend our individual rights, is riding hell-bent-for-leather to destroy any vestiges of freedom, liberty, and personal property rights. Such was the government established throughout our country during the period of our history known as Reconstruction. The model for the application of the principles of Reconstruction was established primarily by General William Tecumseh Sherman, especially as he embarked on his infamous burning of Meridian, Jackson, Atlanta, the “March to the Sea” and then subsequent attacks into South and North Carolina. While the “Radical Republicans,” led by Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner set about the political and economical raping and pillaging of the South, Sherman turned his death and destruction on the American Indians.

To investigate the mind of Sherman and his beliefs on how to deal with “Rebels and Red Savages” and how his theory is now being employed by government agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management, (BLM) especially in the West, one has to look only to the printed words of the psychopath himself.

Found in THE REBELLION RECORD; A DIARY OF AMERICAN EVENTS, originally published from 1861-1868 and later republished by Arno Press in 1977 are the damning words. I especially call attention to Volume VIII, pages 351-353. Contained therein is a document called, TREATMENT OF SOUTHERNERS, authored by Union General William Tecumseh Sherman on January 31, 1864, and sent to Union Major R. M. Sawyer, A. A., General, Army of the Tennessee at Huntsville, Alabama.

I have taken the liberty of highlighting and adding comments to the letter (In blue). I believe it is easily seen how the doctrine of Sherman is now the doctrine of most government agencies who operate as judge, jury and executioner with no visible congressional oversight.

“Headquarters, Department of Tennessee, Vicksburg, January 1, 1863.

[To] Major R. M. Sawyer, AAG Army of Tennessee, Huntsville:

“Dear Sawyer — In my former letter I have answered all your questions save one, and that relates to the treatment of inhabitants known, or suspected to be, hostile or “secesh.” The war which prevails in our land is essentially a war of races. The Southern people entered into a clear compact of government, but still maintained a species of separate interests, history and prejudices. These later became stronger and stronger, till they have led to war, which has developed the fruits of the bitterest kind.

We of the North are, beyond all question, right in our lawful cause, but we are not bound to ignore the fact that the people of the South have prejudices that form part of their nature, and which they cannot throw off without an effort of reason or the slower process of natural change.

Now, the question arises, should we treat as absolute enemies all in the South who differ with us in opinions or prejudices . . . [and] kill or banish them? Or should we give them time to think and gradually change their conduct so as to conform to the new order of things which is slowly and gradually creeping into their country?

When men take arms to resist our rightful authority, we are compelled to use force because all reason and argument ceases when arms are resorted to.

If the people, or any of them, keep up a correspondence with parties in hostility, they are spies, and can be punished with death or minor punishment. These are well established principles of war, and the people of the South having appealed to war, are barred from appealing to our Constitution, (Once the government is challenged, those who challenge forfeit their constitutional rights, such as was exhibited in dealing with LaVoy Finicum.) the which they have practically and publicly defied. They have appealed to war and must abide its rules and laws.

The United States, as a belligerent party claiming right in the soil as the ultimate sovereign, (BLM doctrine) have a right to change the population, and it may be and it, both politic and best, that we should do so in certain districts. When the inhabitants persist too long in hostility, it may be both politic and right that we should banish them and appropriate their lands to a more loyal and useful population. (The land belongs to those who worship the government and should be taken from those who don’t)

No man would deny that the United States would be benefited by dispossessing a single prejudiced, hard-headed and disloyal planter and substitute in his place a dozen or more patient, industrious, good families, even if they be of foreign birth. (Speaks volumes: take land and property from those who don’t blindly support government and give that land to illegal immigrants)

It is all idle nonsense for these Southern planters to say that they made the South, that they own it, and that they can do as they please — even to break up our government, and to shut up the natural avenues of trade, intercourse and commerce. (Here the South is accused of doing what Lincoln did with his “Anaconda Plan.” Also, the people cannot own the land and do as they please with that land. Bring in the EPA please.)

We know, and they know if they are intelligent beings, that, as compared with the whole world they are but as five millions are to one thousand millions — that they did not create the land — that their only title to its use and enjoyment is the deed of the United States, (Again current BLM, USFS and EPA doctrine) and if they appeal to war they hold their all by a very insecure tenure.

For my part, I believe that this war is the result of false political doctrine, for which we are all as a people responsible, viz: That any and every people has a right to self-government . . . In this belief, while I assert for our Government the highest military prerogatives, I am willing to bear in patience that political nonsense of . . . State Rights, freedom of conscience, freedom of press, and other such trash as have deluded the Southern people into war, anarchy, bloodshed, and the foulest crimes that have disgraced any time or any people. (“military prerogatives” supersede our Bill of Rights, for when the government is challenged, the rights of the individual, granted by our Creator, become “political nonsense.”)

I would advise the commanding officers at Huntsville and such other towns as are occupied by our troops, to assemble the inhabitants and explain to them these plain, self-evident propositions, and tell them that it is for them now to say whether they and their children shall inherit their share. (Military officers are the explainers of our “self-evident” rights, not those of our Declaration of Independence)

The Government of the United States has in North-Alabama any and all rights which they choose to enforce in war — to take their lives, their homes, their lands, their everything . . . and war is simply power unrestrained by constitution or compact. (The government now claims this “right” in all of this country, and government employees and agencies believe they too have the right to take lives, homes, lands—everything, just ask the Hammonds, the Bundys or LaVoy Finicum) If they want eternal warfare, well and good; we will accept the issue and dispossess them, and put our friends in possession. (Especially if there are minerals in the land that people like the Clintons or Harry Reid wish to transfer to Russia or China) Many, many people, with less pertinacity than the South, have been wiped out of national existence.

To those who submit to the rightful law and authority, all gentleness and forbearance; but to the petulant and persistent secessionists, why, death is mercy, and the quicker he or she is disposed of the better. Satan and the rebellious saints of heaven were allowed a continuance of existence in hell merely to swell their just punishment.” (Exactly the current attitude of the vast majority of government employees and agency heads.)

W.T. Sherman, Major General Commanding

Obvious to all should be the crystal clear view that the government of our founders as defined in our Constitution and Bill of Rights was destroyed by Abraham Lincoln and his minions led by the drunk Hiram Ulysses Grant and the psychopath William T. Sherman.

The Republican Party claims to be “the Party of Lincoln” and when asked who was the greatest president of all Hillary replied, “Sorry, Bill but the greatest president was Abraham Lincoln.” Obama has compared himself to Lincoln as did George W. Bush. Unfortunately for our Freedom, Liberty, Constitution and Bill of Rights—they are all correct and tyrannical government agencies love to employ the powers of Sherman the Psychopath.




“When the president does it, that means it’s not illegal.” “Richard Nixon

I certainly did not realize what would be the extent of time spent researching for my future class on who were the five best and who were the five worst presidents in American history. Especially, considering I had chosen in advance as the baseline for that determination how each president performed in accordance with their oath of office.

We should all be aware that in today’s political landscape our Constitution can mean everything or it can mean nothing depending of course on how any decision based on a sacred oath to ‘protect and defend” that Constitution plays with the country’s electorate. Those citizens who are clamoring for so-called entitlements or those who are begging to be protected from some existential threat, a threat most often created by their own government, are equally uncaring about how their president and other elected officials perform in accordance with that sacred oath.

“Violate the constitution if you must in order to provide me with that which I believe I am entitled, or to protect me from that enemy you created” is the mantra of the great majority of the voting public. Damn the Constitution, full speed ahead. Keep the free stuff and bombs coming for the derelicts and cowards. Of course, while these insatiable appetites are addressed, the international banking cartel controls the flow of the necessary borrowed money—-which, in the end—is the ultimate power.

All of the above has created an imperial presidency in this country and the belief by those in public office that no matter what they do, it can’t be illegal because they are the ones in power—thus the Nixon quote. It matters not to the majority of people in this country that the executive has become one of the things our founders feared most and knew would eventually destroy our Republic.

The delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 sat in stunned silence when James Wilson of Pennsylvania proposed a single executive. The thought of one person controlling all facets of government was totally repugnant to the other delegates, for they had just finished fighting a long and bloody war against a monarchy.

John Rutledge of South Carolina was adamantly opposed to placing the “power of the sword” in the hands of one person. Fellow delegate from South Carolina, Charles Pinckney, feared the convention would produce the worst kind of tyranny: an elected king.  If we take into consideration the thousands of signing statements by George W. Bush or the executive orders by Obama, all of which circumvent our Constitution, one would be forced to admit Mr. Pinckney was spot-on with his prediction.

While the common thought is the worst president in history is the one in the political party opposite the one you support, the truth is: if presidents were held strictly to their sacred oaths, all presidents in the past 100 years should have been impeached.  Of course, there were many before that 100 years who violated the oath of office, they just were not as common, or so blatantly unconstitutional as the ones in the past century, with the obvious exception of Abraham Lincoln of whom it has been written “had to destroy the Constitution in order to protect it.”

Granted, it has gotten steadily worse during the past 100 years with each new president seizing on the unconstitutional acts of their predecessors to increase their scope of powers. Like the judicial branch with rulings based on unconstitutional “precedents” by former courts, the executive branch doubles down on the unconstitutional precedents of former presidents.

Two of the most prominent Federalists (read Nationalists) among our founders, Alexander Hamilton and James Wilson, promised those like Pinckney and Rutledge who were concerned a new monarchy was being created by the convention, the only powers the executive branch would possess would be those of “executing the laws and appointing officers.”  Roger Sherman of Connecticut chimed in that he “considered the executive magistracy as nothing more than an institution for carrying the will of the legislature into effect.” 

We constantly read and hear of the “intent of our founders,” especially when nominees for the high courts are being discussed and debated, but this is nothing more than a gigantic charade to play out for Ignoramus Americanus. The “intent of our founders” is actually pretty clear if one would but simply read their words. But, when that intent runs head-on into the avarice of the political sect in this country, tyranny always prevails.

Most citizens today who participate in the electoral process, especially when it comes to the election of a president, do so with an overwhelming ignorance of the limitations on that office as instituted by our founders. Most don’t really care as long as the free money and perpetual wars for peace continue to flow from the perceived horn of plenty.

Greatest in my mind among the hypocrites are many of those who refer to themselves as “conservatives.” Among these are a group of farmers and ranchers who the government pays not to work. A great deal of this is known as the Conservation Reserve Program. (CRP) In this program farmers and ranchers are paid not to farm and ranch. Yet, almost to a person, these “conservative” recipients of free money are very much opposed to domestic welfare programs where “liberals” get paid not to work. Without debating the benefits or constitutionality of either program, the bottom line is: no one votes against a government that gives them free money! Of course they find it irrelevant that the only money government has is either money stolen from others in the form of taxes or money borrowed on the future of their children and grandchildren.

Then there are the perpetual cowards in our society who believe our government can dispose of our enemies and protect us by bombing and shooting them whenever and wherever possible. The fact our government leaves our borders open, which allows the relatives and friends of those we are bombing, shooting and killing to simply walk through unmolested is of little political consequence.

Among these folks you will find the most rabid advocates for our Second Amendment rights. They will tell you the right to keep and bear arms must be protected in order to protect us from a tyrannical government. The mental disease called cognitive disconnect prevents them from comprehending the tyrannical government they fear is the same tyrannical government that is doing the bombing and killing of other people in other countries. While it is openly advocated our government should “disarm” countries with which we don’t politically agree, we personally want the right to be armed in order to protect ourselves from that selfsame government. It is virtually impossible to not see the blatant hypocrisy in such a position.

Both sides support and defend the very “standing army” our founders feared so much. We claim to the heavens they are “defending our freedoms” yet our individual freedoms have been more severely restricted in the past 15 years than any other period in this country’s history, with the exception of the years 1861-1876 during the War to Prevent Southern Independence and Reconstruction. If this theme continues to its logical end, eventually, we will be supporting the troops who are escorting us to the gulag.

We continue also with support for the “federal and state sheriffs” Patrick Henry warned would eat out our sustenance. We care not the majority of laws they are enforcing are unconstitutional. We support them because they represent the government we fear  we will need to defend ourselves from with weapons at some point in the future. Undoubtedly, those we now support will be the very ones the government sends to take our freedom and liberty, just as soon as the government passes the unconstitutional laws which will authorize those arrests.

We have an imperial presidency, an out of control government apparatus; a congress that has repeatedly abrogated its authority to the imperial executive and perpetual wars which destroy the lives and futures of many of those who participate in those wars.

We have a national debt of something over 19 trillion with unfunded mandates of at least 100 trillion more on which we will never be able to pay the interest. We have rampant violent crime in our larger cities brought on by insane, unconstitutional wars on drugs and poverty. We have millions of illegal immigrants in this country who are putting us even more in debt while participating in multiple criminal acts. We have, on the horizon, hundreds of thousands of immigrants coming soon to our cities and towns from countries where we have been bombing and killing members of their family and their faith and we expect this to happen without incident. All of these things we have, not because of crooked politicians, but because of support for all of the above by an ignorant population which is constantly clamoring for more government money, wars and programs.

In my class on the 26th, I will have my list of the five best and worst presidents in this country’s history. The list for those who have supported, enabled and praised them would take entirely too much time to compile. But—just look around—they are everywhere and the majority of them vote.













“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” ~ John Adams

Democracy is the road to Socialism” ~ Karl Marx

Friday night last, in the city of Chicago, we saw a microcosm of what those in government who see that government as a path to power and wealth and those they promise to support for life, in return for their votes, have brought to this once proud Republic.

The dichotomy of law enforcement shooting farmers and ranchers in the West in order to seize private property for their masters while members of law enforcement are shot to death by welfare recipients and illegal aliens in the cities that have embraced socialism on a grand scale is lost on Ignoramus Americanus and those who blindly serve and worship the god called government.

Black Lives Matter, La Raza and others are demanding, using violence if necessary, the government continue to provide them with “free stuff” such as Hillary and Bernie are falling all over themselves to promise, not only to continue, but to increase. When those who suckle at the breast of current socialist polices in this country form a brotherhood with a new wave of immigrants, (Muslims) who see violence as a means of revenge and retribution, many more cities in this country will find themselves awash in violence and death.

Donald Trump, for all of his warts, the largest being his recently avowed allegiance to Israel, (a commitment to Israel is a commitment to perpetual war and a disregard for the principles of US sovereignty) scares the crap out of those who depend on the government for their daily bread and circuses. The fact these factions bonded together to cause the cancellation of a Trump appearance in Chicago is truly a portent of things to come all over this country. Shutting down a major political presentation will only fuel the monster.

Take a close look at Socialism where it is most highly concentrated in this country. Major metropolitan cities are the best examples with Chicago being a leader in socialist program endeavors. Chicago is the hometown of several well known Marxist and Fabian Socialists, including, Obama, Hillary, Saul Alinsky (Rules for Radicals) and others. Socialist organizations abound in Chicago with a recent meeting of Socialists in that city  drawing groups such as Solidarity, Socialist Alternative, The International Socialist Organization and the Chicago Teachers Union. Also, according to Chicago-Magazine, Bernie Sanders found Socialism at the University of Chicago.

It is also of relevance that Chicago’s current mayor, a friend of the Clintons and former chief of staff for Obama, is a die-hard Fabian Socialist with dual citizenship with Israel.

The rank and file among the Chicago Police Department state the leadership of that city, all the way to Mayor Rahm Emanuel, intentionally allowed the crowd consisting of Black Lives Matter and the beneficiaries of Chicago’s “sanctuary city” status to disrupt the Trump rally in order to prevent the public from seeing support for Trump in that city. According to these officers, very few police assets were assigned to the event—very unusual for an event of this magnitude. So who are Trump’s enemies—–Democrats and the Republican Party old guard—because they both work towards the same socialist goals.

So, what have the socialistic policies embraced by Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Rham Emanuel and other proud Socialists and sycophants brought to the people of Chicago? Every 2 hours and 54 minutes someone is shot in Chicago; every 14 hours and 19 minutes someone is shot and killed. So far this month 17 people have been shot and killed and 99 people have been shot and wounded. In total, 116 people have been shot and there have been 19 total homicides. Since the first of January, 604 people have been shot in Chicago with 5 of those killed being White. Of all known assailants, only one was White. I would remind you Chicago has some of the toughest anti-gun laws in this country.

The overwhelming number of those shot, and those doing the shooting in Chicago, are of the same race or ethnicity as those who shut down Trump’s appearance on Friday. You’ve seen them in the media; Black Lives Matter folks and others proudly waving the flag of a foreign country. (Mexico)

When these “people of color” riot in cities such as Ferguson, Missouri and Baltimore, Maryland, set fire to businesses and destroy private property, the police are told to stand-down and wait for the violence to subside, but when a group of White ranchers and farmers peacefully demonstrate against the unconstitutional acts of government, they are lured into an ambush and murdered with the survivors placed in prison, quite probably for some, the rest of their lives.

When one mentions Socialism, the next thought that comes to mind is the Democrat Party, but, truth be told, the Republicans support socialist polices and fascist policies just as much as the Democrats—the only difference being the Republicans deny it. But, try to find a Republican who does not support and defend Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, all of which are socialist. But, it appears many Trump supporters have wised up to the deception. That is the reason Trump is universally hated by those of socialist persuasion in both parties.

We read and hear often now of the crimes being committed throughout the countries of Europe who have opened their borders to a wave of immigrants—immigrants who have totally different cultures and values than the inhabitants of the countries those immigrants now inhabit. But, at the same time, we somehow ignore the crimes that are being committed throughout our own country by immigrants, many of whom are here illegally. Check the 10 most wanted feature of Tucson Arizona’s website, or watch the local news from Albuquerque, Dallas, or hundreds of other cities. Combine this with the rampant incidence of violent crimes in cities like Chicago, Ferguson, Baltimore, Detroit, Oakland, Memphis, Birmingham, Atlanta, Stockton, Cleveland, and Buffalo, and one will quickly learn there is a war going on in this country. Check the race or ethnicity of the majority of the perpetrators of the out-of-control crime in those cities. In most cases you will find it to be the same as those who rallied to shut down the Trump rally in Chicago. Racism is as racism does.

Wake up, people. The lines have been drawn; sides have been chosen. Our central government; its shills, sycophants and white apologists have created a monster while trolling for votes. A monster they will not oppose, for at the center of that creature lies the basis of their power. When the Muslim hoards arrive—riding your tax dollars into this country—things will get much worse. If you take a close look at those who are clamoring for the admission of a new wave of immigrants, you will find Socialism to be their religion of choice.

To appease the illegals already in this country, along with the millions of people of color who have been the beneficiary of trillions of taxpayer dollars in the so-called war on poverty, the central government must eliminate entirely the culture that created this country and relies on its founding principles and the rights guaranteed by their Creator as the basis for their Freedom and Liberty.

The standing army, federal and state sheriffs; those we were warned about by our founders, will always support the source of their power and income; that being of course the central government. When the central government moves to eliminate/destroy the culture of our founders, those leading that effort will be the armed representatives of that central government and those in fear of losing their gravy train.

Who showed up in Harney County, Oregon to oppose those who were protesting the unconstitutional acts of our central government? The same forces who murdered LaVoy Finicum and imprisoned the Bundys and others who opposed them? Dare we ask why these same assets are not deployed in cities like Chicago where shootings and homicide are the norm instead of the exception? The answer is obvious: those criminals shooting each other every few hours support the central government and embrace Socialism on a grand scale. They are indeed the wards of the State. The people who assembled in Harney County oppose the illegal actions of that same government. Who, indeed, is the enemy of the State? More importantly, who does our central government see as the forces which contest their continued pursuit of Socialism?

The culture of our founders and their ideas for a Republic are a huge impediment to our Socialist oriented central government’s end game. This government, its standing army and  federal and state sheriffs, cannot allow ideas of opposition to their tyranny to grow and flourish. The central government has declared Freedom, Liberty, private property and the culture of our founders to be its sworn enemy. The evidence is everywhere—-look at the streets of Chicago and a country road in Oregon.


Michael is a political activist, writer and teacher who defends and teaches the Constitution as ratified (Originalist), our Bill of Rights and the tenets of our Declaration of Independence. He is constantly trying to understand why the great majority of people in this country are content being slaves to an unconstitutional, criminal government; a government that is systematically destroying the intent of the founders of this country and the culture that brought us Liberty and Individual Freedom. Dependent on readers in continuing this effort, please support his work by mail at: 404 West Main St. PMB 121, Cortez, CO 81321.










It is forbidden to kill, therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets” ~Voltaire

On January 26, 2016, Robert LaVoy Finicum was murdered on a lonely stretch of highway in Oregon by as yet unnamed government employees. It was murder in the first degree for it meets all four of the legal tenets for such a crime.

Purposely. Lavoy Finicum, Ammon Bundy, Shawna Cox, Ryan Bundy, Victoria Sharp and others were purposely led into the aforementioned lonely stretch of highway in Oregon specifically to engage them in circumstances which favored the employees of the state while minimizing any form of defense or retaliation. There was obvious prior knowledge by employees of the state as to the direction and route the above parties would be traveling. (obvious plant inside) Thus, the stretch of highway that provided no cell phone service; the obviously pre-planned and set up roadblock; snipers deployed in the surrounding woods and the firing upon the vehicle(s) when no shots had been fired from those vehicles at the government employees. Going 70 mph on a public road to avoid being shot does not necessitate a death penalty. The employees of the state have no valid claims of self-defense.

Knowingly: This point is easily established by the previously mentioned facts in evidence. The employees of the government knowingly led the Bundys, Finicum and others into a pre-planned scenario complete with a roadblock which created the desired “kill zone.”

Recklessly: Government employees recklessly fired deadly weapons into the vehicle(s) containing people who at the time had no wants or warrants outstanding against them, nor were they fleeing the scene of a crime. Therefore, there existed no probable cause for the actions of members of law enforcement be they local, state or federal.

Negligently: there is a  multitude of available evidence which indicates the entire operation conducted by law enforcement on that day was negligent in the extreme. Officers could have detained and questioned all involved—if that was their true intent—-which the planned roadblock and weapons fired into occupied vehicles proves otherwise. On numerous occasions, Bundy, Finicum and others were seen in and around town, even traveling to the airport where the FBI command post was located to engage the leadership there in conversation. Ammon even asked if any of the officers were LDS. (Mormons) A peaceful arrest could have occurred there or various other locations with little fanfare or shooting. But, acting out of pure negligence and malice aforethought, members of law enforcement opted instead for what became a deadly shootout with totally unnecessary loss of life and freedom. These acts on the part of these particular government employees were premeditated and designed to produce the desired outcome.

Legal charges which were made against Bundy and others retroactively did not constitute probable cause for the initiation of the stop or deadly force. Probable cause cannot be established ex post facto.

Every single bit of evidence provided by the so-called “authorities” in this crime further indicts their actions. The actions of the government employees are Prima facie evidence the desired end results were achieved as planned.

Someone was going to pay dearly for the egg on the face of the federal sheriffs that occurred in Bunkerville, Nevada in April of 2014. They reestablished their dominion and control over the masses by shooting LaVoy Finicum in the back at least twice, therefore taking his life. Shooting someone in the back is an act of total cowardice. The federal sheriffs have become characters not unlike Robert Ford of Jesse James fame. “It was a dirty little coward who shot Mr. Howard…” Once in America it was seen as dishonorable to shoot anyone in the back, even a wanted criminal.

It appears the state sheriffs in Oregon who shot Lavoy in the back are having problems with some members of the SS death squad of the federal sheriffs (FBI Hostage, Rescue Team HRT) for shooting and missing LaVoy Finicum and then lying about shooting at all. Of course we remember the HRT who were deployed at the Weaver home in 1993, where again, another victim of tyranny was shot in the back (preferred tactic of cowards) this time 14 year-old Samuel Weaver with his mother Vicki shot in the face while holding her infant daughter shortly thereafter. Of course the FBI HRT member, one Lon Horiuchi, who shot the unarmed and infant toting Mrs. Weaver, would later plead the 5th Amendment when questioned about his cowardly act before the US Senate. Ironic is it not these federal sheriff assassins demand their constitutional rights when confronted with denying the right to life, liberty and happiness to others?

At some point in time the federal macho men are going to claim they were acting in accordance with the request of the governor of Oregon. But, again, that damned constitution is going to get in their way—-not really. Was the legislature of the state of Oregon in session when the Oregon governor asked for federal intervention? If not, was it possible to call them into session? Governor Kate Brown said on January 2, 2016:

[Federal officials] “must move quickly to end the occupation and hold all of the wrongdoers accountable.”

“This spectacle of lawlessness must end, and until Harney County is free of it, I will not stop insisting that federal officials enforce the law.” 

Liberty, Justice and the American people continue to pay a terrible price for electing people to high office who wouldn’t know the Constitution if they found it floating in their morning coffee. Article IV Section IV of said Constitution specifically states the legislature of a state, not the governor, is responsible for calling in the central government to deal with “domestic violence.” The governor cannot do so if the legislature is in session or can be called into session. Of course, with the collection of constitutionally ignorant air wasters currently serving in most state legislatures, the results probably would not have been much different.

The evidence the ambush of the Bundy/Finicum party was deliberately and precisely planned to end the way it did, with the exception the forces manning that ambush were resolved to take out as many people as they could, is irrefutable. This is corroborated by the number of shots fired at the vehicle after LaVoy Finicum had been shot in the back and lay dying, without help, in the snow.

The 18 year old lady who was in the vehicle at the time was released, without charges, even though her life was in constant jeopardy by government agents shooting indiscriminately into the vehicle where she was a passenger. She has a valid case of attempted murder against all the government agents present at that shooting. Don’t hold your breath.

There is the charge that LaVoy Finicum was reaching for a gun, and a gun conveniently appeared to support the government’s allegation. There is an issue here of course of whether he was reaching for that weapon or whether his was a reaction to having already been shot. A huge issue is that Finicum and the others in his vehicle had been fired on before he exited that vehicle. No one can deny for a moment that he exited his vehicle with his hands up.

LaVoy Finicum was shot in the back at least twice, according to the autopsy, a cowardly act by men in body armor, some cowering in fear behind cover. Economics Professor and columnist Walter E. Williams once asked and then answered his own question. The question was: How can you tell when your government is violating its authority? Professor William’s answer was most relevant to the subject of this Rant. It was: If the government is doing something, that if you did the same thing, you would go to jail, the government is acting outside its authority.

Apply this answer please to the ambush and death of LaVoy Finicum. Switch roles. If the government employees were to have been driving down the road and a group like the Bundys and others attempted to stop them, say for a citizen’s arrest, while standing armed on the side of the road and behind cover, and the government employees attempted to exit the obvious threat and failing to do so one of them exited his vehicle with his hands up and was promptly shot in the back and killed, would those who did so be charged with a crime?

If you believe, even for a nanosecond, that federal, state and local sheriffs have a right and subsequent immunity for doing what they did to LaVoy Finicum and the others sitting in prison, simply because they were acting under the color of authority, your proper place of residence should be in the old Soviet Union, Cambodia under Pol Pot or Nazi Germany. Any freedom and liberty that you experience is wasted on an undeserving dolt. Samuel Adams, a true and faithful Patriot to his death, had some words especially for you: “Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; may your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”


Michael is a political activist, writer and teacher who defends and teaches the Constitution as ratified (Originalist), our Bill of Rights and the tenets of our Declaration of Independence. He is constantly trying to understand why the great majority of people in this country are content being slaves to an unconstitutional, criminal government; a government that is systematically destroying the intent of the founders of this country and the culture that brought us Liberty and Individual Freedom. Dependent on readers in continuing this effort, please support his work by mail at: 404 West Main St. PMB 121, Cortez, CO 81321.









(*Author’s note: In light of what happened recently in Oregon and what happened in Nevada in 2014, including the arrest of the Bundys a journalist and several members of the militia, all acts which are traceable directly to the usurpation of power over states in the West by the Bureau of Land Management and other government alphabet agencies, it is important we examine those actions using the Constitution as a baseline. We must remember that government agencies never find anything in our Constitution that limit their actions and have begun to refer to those who question these actions as “domestic terrorists.” But, these agencies often point to Article IV Section III Clause 2 as constitutional justification of their criminal acts. In most cases this seems to work—they just throw the Article, Section and Clause out there as evidence to a country of brain dead zombies—all courtesy of the Public Fool System, socialist college professors, government shills and sycophants. It’s well past time we confront their claims of constitutional authorization for their gestapo storm trooper actions.)

“On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12 1823

There are a multitude of reasons to accept as constitutional gospel Thomas Jefferson’s words at this point in his life. The letter to William Johnson was written when Jefferson was 80 years old, three years before his death, after he had written our Declaration of Independence; been governor of Virginia during the Revolution; served as Washington’s Secretary of State during his first term; wrote the Kentucky Resolution, served two terms as president and been mentor for presidents Madison and Monroe at various times. No one in this country’s history had or has that level of experience and knowledge.

After 30 years of reading and studying our country’s founding era and the history since that time, it has been my experience that when it comes to “squeezing” meaning out of our Constitution—interpretation that was never intended by the majority of our founders—no one can compare with those who are employees or representatives of our government.

On multiple occasions I have heard these government lackeys refer to Article IV Section III Clause 2, as justification for the central government’s continuing unconstitutional seizure of private property and their claim to dominion and control over Public Lands. Of course, to complete the squeezing process requires an ignorance inherent in the people or intentional deception when it comes to the background of why that part of the Constitution was included by those who seek to use it to promote and extend the powers of the central government.

First of all let us take a look at the wording of the Clause in question.

“The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.” 

Please note the first eight words in the clause. Specifically, this expressly delegates the power to the Congress to “dispose of” property belonging to the United States. Notice also there is absolutely nothing in this clause that states the Congress has the power to acquire, buy, obtain, steal, confiscate, be granted or coerce from anyone, any property, in any state.  At the time our Constitution was written and then ratified, not one of our founders ever stated or believed that any part, of any state, was “property belonging to the United States.”

Relevant also is the last part of this clause. It clearly states “nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”  Clearly, the actions of the BLM in various western states have prejudiced the property rights claims of those states. This is also a total repudiation of the heavy-handed actions of various gestapo forces within the alphabet agencies of the central government reference lands inside the boundaries of any state.

Next, when it comes to “needful rules and regulations” it is specifically noted this pertains only to territories and not the states and “other property” belonging to the United States as mentioned in Article I Section VIII Clause 17. This, of course, includes the 10 miles square that is the District of Columbia, places purchased with the consent of the Legislatures of the States; “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock Yards and other needful buildings.”

The discussions during the convention of 1787 and the subsequent ratification conventions reference this part of our Constitution was basically concerned with the 10 miles square that is now the District of Columbia. Some very interesting comments were made during those ratification conventions concerning this Clause. For example, in the North Carolina ratification convention, James Iredell, who would be one of the first Associate Justices of the US Supreme Court, said the following:

“A gentleman who spoke some time ago (Mr. Lenoir) observed, that the government might make it treason to write against the most arbitrary proceedings. He corrected himself afterwards, by saying he meant misprision of treason. But in the correction he committed as great a mistake as he did at first. Where is the power given to them [to do this?] They have power to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations. They have no power to define any other crime whatever.”

That statement by James Iredell is most compelling, especially from a man who was not only a founder of this country but a member of our first Supreme Court. He believed and stated, the central government has no power to define any crime whatever outside of the 10 miles square that makes up the country’s capital. Now, that is a subject that must be pursued and elaborated upon in a future Rant.

Iredell is especially interesting, considering months before Jefferson would pen the Declaration of Independence, Iredell wrote “Principles of an American Whig” which contained principles of independence very much like those of the later Declaration. Here are two great examples:

“[t]hat mankind were intended to be happy, at least that God Almighty gave them the power of being so, if they would properly exert the means he has bestowed upon them.”

“That government being only means of securing freedom and happiness to the people, whenever it deviates from this end, and their freedom and happiness are in great danger of being irrevocably lost, the government is no longer entitled to their allegiance, the only consideration for which it could be justly claimed or honorably pledged being basely and tyrannically withheld.” 

The Federal Farmer, an Anti-Federalist who was either Melancton Smith or Richard Henry Lee, depending on who you read, wrote “…but in no event can there be any need of so large a city and places for forts, &c. totally exempted from the laws and jurisdictions of the state governments.”

So, our founders believed, and wrote, that even the properties constitutionally owned by the central government in the individual states, “in no event can there be any need of places [being] … totally exempted from the laws and jurisdictions of the state governments.”

Hours and hours of research of source documents including minutes of both the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and many of the State Ratification Conventions of 1787-88, do not reveal any of our founders who believed or wrote that the central government would have any control over the lands within the states with the exception of joint control (central and state governments) over properties mentioned in Article I Section VIII Clause 17. Numerous court decisions, especially those of the Supreme Court, completely ignore this fact. That is the “squeezing” of text or “inventions against” the intent of our Constitution Jefferson warned us about.

The Constitution applied…to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which gives Congress a power…ought not to be construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument.”Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolution 1798.

(all emphasis in bold are mine)


Michael is a political activist, writer and teacher who defends and teaches the Constitution as ratified (originalist), our Bill of Rights and the tenets of our Declaration of Independence. He is constantly trying to understand why the great majority of people in this country are content being slaves to an unconstitutional, criminal government; a government that is systematically destroying the intent of the founders of this country and the culture that brought us Liberty and Individual Freedom. Dependent on readers in continuing this effort, please support his work by mail at: 404 West Main St. PMB 121, Cortez, CO 81321.





(Authors note: While I remain unconvinced that Donald Trump has a firm grasp on the importance of our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution as ratified, our Bill of Rights and their proper application, I applaud how his campaign continues to expose the underbelly of the beast for all to see. What I fear is this: if their personal and professional attacks do not accomplish the needed results, Trump will be more and more seen as a liability that must be eliminated by other means.)

A great many Americans continue to be drawn to the battle for the nomination for president in the Republican Party. That Hillary will be the nominee from the left is virtually assured, even if she is indicted in the meantime which is highly unlikely considering the track record of the FBI and DOJ when it comes to dealing with the Clinton crime family. Any entity who lends support to a person like Sanders who is not not only an avowed Socialist, but a Communist sympathizer as well, would gladly support a person under indictment. Remember it was Lenin who told us the goal of Socialism is Communism.

But, could it be that elements within the Republican Party hierarchy and leadership that would rather have Hillary than Trump (Kristol, Kagan, Boot, and the entire Neocon establishment) might revive the old campaign bumper sticker  of ex-con and former Democrat Governor of Louisiana, Edwin Edwards? (Vote for the Crook. It’s important)

Is it possible the political heavyweights in both parties and their sycophants in the media oppose Donald Trump because he has refused to accept money from the very sources that have owned our government for decades?  Take a look: Goldman Sachs was the largest contributor to both Obama and Romney in 2012; Hillary accepted speaking engagements at Goldman Sachs for something over 200K per hour; Ted Cruz not only took hefty sweetheart loans from Goldman Sachs when running for Senate in Texas, which he conveniently left off his required personal financial disclosure form (just a clerical error I’m sure) but within 10 days of being elected, Cruz’s wife received a healthy raise from her employer—wait for it—Goldman Sachs.

We shall get into Heidi Cruz’s role in creating a North American Union which would dissolve our country’s sovereignty and her work with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in a later piece.

In the interest of fair play, let’s not leave out the boy wonder from Florida, Marco Rubio and his financial backer Sheldon Adelson. Now, what should we know about Adelson other than he is a billionaire; owns a newspaper in Vegas and the people of Israel perform like “a trained seal” when he visits? (Source: Uri Avnery)

Is it not alarming that Sheldon Adelson “summons” potential presidential candidates (GOP) to his feet for consultation? Let a regular Joe who actually works for a living “summon” a potential candidate to his home for consultation and see how that works. Does this not tell us who “owns” our government apparatus? And will the candidate, if elected, make decisions on government based on our Constitution and Bill of Rights or the man/bank who gave them millions?

Uri Avnery, a former member of Israel’s Knesset (Parliament) and the Israeli Defense Force, (IDF) said this about Adelson and his power over US politicians:

“It was a shameless exhibition. The politicians groveled before the casino lord. Flanked by Israeli Bodyguards, Adelson grilled the American hopefuls. And what was he demanding from the future President of the United States? First of all, and above everything else, blind and unconditional obedience to the government of another state: Israel!...A billionaire does not donate a fortune to a presidential candidate for nothing.” (emphasis mine)

Even the New Yorker magazine recognized the power of Adelson and his money, especially within the GOP, when it ran an article titled Sheldon Adelson is set to buy the Presidency.”

Recently, in writing an article titled “Waking to an Insane World” I wrote of the hypocrisy so prevalent in today’s news. What I failed to mention in my Rant was the attack on Trump concerning the alleged endorsement of David Duke. Now, everyone and his mistress wanted to force Trump to back away from this alleged endorsement (Duke himself denies endorsing Trump) but what really struck me was how no one seemed to mention how the Democrats loved their own personal KKK member. Of course this is none other than the man who once sat third in the line of presidential succession: Robert Byrd, Senator from the state of West Virginia. (You know the state Lincoln violated the Constitution [Article IV Sec. III] to create back in 1864 in order to gain more electoral votes) Ah! The Party of Lincoln—the majesty of it all!

See, being a former member of a “White Supremacist” group (as opposed to a Black Supremacist group like Black Lives Matter) requires no apology or renunciation (you might even get a kiss from Hillary) providing you become a member of the US Senate and support all Marxist Socialist programs and the Zionist funded and created NAACP and other associated racist groups! If you question the previous sentence, I suggest you read Dr. Hasia Diner, a professor of Jewish History at NYU and her Doctoral Thesis, written in 1975:

“Jewish support for black causes was a way for Jews to broaden their own rights without becoming conspicuous by advocating their group interests… Jewish leaders, representing different socio-economic classes, ideologies and cultural experiences, committed themselves to black betterment and gave time money and energy to black organizations. The spectrum was so wide and the involvement so extensive that one must conclude that these leaders acted out of peculiarly Jewish motives… Jewish ends were secured by involvement with blacks.”  (pg xiv xii) (emphasis added)

Believe me, the message from the Zionist to the blacks is: the only way to promote your own race must involve the annihilation of the founding culture of this country: the culture of the White European. Untold millions of dollars have been devoted to this paradigm. “Hence, perhaps three-quarters of the funding for the three major civil rights organizations—The Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, The Congress of Racial Equality and Martin Luther King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference is attributed to Jewish sponsorship.” (Martin p 132)

We can see the Jewish bottom line being secured in the city of Chicago today. Chicago claims as its children both Obama and Hillary Clinton and currently has as its mayor one Rahm Emanuel, a man who holds dual citizenship with Israel and the US. Rahm currently presides over the largest act of genocide of young black youths in over 20 years in Chicago. A person (predominantly black) is shot every 3 hours and one is murdered ever 14 hours so far this year in the city of Chicago, and its not warm weather yet! Of course we don’t know how many of the guns used in this genocide came courtesy of former Attorney General Eric Holder’s Fast and Furious program because the Republicans involved in pursuing the truth of this matter folded like a three dollar tent. Perhaps one of them will be rewarded with a nomination to the Supreme Court!

Please don’t forget the importance to these people of unrestricted immigration. The best way to destroy the founding culture of this country is to water it down with others until the voice of that culture can no longer be heard. Cruz said he opposed amnesty, but that is just another lie. If you have doubts check out his proposed amendment to Obama’s “open borders, come on in program.” It would have allowed the 30 plus million illegals nesting in this country to “come out of the shadows,” eventually become citizens and destroy the heritage of Jefferson, Monroe, Henry, Lee and Jackson.

Hopefully, some of this will help my readers better understand the hell hole that is our American government. Every branch of this government and our media are owned by billionaires, many of whom owe their allegiance to another country and have as their goal domination of the entire world. These people owe no allegiance to this country, its organic documents, or to the people.

Almost all of our current political candidates are owned and controlled by these people. They own the financial institutions, (Goldman Sachs) the media, (Time Warner, Disney and Viacom) and all three branches of our government. They obviously own all of the candidates for president, with the current exception of Donald Trump. That is why we are about to witness an all out attack on Trump by every conceivable source that can be bought or held hostage to money. If all else fails, Trump will meet with an untimely demise. One person will not be allowed to stand between these people and their quest for a “new world order.”

If Trump does not succeed in his quest, make sure you stock up on plenty of political signs and bumper stickers which read: “Vote For The Crook. It’s Important” for the only thing left to vote for will be crooks and criminals.