Category Archives: Freedom

by - 1 Comment

Daily Broadside | Memorial Day 2023

The older I get, the deeper my appreciation for the hundreds of thousands of men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice for me and millions of others who call the United States home. Every number in the video below represents one soldier, airman, seaman or marine who didn’t make it back from the conflict in which they fought. They died that I might live in freedom without fear.

The numbers are staggering.

Jesus also made the ultimate sacrifice for me and for millions of others; He died that I might live in spiritual freedom without fear of God’s wrath.

To those in the military who fought for my freedom to worship my Savior and to live my life in relative peace, I salute you.

Thank you.

by

Daily Broadside | We’re In The Very Best of Hands

Hey, remember when 51 security officials all signed and published a letter declaring that the Hunter Biden laptop “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation”? They all swore that in their expert opinion, we should ignore the emails, documents, videos and pictures that painted a picture of Hunter Biden as a whoring, exhibitionist drug user who sold his father’s influence for millions of dollars that he took for himself, his friends, and associates with ten percent for the “Big Guy” because Russia’s objectives were “to create political chaos in the United States” and “to undermine the candidacy of former Vice President Biden and thereby help the candidacy of President Trump.”

Probably all deep fakes and AI propaganda, right?

Yeah, well, that letter is exactly what we thought it was: a disinformation op organized by the Biden campaign and, specifically, by Anthony Blinken, the foreign policy advisor for the Biden campaign and current Secretary of State.

A former acting CIA director has admitted to Congress that he organized the letter that falsely portrayed Hunter Biden’s laptop as Russian disinformation in an effort to influence the 2020 election in favor of Joe Biden and that he did so at the direction of current Secretary of State Antony Blinken, according to a letter released Thursday by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan.

The extraordinary admission by career intelligence officer Michael J. Morell provides stunning evidence that the now-infamous letter from 51 security officials in October 2021 was not an organic intelligence community initiative but rather a political dirty trick originating with Blinken and the Biden campaign.

Jordan sent a letter demanding Blinken answer a series of questions about Morell’s stunning testimony, as lawmakers weighed the enormity of America’s top diplomat being willing to accuse a nuclear-armed superpower of interfering in the 2020 election without evidence. That letter included major snippets of Morell’s testimony.

“A political dirty trick.” That doesn’t even begin to describe it — it’s the very definition of election interference. Morell admits that he did what he did to help get Biden elected. They wanted to put these immoral scags in office because OrangeManBad.

He also testified that the Biden campaign team coordinated to release the statement on the laptop to a specific reporter at the Washington Post and admitted that he got involved to help give Biden a leg up on Trump during the debates. 

“There were two intents,” he said. “One intent was to share our concern with the American people that the Russians were playing on this issue; and, two, it was [to] help Vice President.” When asked why he wanted to help Biden, he replied, “because I wanted him to win the election.”

Blinken, Morell, and this cadre of soulless, unAmerican spooks conspired to sow doubt about what we knew then and know now: that the laptop is Hunter Biden’s and proves that the Biden family is a criminal enterprise that has enriched itself off the backs of the American people while it destroys our country.

In a sworn interview with the House Judiciary Committee last week, Morell admitted it was Joe Biden’s presidential campaign that prompted him to write the infamous letter, according to the Post.

After hearing from Blinken, Morell admitted that he solicited signatures for his letter from 50 other former intel officials.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) is set to release a report in the next couple of weeks on the origins of the “Dirty 51” letter, and it will reportedly show “it constituted corrupt interference in the 2020 presidential election.”

“We can prove that the entire purpose of this letter at the outset was to influence a presidential election with some of the most senior people who have ever been in our intelligence community ­using the imprimatur of their security clearances to pave the way for Joe Biden’s presidency,” Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) told Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast this week.

“Morell wanted to be Joe Biden’s CIA director, got a phone call from Tony Blinken, who was representing the Biden campaign, saying, ‘Gee, Mike, doesn’t this Hunter Biden laptop look like Russian disinformation?’ ” said Gaetz.

“Morell testifies that then triggers him to be the ringleader of an enterprise to go to others and to put together a letter for the specific purpose of use by Joe Biden in the presidential debate … We can prove that and much more,” the Florida congressman added.

Unlike Adam Schiff-for-brains who claimed to have irrefutable evidence of Trump’s RUSSIAN COLLUSION!, I trust that when Gaetz says they can prove it, they can prove it. And it would be nice, when they do, if SOMEONE WOULD GO TO PRISON.

Two days ago, Marjorie Taylor Green added more disturbing allegations about Hunter and the whole Biden family. Watch the video and have a barf bag nearby.

It’s all coming so fast and furious. There’s also an anonymous whistleblower alleging a coverup in the Hunter Biden investigation that involves possible perjury on the part of — wait for it — Attorney General Merrick Garland.

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Merrick Garland is the unnamed official whose sworn testimony before Congress is being challenged in a bombshell letter from an IRS whistleblower’s attorney that also alleges a coverup in the Hunter Biden criminal investigation, The Post has learned.

Attorney Mark Lytle wrote Wednesday that the longtime IRS employee wants to provide information to congressional leaders to “contradict sworn testimony to Congress by a senior political appointee” — Garland —and also to detail “preferential treatment” in the criminal probe of the first son.

The whistleblower already made disclosures to the inspectors general of the Treasury and Justice departments.

Please give me a second to catch my breath and absorb what I’ve just learned. Like you, I couldn’t have seen this coming in a million years.

These nasty anti-American grifters and power-mad politicians have done untold damage to our country. Without their interference, Trump may very well have had another four years to build on the foundation he laid during his first four. Instead, we’re in an economic, political and moral nightmare foisted on us by a few untouchables in the top echelons of government.

Government of the people, by the people and for the people is no longer true in our nation.

Our society is falling down around our heads, led by the evil and relentless progressive Democrats, media, national institutions and NeverTrump (I yet repeat myself quadrupley). But the one thing that never changes is the persistent strength of God alone.

There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God,
    the holy place where the Most High dwells.
 God is within her, she will not fall;
    God will help her at break of day.
 Nations are in uproar, kingdoms fall;
    he lifts his voice, the earth melts.

 The Lord Almighty is with us;
    the God of Jacob is our fortress.

— Psalm 46:4-7

I’m traveling this weekend so there will be no Daily Broadside on Monday.

Have a great weekend.

by

Daily Broadside | The Administrative State Will Be The Death of Us

I long ago came to the conclusion that the alphabet agencies populating the federal government are unconstitutional and should be defunded, decommissioned, razed and salted over — permanently abolished, never to be formed again. The federal government was supposed to be small with powers restricted to those enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.

Jefferson also felt that the central government should be “rigorously frugal and simple.” As president he reduced the size and scope of the federal government by ending internal taxes, reducing the size of the army and navy, and paying off the government’s debt. Limiting the federal government flowed from his strict interpretation of the Constitution.

Offices with the powers of the IRS, the EPA, the DOE, the HHS, the DOJ, FBI and on ad infinitum, were never envisioned by the founders.

Under that system of a separation of powers each branch of the Federal Government was expected to protect its own Constitutional powers such that no single branch accrued power it was not allocated by the Constitution. The Founders understood that individuals were free in direct proportion to each branch of the Federal Government staying strictly within its own bounds, and the most important lane was the legislative lane; a narrow road of strictly enumerated powers written by a Congress consisted of duly elected representatives; with the House of Representatives the body most regularly elected, and with special powers over the origination of revenue bills in the driver’s seat.

But today many legislative and budget powers have been ceded to Presidents and the executive branch through statutes delegating legislative responsibility to Federal regulatory agencies composed of unelected people; and statutes mandating automatic and increased spending on certain programs administered by the executive branch.

That bolded text is the crux of the issue: Congress has delegated its own authority to unelected bureaucracies which issue regulations and rules that have the practical effect of law. Constitutionally, however, only Congress has the power to make law — it’s the legislative branch of the government, for Pete’s sake! — and only the House has the ability to appropriate funds, the lifeblood of these agencies and extra-constitutional organizations.

Yet the pressures of keeping a seat in the House or the Senate means that outsourcing their responsibility to unelected bureaucrats is a convenient way of avoiding responsibility for the onerous administrative state that Americans suffer under.

At first Congress had the upper hand; Congress had been creating the bureaucracy to carry out its wishes. But the more Congress gave away its powers in the form of broad regulatory authority, the more bureaucrats effectively became the lawmakers. The rise of the new imperial Presidency, and it should be shocking but no surprise, as Congress has expanded the bureaucracy creating programs, delegating authority, neglecting budgeting; the executive has attained unprecedented levels of authority. Our executives can command the bureaucracy to implement new procedures and policies without the cooperation of Congress by abusing executive discretion, by exploiting the vagaries of poorly written laws, and now by willfully neglecting and disregarding the laws which indeed are clear.

In his testimony before the 2016 Task Force for Executive Overreach Judiciary Committee (in the same linked document), Dr. Matthew Spalding of Hillsdale College, wrote:

This transfer of lawmaking power away from Congress to an oligarchy of unelected experts who rule through executive decree and judicial edict over virtually every aspect of our daily lives, under the guise of merely implementing the technical details of law, constitutes nothing less than a revolution against our constitutional order. The significance of this revolution cannot be overstated. It threatens to undo the development of the rule of law and constitutional government, the most significant and influential accomplishment of the long history of human liberty.

This revolution has created an increasingly unbalanced structural relationship between an ever more powerful, aggressive and bureaucratic executive branch and a weakening legislative branch unwilling to exercise its atrophied constitutional muscles to check the executive or rein in a metastasizing bureaucracy. If the executive-bureaucratic rule now threatening to overwhelm American society becomes the undisputed norm — accepted not only among the academic and political elites, but also by the American people, as the defining characteristic of the modern state — it could well mark the end of our great experiment in self-government.

Against that background, Michael Walsh’s latest column takes on more urgency.

Bureaucratic parasitism has only accelerated since start of the Nixon administration … as demands for D.C. to “do something” about pretty much everything grew and grew. Having won the war in Europe with Soviet and British help, and defeated the Japanese Empire practically by themselves, Americans felt there was no task too big to tackle. On Nixon’s watch —Tricky Dick’s fatal flaw, like Donald Trump’s, was the fool’s errand of trying to get his enemies (who detested him) to like him—the regulatory agencies were summoned into being, dark golems bent on destroying the Constitution in the guise of trying to Save the Earth.

One of the first up was the Environmental Protection Agency, the demon spawn of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, which mandated (what an ugly word for a democracy to employ) “environmental impact” statements for future federal projects. Nixon put teeth in the law with the creation by executive order of the Environmental Protection Agency at the end of that same year. Then the unelected bureaucrats took over, and turned what had been sold as benign into a ravenous, uncontrollable, punitive beast. And now here we are:

The Biden administration is planning some of the most stringent auto pollution limits in the world, designed to ensure that all-electric cars make up as much as 67 percent of new passenger vehicles sold in the country by 2032, according to two people familiar with the matter. That would represent a quantum leap for the United States — where just 5.8 percent of vehicles sold last year were all-electric — and would exceed President Biden’s earlier ambitions to have all-electric cars account for half of those sold in the country by 2030.

It would be the federal government’s most aggressive climate regulation and would propel the United States to the front of the global effort to slash the greenhouse gases generated by cars, a major driver of climate change.

Death by a thousand cuts as the administrative state piles rule upon rule on top of our backs. Today’s Washington D.C. is a sinister, grotesque Gordian knot not unlike a cancerous tumor that has wrapped itself around the brain stem of its victim. Not doing anything will allow it to eventually kill any semblance of representative government — something I believe we are fast approaching.

Yet the alternative is an aggressive, unsparing treatment that cuts it out before it can do any more damage, and one of those agencies — the DOJ — has already demonized anyone who dares raise an objection to the administrative state as a “domestic terrorist.”

This is why I’ve warned that we’re heading for a significant conflict that can only be described as a civil war. That’s the trajectory we’re on, which is underscored by the literal movement of Americans out of blue zones across the fruited plain.

What we found was striking: There has been a vast migration out of counties that voted for Joe Biden into those counties that voted to reelect Donald Trump.

Census data show a net internal migration of almost 2.6 million (2,562,937 to be exact) from blue counties to red since Biden was elected. (These figures don’t count immigrants or births or deaths, just those Americans moving from one location to another.)

More than 61% of the counties that voted for Biden in 2020 lost population, while 65% of Trump-supporting counties gained population.

Some highlights:

  • Of the 555 counties Biden won, 335 (or 61%) lost population due to internal migration, our analysis found. Of the 2,589 counties that Trump won, 1,675 (or 65%) gained population.
  • Two Biden-voting counties that lost the most from net migration were Los Angeles County, which was down 363,760, and Cook County, Illinois, down 200,718. While many of the blue counties that lost population were urbanized, the exodus was widespread and nationwide, including many far more sparsely populated liberal areas.
  • In contrast, the biggest loss in any red county was Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, down just 18,470.
  • In 13 states that had a net loss of population, red counties nevertheless showed gains. In California, which saw a massive net outflow of 871,127 people in just the past two years, counties that backed Trump had a net gain of 8,412. New Jersey suffered a loss of 107,749 over the past two years, but counties in the Garden State that voted for Trump gained 22,507. Michigan lost 43,188 overall, but its red counties had a net gain of 28,091.
  • On the other hand, blue counties lost population in states that saw overall gains. For example, Florida had a net gain of 622,476 over the past two years. But counties that backed Biden nevertheless lost 3,374. Georgia had a large gain of 128,089, but blue counties still had a net loss of 28,178. Tennessee saw an increase of 146,403 people, but counties that voted for Biden saw a decline of 37,306.

Once the majority of moves have been completed, the red and blue state boundaries will harden and then there won’t be anywhere else to run to. As the federal government favors blue states over red, red states will either file for divorce or have to fight to leave the union.

We’re in for a long slog.

by

Daily Broadside | Justifying Opposition to the Ungodly Authorities

More than a year ago I wrote that I was making my way through a book called, “Justifying Revolution: The American Clergy’s Argument for Political Resistance, 1750-1776” by Gary L. Steward. I had said at the time that I would take notes and eventually share with you what I learned, and finished reading it sometime in late 2022.

While I can’t write a comprehensive review in a short blog post, I’ll try to sum up some of the key learnings I came away with.

The book is an academic study of how patriot clergy drew on a long history of Protestant tradition of resistance to unjust political power. In his introduction, Steward writes,

The majority of historians today, it seems, interpret the clergy’s support of the American Revolution as an accommodation of Christian teaching to various forms of secular thought. They must have ignored the clear teaching of the Bible and closed their ears to the authority of scripture to justify disobedience and armed warfare against the established political authorities. After all, doesn’t scripture condemn political resistance?

The question I wanted answered was, “how did the clergy who supported the revolution justify their resistance, even when it became violent?” There are three ways that impressed me from the book (although there were others).

First, Steward’s book is a survey of some of the key events, documents and sermons that influenced resistance to British rule and demonstrates that the clergy were entirely consistent with their rich theological traditions of resistance. He covers things like Jonathan Mayhew’s doctrine of political resistance (a 1750 sermon), which John Adams suggested “orators on the fourth of July” should study, and wrote that Mayhew “‘had great influence on the commencement of the Revolution’ and his famed sermon was ‘read by everyone.'”

The overthrow of Governor Edmund Adros in 1689 was a key event in the lead up to the revolution. Andros had been appointed royal governor of the Dominion of New England and when he arrived, he nullified the colonial charters — and thereby the legislatures — of Massachusetts, Plymouth, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York and New Jersey and took them under his direct control. He then raised property taxes and excise taxers without the consent of any local assembly. Many more abuses were heaped on the citizens until King James II abdicated the throne, when the Massachusetts colonists deposed Governor Andros on April 18 and threw him in jail, eventually sending him back to England.

Steward quotes many sermons and pamphlets throughout his book. In his chapter on self-defense he quotes Elisha Fish, a Congregationalist clergyman from Upton, Massachusetts, who “laid out a full justification of defensive warfare in his The Art of War Lawful and Necessary for a Christian People” (with my emphasis):

For if it be in the nature and reason of things lawful for Christians to enjoy their lives, liberties and property, it must be lawful, in the same nature and reason of things, to use the means necessary to defend and preserve these enjoyments, for to suppose a right to life, liberty and property, and no right to the means necessary for the defense and preservation of the same, is one of the greatest absurdities in nature.

That is a justification from reason, but the colonists also reasoned from the scriptures. In particular, they argued that Paul’s admonition to submit to the “governing authorities” in Romans 13:1-5 is not absolute. The reason it’s not absolute is because civil and political power is derivative, meaning that the power any authority has is derived from God first, then secondarily through men (e.g. through elections or appointments). Therefore, magistrates have a duty to exercise their authority according to godly principles and if they don’t, they forfeit their prerogatives and the citizens have a right to resist, sometimes violently, if their natural, God-given rights (i.e. the right to life, liberty and happiness) are trampled.

However, nearly all patriot clergy cautioned that such resistance should only come after respectfully petitioning for redress, waiting patiently, and then acting in an orderly, measured and restrained response. This was in direct contradiction to the doctrine of passive obedience and nonresistance advocated by other clergy, one of whom said that a king is to be submitted to “absolutely, without exceptions to any other commands than those directly from God, who is so far from justifying our resistance that he commands our passive obedience.”

One of the strongest arguments for a right of resistance in light of Romans 13 was from Andrew Eliot, who preached an annual election sermon (an ANNUAL. ELECTION. SERMON!) on May 25, 1765, from which Steward quotes extensively.

Some have argued the doctrine of passive obedience and non-resistance in all cases whatsoever or that we are not to oppose those who are in authority, although they evidently act contrary to the design of their institution and are bent to ruin the society, which it is their duty to defend and promote. A doctrine so big with absurdity that one would think of no one of common understanding could embrace it, certainly he must have the temper of a slave that can practice upon it. St. Paul very plainly teaches us how far subjection is due to a civil magistrate, when he gives it as a reason for this subjection, “for he is the minister of God to thee for good.” The end for which God has placed men in authority is that they may promote the public happiness. When they improve their power to contrary purposes, when they endeavor to subvert the constitution and to enslave a free people, they are no longer the ministers of God, they do not act by his authority; if we are obliged to be subject, it is only for wrath and not for conscience sake, and they who support such rulers betray their country and deserve the misery they bring on themselves.”

Steward gives many other examples throughout the book of the colonists resisting tyranny and advocating for, and protecting, their civil and religious rights and liberties.

Historical theological tradition, a rejection of passive obedience, and a measured response were all reasons supporting resistance to ruling authorities.

So where do I land after reading it? It helped solidify my thinking that Christians and other citizens have the right to resist rulers who clearly begin operating outside of their derived powers. It challenged my understanding of Romans 13, which often confused me because I took it as absolute; but Paul’s explanation is more nuanced than that and supports a limited view of being subject to the authorities. And I particularly agree with being organized and measured in response to magisterial abuses once the decision to actively resist is taken.

Having read Steward’s book, I’ve challenged myself to read a book written from an opposing viewpoint — one that Steward himself mentions in his book. It’s written by Gregg L. Frazer and is called, “God Against the Revolution: The Loyalist Clergy’s Case Against the American Revolution.” I’ll read that one this year then (if I’m still blogging when I’m done with it) I’ll write a short review of it like this one.

Let me know what you think in the comments.

by

Daily Broadside | Don’t Lose Your Cool Over Smart Thermostats. Just Get Rid of Them.

Daily Verse | Ezekiel 39:7
“‘I will make known my holy name among my people Israel. I will no longer let my holy name be profaned, and the nations will know that I the Lord am the Holy One in Israel.'”

Thursday’s Reading: Ezekiel 40-43

Thursday and Big Corporations and Big Government continue finding ways to impose their will on us, often collaboratively, like when Amazon, Google and Apple cancelled the Parler app because they didn’t moderate “violent content” to the satisfaction of the Tech Giants. Parler was also a conservative alternative to leftist Twitter where Trump supporters found a social network without draconian censorship policies, so there were moral imperatives at work, too.

As another example, just last week, New York City officials said they “are requesting that credit-card companies such as American Express, Mastercard and Visa add a new four-digit ‘merchant code’ that would classify gun and ammunition stores on individual statements when purchases are made.” The policy would ostensibly “help companies track when suspicious purchases are made.”

It would also help companies (which “companies” are those?) track when legitimate purchases are made but made by the “wrong people.” Like, say, Trump supporters—who, as you know, are one of the gravest threats to “our democracy” (*spit*).

Last week some 22,000 citizens in Colorado discovered that their electric company had locked them out of their home thermostats because of an “energy emergency.”

Thousands of utility company customers in Colorado were locked out of changing their thermostats due to an “energy emergency,” sparking outrage that spilled onto social media.

Xcel Energy, a utility company based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, confirmed that 22,000 customers in the Denver, Colorado area who were signed up for the Colorado AC Rewards program were locked out of their thermostats for several hours on Tuesday, KMGH-TV reported …

Some customers posted on social media that they were stuck with home temperatures as high as 88 degrees, KMGH-TV reported.

It was as high as 90 degrees outside, and Xcel Energy customers weren’t able to control their energy use.

Why? Well, because, dummy, they signed up for a “rewards” program. VOLUNTARILY!

In a statement, Xcel Energy pointed out that the customers were part of a rewards program that gave them a discount on their energy bill in exchange for permission to give the company some control over their smart thermostats. 

“It’s a voluntary program,” Emmett Romine, vice president of customer solutions and innovation at Xcel, told KMGH-TV. “Let’s remember that this is something that customers choose to be a part of based on the incentives.”

I wonder if those 22,000 customers were warned that the utility company could commandeer their thermostat and set the temperature in their homes without warning? I wonder if that was said in big type at the top of the rewards program flyer or if it was in fine print as one of a dozen footnotes at the end of the terms and conditions of service? Or was it just a general “the company can take ‘some control’ of your thermostat” without specifying exactly what “some control” meant?

Did the customers know that they would be ceding control over their ability to consume the amount of energy they independently determined they needed and would pay for at a critical moment, or nah?

Once Big Energy or Big Government has control over your freedom to make choices about how you will manage your life, you’re at their mercy, just like in this case. It’s only a small step from there to applying the mentality of Big Tech with Parler.

You voted for Trump? You’ve voiced outrage at a stolen election? You’re questioning why Hillary Clinton is still walking free? You bought a gun? You think Brandon is a facsist? You bought “Justifying Revolution” from Amazon and are going to review for your readers?

Ho ho! No heat for you!

You think I’m reaching here? How many of you thought you’d see the day when an energy company takes it upon itself to decide that you can’t have the energy you want—at peak need—because of a company-declared emergency? Remember, this wasn’t the government declaring an emergency—this was a public utility declaring one.

What if remotely cranking your thermostat up to 80 degrees created “an emergency” for you?

Sure, they incentivized their consumers to join the program, but I’d wager a day’s pay that few of them knew exactly what they were signing up for. Yeah, consumers got a free NEST thermostat, but they also gave up freedom of self-determination.

That “free” thermostat left them at the mercy of the energy company.

Here’s what the Europe Union is doing in the midst of their energy crisis:

They’re going to FLATTEN THE CURVE! Hey, haven’t I heard that phrase somewhere before?

You know that our rulers are just salivating looking at the EU and the Colorado power moves (see what I did there?).

Instead of finding better and cheaper ways to provide energy; instead of modernizing the power grid and fortifying it against failure; instead of letting the citizenry determine how much energy they are willing to consume and pay for; instead of doing all that, Big Corporations and Big Government are looking for ways to deliver the minimal required while maximizing profits.

And to do that, you need to comply with their vision of what is “enough.”

The solution? Get yourself off the Internet of Things. Buy a plain vanilla thermostat that lets you decide when and how much energy you’ll use.

At least until the mandates arrive.

by

Daily Broadside | Leftists Are Going Full Nazi and You Should Pay Attention

Daily Verse | Genesis 50:19
“Am I in the place of God? You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.”

Thursday’s Reading: Exodus 1-6

Just before publishing I learned that Joe Manchin III (W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.), joined all 50 Republicans in voting down the federal voting rights legislation in the Senate. So not everything is awful. But most of it is.

Thursday and if you’ve been keeping up with the Bible reading plan, we’re done with Genesis—and it’s not even the end of January! Hopefully you’re finding new things you hadn’t known before as you read through the scripture. If you’d like to join us on the journey this year, you can download the plan here:

BibleReader_C2C2022Download

I hope you’re reading it because you need to be sure of Who is unchanging and True in an age of deceit, betrayal and threats to the safety and freedom we’ve taken for granted in the greatest country ever founded. If you’re not sure in whom your ultimate confidence rests, let me jolt you into thinking it through.

Almost half of Democratic voters—48 percent—think the government should be able to fine or imprison individuals “who publicly question the efficacy of the existing COVID-19 vaccines on social media, television, radio, or in online or digital publications.”

This is not the most astonishing finding of a poll just released by Rasmussen. Let’s go through the relevant points: Nearly the same percentage of Democratic voters—47 percent—think the government should be able to put a tracking system, like an ankle monitor or a locked collar, on people who refuse the vaccine. And 45 percent favor putting the unvaccinated in camps. Camps.

More than half of Democratic voters—55 percent—think people who refuse the vaccine should be fined. Fifty-nine percent favor confining all unvaccinated people to their homes. More than a quarter of Democratic voters—29 percent—think that the government should be able to confiscate the children of unvaccinated parents . . .

Is any of this Nazi enough for you yet? You are living next door to the people who would have turned you over to the Comité de salut public for opposing the “Law of Suspects”—the law that authorized the arrest of all suspected enemies of the Revolution and ushered in the Reign of Terror. You are living next door to the people who would have turned you over to the NKVD for “moral sabotage of the Soviet Union.” You are living next door to the people who would have called up the Gestapo and said, “My neighbor is hiding a Jew.”

Examine these historical personages from Revolutionary France or Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany (or Nazi France): It’s not just that they were following orders. On the contrary, they thought they were doing a positive good for society. They were eager to help rid their community of dangerous elements. They were proud of what they did.

Some of your Democratic neighbors will likewise be proud to lock you up, put a tracking collar on your neck, take away your children—all for the public good. These are people who would murder you for the public good. 

This is the poisonous rot that has leeched into our culture over the last few decades. And, lest you think that the government is just rattling their sabers without intent to use them, The US Army is set to conduct a “guerrilla warfare exercise” later this month in North Carolina where troops will battle against “freedom fighters.”

The two week “unconventional warfare exercise” will take from Jan. 22-Feb. 4 on privately owned land in a remote location which remains unknown.

“Called Robin Sage, the exercise serves as a final test for Special Forces Qualification Course training and it places candidates in a politically unstable country known as Pineland,” reports the Charlotte Observer.

“These military members act as realistic opposing forces and guerrilla freedom fighters, also known as Pineland resistance movement,” said the U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center.

Maybe they’re just practicing for when they help Ukraine defend itself against Russia?

As Chris Menahan notes, a similar Robin Sage exercise in 2019 showed resistance fighters displaying a flag that says “liberty.”

“They could tell these soldiers they’re battling the Chinese, Russians, Iranians, North Koreans or other foreign enemies but instead they have them training to kill “freedom fighters” with “Liberty” flags,” writes Menahan.

The exercise will do little to dampen concerns that the Biden administration is launching a de facto ‘domestic war on terror’ targeting patriots and Trump supporters.

Oh.

I don’t know about you, but I can’t think of any good reason for our troops to be war-gaming a battle against us. I mean, besides BLM and Antifa, but they don’t wave the “Liberty” flag. On the other hand, Paul Eaton, a retired U.S. general and a senior advisor to the far-Left VoteVets, has reasons:

Eaton told NPR that military leaders needed to “war-game the possibility of a problem and what we are going to do” while warning that the United States is “compromised… as far as 39% of the Republican Party refusing to accept President Biden as president.” He suggested that a scenario in which the military is “compromised” needs to be “addressed in a future war game held well in advance of 2024.”

Remember when we held war games to fight our enemies rather than to purge our own people?

Eaton, a Hillary Clinton adviser, isn’t however worried about the 33% of Clinton supporters who claimed that Trump was not the legitimate winner right after the election, or the 56% of Democrats who viewed him as illegitimate a year later. Polls actually show that much higher numbers thought that Bush and Trump were illegitimately elected than the number that thought Obama and Biden were illegitimately elected. Should the military be purging Dems or holding “war games” to determine what will happen if Democrats try to live out their coup fantasies?

Hey, how come it’s only conservatives and Republicans that need to be purged?

Notice, too, that Eaton isn’t addressing an uprising with rioting and burning and looting and murder. He’s talking about 39% of Republicans who merely don’t believe Biden was legitimately elected. But that kind of thinking is now a threat that apparently needs to be addressed.

Are you awake? Don’t make the mistake of smugly dismissing all of this because “it can’t happen here.” It is happening here, right before our eyes.

Listen to Brandon and our current or “retired” military leaders when they talk about “domestic terrorists.” Pay attention when your military prepares to battle “freedom fighters.” We need to take them seriously because they’re telegraphing their intent. And you and I are the targets.

by

Daily Broadside | It’s Not Liberty if You Fear Your Rulers

Daily Verse | Genesis 29:18
Jacob was in love with Rachel and said, “I’ll work for you seven years in return for your younger daughter Rachel.”

Thursday’s Reading: Genesis 30-31

Happy Thursday, Broadsiders. Thanks for sharing your time with me.

There’s something very wrong with our government. As I wrote yesterday, the conflict we’re seeing in our country is ultimately between those who support the Judeo-Christian values upon which our government was founded (whether or not they are truly Christ followers) and those who deny God and want to supplant him with themselves as ruler. It’s the age-old dilemma of Man v. God and I can tell you right now that, in that engagement, it will not end well for man.

That’s at the core of the dilemma we face, but when I say something’s wrong with our government, I mean that it’s been inverted. Our Constitution starts with the words, “We the People” for a very good reason: we determined to govern ourselves. It was we, the people, who set up our system of government by writing and ratifying a law—the U.S. Constitution—to which all other governance in the U.S. must submit. It is the highest law of the land.

The people passed that law establishing a stronger central government over these United States. It’s the only law passed by we the people. Because it was written by us, that means that, technically and legally, all other forms of governance and governors under that Constitution are subject to our oversight. We did not pass that law to establish such government and then say to it, “Feel free to do what you want, we’re your subjects.”

But that’s not how it feels in today’s society, does it? Do you get the sense that the federal government is concerned at all about whether they’re following the will of the people as expressed in the Constitution? Do you get the sense that all of our state legislatures and governors are following the will of the people as expressed in the Constitution? Do you think that the judicial system we established has carefully ensured that they have faithfully applied the Constitution to their decisions free from their political biases?

If we’re honest, we have to admit that in today’s United States the inverse is true: we the people have become subject to the political agendas of those elected to high office. Our “representatives” aren’t concerned about whether they’re governance is Constitutional. One only has to look at all the federal “alphabet” agencies and the rules and regulations they create to know that Congress outsourced the legislative responsibilities the Constitution gave only to them.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. — Article I, Section I: Congress

Congresscritter A: Hey, I’ve got an idea! What if we make a law that gives someone else the job of making laws?

Congresscritter B: Wait, why would you do that if the Constitution only gives us that role?

Congresscritter A: If we delegate our law-making role to a bunch of unelected bureaucrats then the people can’t blame us for bad laws. If they can’t blame us for bad laws, we get re-elected!

Congresscritter B: Oh, I see. Then we can sit on committees to “oversee” the bureaucrats and call them in to testify when things go wrong and pretend that we’re representing the people! What a country!

No, to the extent that they are concerned at all about the Constitution, it’s about being elected “by the people” then taking that as a vote of confidence to shove their political agenda through the system and finding ways to either evade the Constitution or weaponize it—such as twice impeaching a president to tarnish his standing and legacy.

The government that we the people authorized to “insure domestic tranquility” has intentionally dissolved our southern border and allowed hundreds of thousands of foreigners to flood our nation unchecked, essentially becoming wards of the state because they’re dependent on government handouts funded by the money they take from us.

The government that we the people formed is now calling parents “domestic terrorists” for objecting to the sexual perversion and Marxist indoctrination being foisted upon their children by government-run (public) schools.

The government that we the people created serially undermined, hampered, harassed and lied about an elected president’s relationship with Russia and spent millions of our hard-earned dollars “investigating” what they knew was a bogus case—and those responsible have not been punished according to law.

The government that we the people established to “promote the general welfare” has instead taken to promoting the welfare of only certain groups identified by the color of their skin, their sexual preferences, their political bias and any other category by which they can divide us.

The government that we the people oversee now passes trillion-dollar “budgets” that are thousands of pages long without giving legislators time to read and understand what is in them, robbing us of our wealth in the present and our children in the future to pay for it all.

You get the idea.

I’m not saying that there aren’t, can’t or won’t be differences of opinion or that our leaders can achieve complete neutrality or that they will get every decision right. But it’s clear that the government we forged has become an elitist cabal of grifters detached from the law they are supposed to preserve, protect and defend, who have in mind only their own interests—money, power, notoriety—or those of “special interest groups,” which means they are more concerned with pleasing their base than the whole of we the people.

Often misattributed to Thomas Jefferson, it was John Basil Barnhill who said, “Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty.”

What is very wrong with our government is that it does not respect or fear the people, who are its rightful masters.