Propaganda Machines

In the world today, we are bombarded with information of all types. Popular categories include sports, home improvement, health, business, politics and economics, self-help, quality products and services, etc. This information often is intended to influence our behavior. In many instances, false information or disinformation is disseminated for selfish or sinister purposes. We can agree that cigarette manufacturers and suppliers do not have the people’s best interests at heart, and though they advertise their product as appealing, the rate of lung cancer increases as a result. Clearly, these companies care more about money than people.

Unfortunately, cigarette companies do not compare with greater evils that are present. Only existing in the shadows, a threat not to public health, but to freedom itself, is on the move. This threat, or better yet, conspiracy, is a hidden, power-hungry elite whose purpose is to enslave humanity on an international scale. The important point to consider is that this elite cannot ultimately achieve its global government agenda without first indoctrinating the masses with socialist/communist disinformation.

Orwell’s Lesson
George Orwell’s classic novel 1984 depicts a dystopian society in which the inhabitants of the continent, Oceania, live under totalitarian rule. This condition of society did not happen by accident. Orwell makes clear in his novel that Totalitarianism begins with Socialism, as indicated by the ruling class’s political ideology called INGSOC (English Socialism).

Under constant surveillance of the Thought Police, the Working Class and the Outer Party are force fed propaganda through a machine called the “telescreen.” Much like a modern tv, the telescreen not only monitors the people for any rebellious intentions but also displays the superstate’s current “news.” Throughout the day, constituents of each party must take breaks to watch the news. This ongoing disinformation, with its tendency to confuse and distort the facts, is important in keeping the masses as subservient automatons to Big Brother.

Much like 1984, our world today is facing a brainwashing epidemic secretly manipulated by the ruling class. Public education, news outlets, books, magazines, social media, and other mediums of communication all contribute to the indoctrination of those who are not part of this conspiratorial elite. Unless Americans soon become aware that modern devices like tv monitors are being used as propaganda machines, they may never reach the point to where they can think for themselves and make decisions based on sound American principles.

Freedom First Society, unlike the mainstream media, offers information that is credible and true. By joining this organization, one can learn to sift through the Conspiracy’s propaganda and help save America from becoming subject to a totalitarian government like the one in the classic novel, 1984. We strongly encourage freedom-loving Americans to join now before it is too late.

“The Two-World Order” – It’s the Same Old New World Order

Why would the United States give the Communist China most-favored-nation status in 2000? “The Two-World Anti-China Strategy,” an article in the March 7, 2022, edition of National Review, suggests an answer that could have been taken straight from Foreign Affairs, the Council on Foreign Relations flagship publication. Foreign Affairs is even quoted as an authority by the article’s author Hal Brands, who is the Henry A. Kissinger Distinguished Professor of Global Affairs at Johns Hopkins University. Such outright deference is not surprising, since National Review’s claim to be a conservative publication has been clearly bogus for decades.

“The Two-World” article assumes that the reasonable world is united in the goal of global government but consoles the reader that a two-world order is an acceptable substitute. The reality is that they are one and the same!

George Orwell’s 1984 provides a useful analogy. In 1984, the world is divided into three regions, two of which are always combined to war against the third. Since there are always two sides in the conflict, the regions are essentially in a two-world order. However, because the regions are all ruled under varying labels of Marxist tyranny, the outcome of the war would be politically inconsequential. Why, then, do those in control find a constant state of warfare to be beneficial? Because being at war creates the exigency for citizens to fight to keep their regime in power. It also keeps the people preoccupied in such a way that they scarcely notice the economic bondage that they are being placed in as the nation’s wealth is squandered on a fruitless war effort. The warring, three-region structure isn’t an alternative to global government; it IS the global government.  While we are not currently at war, the threat of Chinese aggression pressures the world to regionalize in order to effectively keep “peace.”

The National Review article excuses Washington’s showering of American investment, trade, technology, knowledge, and skills on China as an attempt to “tame” it. But Communist China is entirely a creation of the Insiders. Under their direction, American resources delivered China into the hands of Mao Tse-tung (see Masters of Deception by Vance Smith and Tom Gow) and have continuously propped up the failing Communist system that ensued. Now, the above measures to “tame” China have elevated it to a believable enemy creating a pretext to draw the US into tight consolidation with the rest of the world. As with every crisis created by the Insiders, the proposed solution is that “The United States needs to compete more effectively for influence in…(global) organizations…”

Entangling the US with the rest of the world in regional government, such as the EU or USMCA potential, on the road to world government, provides the opportunity for a Marxist majority to overrule our free-enterprise, Constitutional system of government. Referring to the Cold War, which was similarly created by the Insiders, the National Review article insists:

“Then as now, containing hostile regimes required working with some unsavory characters. But highlighting the clash between liberal values and China’s profoundly illiberal autocracy is critical to rallying the democratic world — not just those countries directly threatened by Beijing’s military power — against its expanding influence.” [Emphasis added.]

It doesn’t take a crystal ball to predict that we can expect plenty more “news” about the Chinese threat aimed at “rallying” the world.  Additionally, we can expect to unite with and give aid, technology, and resources to “some unsavory characters” in the “concerted resistance” who can become the next “war for peace” enemy when China is subdued.  The article even suggests that we “forg(e) tech coalitions through which groups of democracies cooperate — for example, by sharing data or pooling research-and-development money.” In politics, “unsavory characters” are totalitarian dictators, and what kind of data would we share with them? Data on our own people? So they can be more easily subjugated?

The main conclusion of the article is summed up in this quote,

‘“Globalization was not global,” Stephen Brooks and William Wohlforth wrote in the journal International Security over 20 years ago; “it took sides in the Cold War.” Likewise, a two-worlds strategy today recognizes that globalization must occur primarily within geopolitical dividing lines rather than across them.”’

George Orwell, International Security, National Review, and Cold War history all indicate that the Two-World Strategy is the path that the New World Order will take. As in 1984, the geopolitical dividing lines will be separating regions that are each Marxist tyrannies, their political systems different in name only. And the entire world will be controlled by those who create the next ostensible aggressor. It’s false conservative leadership like that offered in National Review that will neutralize any resistance to the plan for a New World Order and even guide those who should be fighting it to instead embrace it. Freedom First Society offers the truth and the real solutions to world problems: Get the US out of entangling alliances, stop our officials from propping up Communist dictatorships through unconstitutional spending and treason, strengthen industry at home, and expose the Conspiracy that is working to lead us into world tyranny.

Giving Up Our Rights, Right and Left

Under the guise of protecting lives, our government has undertaken the effort to dictate how we should react to certain infectious particles. This, of course, is a huge step away from the freedom Americans have enjoyed in the past. Whatever happened to, “If you have a cough, please wear a mask,” or, “If you’re sick, please stay home?” Instead, we are being bombarded with ridiculous safety measures.

Presumably, these measures are for our protection and for the safety of others. And out of love for our fellow man and respect for ostensibly well-meaning lawmakers, we comply.

But the notion has been cankering in many an internet forum and household discussion: What if the new rules are not for our protection, but to prime America for even greater directives? Already, cities like Chicago and New York have passed unprecedented vaccine mandates, even requiring proof of vaccination for children as young as 5 years old.

“If you wish to live life as normally as possible, with the ease to do the things that you love, you must be vaccinated in the city of Chicago starting January 3rd,” says Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot. She then adds that, “This health order may pose an inconvenience to the unvaccinated, and in fact it’s inconvenient by design.”

The True Goal
The true goal behind such mandates is not safety but control.

We only need to look behind the scenes at who is providing the supposed scientific knowledge for proof that, regardless of the naivete of some politicians, the orchestrators of covid mandates are not benevolent. And those orchestrators either come from or take their ideas from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). As stated in the CFR Annual Report from 2020: “Demand for CFR’s analysis of COVID-19 was particularly robust; CFR experts briefed staff from more than 220 congressional offices on the pandemic.”

And what does the CFR want? A receptive constituency where future dictatorial measures would be passed and accepted as routine and necessary as long as they fall under the umbrella of “protecting the public.” (To appreciate the incredible significance of the CFR and its driving agenda, please read our booklet, Dare to Call It CONSPIRACY.)

Of course, we worry most about Americans’ willingness to give up their Second Amendment protected right to bear arms. As we’ve seen in cases such as Nazi Germany, the Rwandan genocide, and most recently, Venezuela, all that is needed for complete civilian disarmament is a bit of convincing and constant propaganda, and the right to bear arms is lost.

And we definitely see a heightened media effort to insist that the public good outweighs individual liberty (disregarding the fact that individual liberty naturally cultivates the public good). We are told that in order to protect others we must give up the right to decide whether or not to take a vaccine, and in the same light, that gun ownership is just too dangerous and so should be abandoned.

Fortunately, many Americans see through the farce. And while we encourage commonsense personal efforts to stay healthy and safe, we must also speak up fervently in opposition to both government control of healthcare and to giving up our Second Amendment protected rights.

Please join us in writing to your local representatives and sharing this message with friends and family as we take a stand for freedom in America!

Toward a Police State

The escalating nationwide demonstrations and riots during the past several days have a very sinister purpose, which few Americans understand and about which the voices they look to for leadership are silent.

We are talking about the decades-long campaign to discredit, demoralize, and cripple local independent police in order to pave the way for a national police force or even foreign UN troops to restore order.  That is not to say that local police forces don’t sometimes have bad apples.  Indeed, the presence of bad apples serves the campaign. But a national, unaccountable police force is no cure.  It is a gross betrayal of a free nation.

The first thing to realize is that riots and demonstrations in more than 75 cities nationwide are not spontaneous reactions. They are organized by revolutionaries to advance a subversive agenda, using the pretext of opposing police brutality.  The ghastly torture-killing of George Floyd has been used for that purpose.

As did much of the controlled-media, The New York Times (5-31-20) attributed the escalating demonstrations to “an outpouring of national anger sparked by the death of a black man in police custody.”  But angry individuals don’t just congregate at the same place and time with prepared banners, painted signs, slogans to chant, constant clenched-fist salutes for the cameras, and marching orders.

The foreword to our January 2015 Action Report, below, documented the deceptions and subversive purpose of the demonstrations that followed a 2014 police-killing in Ferguson, Missouri.  The demonstrations supply “pressure from below” for government power grabs, but the pressure wouldn’t have much effect if the Conspiracy that supports the revolutionaries and controls the major media didn’t seize the opportunity to apply “pressure from above.”

Understandably, the controlled-media support the revolutionary ruse as to what’s driving the demonstrations by refusing to go beyond the police-killing pretext.   In doing so, the media are actually cooperating with the organizers in keeping national attention where the organizers want it.  The driving revolutionary organization depends on that cooperation to create the illusion of widespread support.

A useful tactic of revolutionary communist organization has been to create appropriately targeted front groups to attract additional support for the demonstrations and give credibility to their advertised complaints about “police brutality.”

Intermediate successes in the past have included forcing big-city police departments to submit to oversight by revolutionary-controlled “civilian review boards.”  And further militarizing our police in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which bars military involvement in domestic law enforcement, unless “expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress” would be a major revolutionary success.  The Act constitutes an important safeguard against the creation of a police state.

Yet, as reported by The Hill (5-29-20), President Trump was willing to violate that act in response to the violence in Minneapolis:  “These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control….”

Of course, attributing the violence to “THUGS” is itself a refusal to alert Americans to the revolutionary game plan. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, also refused to acknowledge the root of the violence.  According to The Washington Times (5-30-20):  “An overwhelmed Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz said Saturday that he had reached out to the Pentagon for help in controlling the growing mobs of out-of-state agitators seeking to “break the back of civil society” in the wake of George Floyd’s death.

The “pressure-from-below, pressure-from-above” game plan is not new.  We conclude here with the promised foreword to our January 2015 Action Report, written following protests in the wake of the 2014 police-shooting in Ferguson, Missouri.

January (2015) Action Report 

“The Rest of the Story”

When protesters burned down a convenience store near where a police officer fatally shot Michael Brown [on August 9], many condemned it. But experts say the ensuing images on national television could become as much of a catalyst for social change as peaceful protests. [Emphasis added.]  — “Ferguson violence could be a catalyst for change,” USA Today, August 30

What has transpired in the wake of the police shooting in Ferguson, Missouri provides important lessons in media misdirection and concealed subversive organization and agendas. 

Media Misdirection
Typically, the major media cooperate with revolutionaries by helping them develop pressure from below for “change” in the form of federal power grabs.  The media portray their protests as representative of widespread concerns and driven solely by the advertised complaints.  Nowhere do you find a suggestion that the protests might be designed to serve a far different purpose, and often there is no hint they are even organized.  Consider this example:

People protesting the Ferguson, Missouri, grand jury decision took to the streets in cities across the U.S. for a second day Tuesday, showing that the racially charged case has inflamed tensions thousands of miles from the predominantly black St. Louis suburb. [Emphasis added.]  — “Protests against Ferguson decision grow across US,” AP, 11-25-14

Did the decision ignite the protests and the riot?  Or were revolutionaries already looking for a pretext to protest?

Our answer:  Organized revolutionaries saw an opportunity and were eager to distort the facts to support their agenda.  Reviewing the grand jury decision not to prosecute Darren Wilson, even a reporter for the Establishment’s Time concluded:

Indeed, the preponderance of forensic and eyewitness testimony suggests that Wilson was acting in self-defense against a violent perpetrator…. But there can no longer be a question that the initial accounts of the case were fraudulent. — “Michael Brown was not a gentle giant,”, “Facts and Ferguson,” 11-26-14

Evidence of Planning
Buried within media reports we can nevertheless find evidence of planning and orchestration.  For example, coordinated “signs,” “chants” and “mock trials” require organizational leadership: 

Those who made it inside City Hall [in St. Louis] were part of a group of about 300 protesters who marched and held a mock trial of Darren Wilson, the Ferguson police officer who shot and killed 18-year-old Michael Brown during an Aug. 9 confrontation in the St. Louis suburb. [Emphasis added.] — “Protesters force lockdown of St. Louis City Hall,” AP, 11-26-14

And consider this USA Today report pointing to outside involvement:

On Friday night in Ferguson, 16 people were arrested outside the police station who had come from Boycott Black Friday protests at stores in the area, and 15 of them were not from Missouri. [Emphasis added.] — “Ferguson could spark a new civil rights movement”

Investigate the Rioters
Encouraged by the national attention, revolutionaries quickly staged protests in other cities over several “police killings.”  And, still the national media focused on charges of “police brutality” and “racism” while ignoring any nationwide organization to the protests.   A few AP examples:

 Protesters around the country rallied for a third day Friday over a New York grand jury’s decision to not indict a white police officer in the chokehold death of an unarmed black man….

In Colorado, students walked out of class Friday to protest the decisions not to prosecute police in New York and Ferguson. — “Protesters of chokehold death rally for 3rd day,” AP, 12-5-14

About 150 took part in the march through the streets of downtown Phoenix to police headquarters, while also calling for an end to what they say is a nationwide epidemic of police brutality.” [Emphasis added.]  — “Phoenix police shooting is latest to ignite outcry,” AP, 12-5-14

The War on Local Police

January 2015 cover photo
Revolutionary influence ignored by major media

Ignored by the major media, Establishment Insiders and their revolutionary kin have labored for decades to undermine a bastion of freedom — independent, local police, who live in the communities they serve — and to gradually replace them with a national police accountable to a central government and eventually to international regulation.

In 1961, the Internal Security Subcommittee of the United States Senate published “A Communist Plot Against the Free World Police,” describing a highly organized campaign “directed primarily toward discrediting the police in the eyes of the people.”

The 32-page Senate report noted: “A campaign against the police of one free country is not planned and directed by the Communist Party of that country; it is planned and directed by the strategists of international communism.”

The report included pages from a Communist document used to train revolutionaries worldwide on how to organize a riot.  Illustrations showed how to outflank and attack the police.

At a press conference following the 1965 Watts riot, Michael Laski, a member of the Central Committee of the U.S. Communist Party, boasted that he and his organization had worked for two years to agitate the riot, which he called a “class uprising.”

One of the early initiatives in this campaign was the push for “civilian” review boards as a cure for alleged rampant “police brutality.” The leftist controlled boards were actually established in some cities, before grassroots action forced their demise.  FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover described their effect: “Where there is an outside civilian review board the restraint of the police was so great that effective action against the rioters appeared to be impossible.”

And, of course, if the local police were no longer able to maintain law and order, Big Brother would be eager to step in.  Indeed, widespread riots in this country provided the Insiders with the pretext to create the federal “Law Enforcement Assistance Administration” [LEAA] in 1968.  The LEAA sought to gain control of state and local law enforcement agencies through federal grants.   But LEAA Administrator Charles H. Rogovin hinted at another route.  On October 1, 1969 he told a meeting of the International Association of Chiefs of Police that a federal police force may need to take over “because local law enforcement has failed to do its job.”

The LEAA was abolished in 1982 following concerted grassroots pressure. But the Conspiracy never gives up. Later came the federal civil-rights lawsuits against major city police departments, resulting in consent decrees, amounting to a virtual federal takeover.  And still later, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 provided the emotional cover for the consolidation of police powers in the Department of Homeland Security.

New Federal Intervention
The Obama administration is already taking support from the revolutionary pressure from below as an excuse to “investigate law enforcement” rather than the rioters:

President Obama opened a speech in Chicago by talking about Ferguson, saying that he had ordered Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to undertake a major review of policing practices in the United States, including a community-by-community process of identifying and highlighting specific steps to “make sure that law enforcement is fair and is being applied equally to every person in this country.” — “Security in Ferguson Is Tightened After Night of Unrest,” NY Times, 11-25-14 

But apparently Holder was on board well before the Ferguson eruptions:

On Thursday [12-4-14], Attorney General Eric Holder said a Justice Department probe had concluded the Cleveland Division of Police has a pattern of using excessive force, both in firing weapons and in using non-deadly techniques. Cleveland officials agreed to an outside monitor to improve training and practices, officials said. [Emphasis added.] — “Police Move to Revamp Tactics,” Wall Street Journal, 12-5-14

The Journal article suggests what is coming: “Police departments around the country are racing to develop new training rules on the use of force, a response that has gained urgency amid scrutiny from the U.S. Justice Department and an emerging consensus that law-enforcement practices need to be reviewed and revamped….” [Emphasis added.]

The orchestrators of pressure from below do not go to so much effort unless they have some serious plans to make a major step in their long-term agenda.  We will keep our members advised as to where the new focus lies.

Three COVID-19 Counterexamples: Taiwan, Singapore, and Sweden

“Can any governor or county executive simply flick his pen and shut every business even if it doesn’t create crowds? Can they unilaterally restrict every aspect of the Bill of Rights indefinitely without any oversight, due process, benchmarks, or transparency?

“In Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), the Supreme Court … made it clear that there is a point where states can enact [public-safety] policies in ‘such an arbitrary, unreasonable manner, or might go so far beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public’ that they would be outside constitutional bounds.[1] …​

“We’ve simply never done this before in our history. These are not mere quarantine laws that supporters cite to justify what is going on today. Quarantine laws traditionally separate an individual or an entire group of people from the general population. What we are doing now, however, is locking down the entire general population.”  — Daniel E. Horowitz, “Is this quarantine or tyranny?,” March 31, 2020

Judging from the transparency — or rather, the lack thereof — they’ve shown on both COVID-19 and “climate change,” the governmental “powers that be” expect us simply to take for granted that they know best about scientific questions — and (of course) that they have our best interests at heart. By contrast, we “little people” should consider ourselves too simple to comprehend scientific matters — much less, to take part in serious discussions of them. We should just trust that the government — and tax-exempt foundations set up by the wealthy — know best!

Specifically, and in the current case, we’re supposed to take it on faith that the near destruction of the whole world-economy, through “social distancing,” is scientifically necessary in order to avoid COVID-19 catastrophe. (Nor have they asked us whether  the COVID-19 catastrophe isn’t the preferable option!)

However, if the “powers that be” do know best and have our best interests at heart, then why haven’t we heard much about the sensible, non-draconian approaches of countries that have avoided both the economic and the (warned-of) COVID-19 catastrophe — for example, Taiwan, Singapore, and Sweden? And, why haven’t other Western governments been adopting such approaches — rather than the China-pioneered, general “lockdowns” and “shutdowns”?

Only one plausible answer to that question seems available: Whether “the powers that be” “know best” or not, we may rest assured that our best interests are about the furthest thing from their hearts. Let us, then, look more closely at Taiwan’s, Singapore’s, and Sweden’s successful — yet non-draconian — approaches.

Taiwan’s and Singapore’s Responses to the Coronavirus

The Establishment media have not been able to maintain a total “blackout” on Taiwan’s success in combatting COVID-19. That success is too remarkable and too clear.

However, though the media are now reporting on what Taiwan has overtly done to control the COVID-19 outbreak, for the most part the media have (strenuously, it seems) avoided mentioning what Taiwan has not been doing.[2] That is likely because Taiwan eschewed the almost universal, dire “social distancing,” “lockdown,” and economic shutdown the rest of us are supposed to endure.

“Quick action” and “aggressive measures” are what helped Taiwan — so they keep telling us. They highlight Taiwan’s advanced databases of its citizens’ travel histories, along with its ability to attach those data to the same citizens’ entries in the country’s National Health Insurance (NHI) database.  By limiting the discussion to Taiwan’s actions, mainstream media manage to color Taiwan’s successful virus-containment as a shining example of technocracy — rather than, one of government transparency as well — and much less, one of maintaining constitutional, limited government while quarantining individual dangerous cases.

It is true that Taiwan did take “quick action” — notably with regard to checking people arriving from Wuhan (ultimately banning flights from most of China), and in implementing short-term quarantine for people who had recently traveled from “level 3 alert areas.” In fact, Taiwan’s preparation for a new virus outbreak started in 2004, the year after the SARS epidemic killed 73 people there. Since that experience, “Taiwan has been on constant alert and ready to act on epidemics arising from China,” reports a Mar. 3 JAMA article.

Taiwan has been very careful about making sure (and strictly enforcing with penalties) that the risk cases, who are quarantined, stay there as long as assigned — generally, two weeks. It is also true that Taiwan appended to the end of the Lunar New Year holiday, a further two-week closure of elementary schools and high schools (classes resumed Feb. 25). Moreover, it implemented rules calling for additional two-week closures of any schools where cases of the coronavirus were detected.[3]

Currently schools’ policy is to take students, teachers, and workers’ temperatures. If fevers are detected, classes in that school are suspended, but massive class suspensions do not occur. At the same time, online teaching is being encouraged, but is not being forced by the government. In many Taiwanese universities, online teaching is being promoted in order to let those who are not able to attend class in person to take courses. Although it is true that online education as a way to avoid infections has already been adopted in other countries, the peculiarity of Taiwan lies in the fact that it has not been imposed by government order….​ The government’s transparency of information has also given the Taiwanese enterprises the time they need to voluntarily prepare and adopt teleworking progressively. — Javier Caramés Sanchez and William Hongsong Wang, “Why Taiwan Hasn’t Shut Down Its Economy,” Mises Wire, March 26, 2020

But the pro-active stance and quick action explain more about Taiwan’s extraordinarily low case-numbers, than it does about how they achieved them with only very limited impact on their economic activity (the only industry hit by government restrictions was the airline industry). After all, it’s not as if there was no introduction of the virus into the country: In an article unusually balanced for the Establishment-controlled media, the New York Times stated that “As of Friday [Mar. 13], about 58 percent of all confirmed cases in Taiwan were believed to have resulted from local transmission.”

Broadly speaking, Singapore’s approach has been parallel to Taiwan’s. In regard to schools, in fact, Singapore has shown even more accommodation of private citizens’ needs:

Large gatherings have been suspended. But to minimize social and economic costs, schools and workplaces have remained open. The Singaporean Ministry of Education — on an extensive FAQs web page — calls the closing of schools “a major, major decision” that would “disrupt many lives.” Instead, students and staff are subjected to daily health checks, including temperature screenings. — Benjamin J. Cowling and Wey Wen Lim, “They’ve Contained the Coronavirus. Here’s How,” New York Times, March 13, 2020

National Post article summarizes correctly that these two countries “seem to have found the sweet spot between a laissez-faire ‘it’s just like the flu’ reaction, and imposition of economically devastating lockdowns. Both nations have concentrated [not on imposing lockdowns and shutdowns, but] on strictly isolating people who have or might have COVID-19, tightly controlling international travel and zealously pursuing those who had contact with the infected.”

Sweden’s Thoughtful, Commonsensical Approach

In its particulars, Sweden’s approach has differed somewhat from Taiwan’s and Singapore’s. But like Singapore and Taiwan, Sweden took the traditional approach to what “quarantine” is — namely, isolating sick people, to keep their disease from being caught by well people. And although, like Britain, they do not claim “herd immunity” is their goal, they do recognize that the latter is the likeliest way for the outbreak to come to a graceful end.

Fredrik Erixon, a Swede who directs the European Centre for International Political Economy in Brussels, was eloquent on the real difference in Sweden’s approach:

Managing the virus is a long game, and while herd immunity is not the Swedish strategy, it may well be where we all end up. The theory of lockdown, after all, is pretty niche, deeply illiberal — and, until now, untested. It’s not Sweden that’s conducting a mass experiment. It’s everyone else.

The main advice from [Anders] Tegnell [who is Sweden’s “state epidemiologist”] et al is repeated like a mantra ten times a day: be sensible. Stay at home if you feel sick. Oh, and wash your hands. But individuals, companies, schools and others are trusted to figure out on their own what precautions to take.

This Swedish exceptionalism is about principle, not epidemiology. It’s true that we’re perhaps less at risk due to our high rate of single-person households and low number of smokers. Closing the schools would, as well, have a bigger impact in a country where almost all mums are working mums. But frankly, all these explanations miss the point: yes, they make us different to Italy and Spain, but not to Denmark, Finland and Norway. Sweden simply made the call to take measures that don’t destroy the free society. — Fredrik Exton, “No lockdown, please, we’re Swedish,” The Spectator (U.K.), April 4, 2020

Tellingly, even the website of the World Economic Forum — one of the foremost pandemic-fear stokers of recent decades — had a helpful post, basically admitting there is nothing faulty with the science behind Sweden’s approach.

The Take-away from These COVID-19 Experiences — Oh, and Hong Kong’s!

By no means have these three countries been left unscathed by COVID-19 (and/or similar viruses). But the important thing to glean from their experiences is what they tell us about what’s not necessary to fight this “novel coronavirus.” Specifically, it says that quarantining healthy individuals who have no known reason for being susceptible, is unnecessary — and thus, a gross infringement of basic liberty.

Though it seems surprising to be able to cite the New York Times in summing up, the final paragraph of its March 13 article said it well (though having discussed Hong Kong instead of Sweden):

[T]he central point is this: Each in its own way, Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong — three places with markedly different socioeconomic and political features — have been able to interrupt the chain of the disease’s transmission. And they have done so without embracing the highly disruptive, drastic measures adopted by China. Their success suggests that other governments can make headway, too. — Benjamin J. Cowling and Wey Wen Lim, “They’ve Contained the Coronavirus. Here’s How,” New York Times, March 13, 2020

1. Corroborating the general legal principle that Horowitz cites is, for example, a 1962 Colorado state court case opinion, which points out that “If a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, morals, safety, or common welfare has no real or substantial relation to these objects, and for that reason is a clear invasion of the constitutional freedom of the people to use, enjoy or dispose of their property without unreasonable governmental interference, the courts will declare it void.” Colo. Anti-Discrimination Comm’n v. Case, 151 Colo. 235, 380 P.2d 34 (1962).
2. Typical is an April 7, 2020 Atlantic Council post “Lessons from Taiwan’s experience with COVID-19”: They discuss 4 lessons, but overlook the vital lesson — that general lockdowns and shutdowns are quite unnecessary. The title of an April 3 Democracy Now! post summarized this theme well: “How Taiwan Contained COVID-19: Early Action, Technology & Millions of Face Masks.”
A couple of rare exceptions to this mainstream tendency were a March 13 New York Times article, “They’ve Contained the Coronavirus. Here’s How.”, and a March 31 National Post article, “How Taiwan and Singapore managed to contain COVID-19, while letting normal life go on”. Outside the mainstream, and more in character, was a balanced, March 26 Mises Institute post.
3. According to a data-supplement to the Mar. 3, JAMA article:
– If 1+ in a class (student or teacher) at the K-9 level diagnosed with COVID-19, class is suspended for 14 days
– If 2+ cases in a school, school is closed for 14 days
– If one-third of schools in a township, city, or district are shut down, all others are closed
– If a student or teacher is diagnosed in a high school, college, or university, all classes they attend or teach is suspended for 14 days
– If 2+ cases of COVID-19 in an institution at any level, it will close for 14 days

Gun Grab Cover-up

“Gun control advocates and Democratic lawmakers are keeping the pressure on President Trump and Republicans to act on gun reform even as other controversies threaten to consume the spotlight nearly three weeks after a school shooting that left 17 people dead in South Florida.” — The Hill, 3-4-18

Much of the media and numerous politicians would have us believe that the easy availability of guns is responsible for the recent mass murder of 17 Florida high school students, i.e., the weapon caused the crime. The media would also have us believe that the survivors of the mass shooting are now unanimous advocates of more gun control as the solution. At the same time, the media covers up the revolutionary organization and totalitarian objectives driving the gun-control agenda, while retailing the fiction that the gun-control movement is only interested in promoting “gun safety.”

In her February 28th column, Ann Coulter gave us good reason to question the media-created impression that all the school’s shooting survivors are now passionate gun control advocates. Coulter pointed out how the perpetrator, Nicolas Cruz, had repeatedly and openly threatened to kill students, but that school and law enforcement officials had refused to act. The reason: an official Broward County policy on school discipline ostensibly intended to end the “school-to-prison pipeline”:

“If Cruz had taken out full-page ads in the local newspapers, he could not have demonstrated more clearly that he was a dangerous psychotic. He assaulted students, cursed out teachers, kicked in classroom doors, started fist fights, threw chairs, threatened to kill other students, mutilated small animals, pulled a rifle on his mother, drank gasoline and cut himself, among other ‘red flags.’…

“At least three students showed school administrators Cruz’s near-constant messages threatening to kill them — e.g., ‘I am going to enjoy seeing you down on the grass,’ ‘I’m going to watch you bleed,’ ‘I am going to shoot you dead’ — including one that came with a photo of Cruz’s guns. They warned school authorities that he was bringing weapons to school. They filed written reports.

“Threatening to kill someone is a felony. In addition to locking Cruz away for a while, having a felony record would have prevented him from purchasing a gun.”
Coulter concludes: “When it comes to spectacular crimes, it’s usually hard to say how it could have been prevented. But in this case, we have a paper trail.”

The Cover-up

Yet there is much more to this story and its fallout than intolerable law enforcement “failure.” Ann attributes the refusal of Broward County officials “to report, arrest or prosecute dangerous students” to their “pursuit of a demented ideology.” With this focus, Coulter insulates her readers from a much more sinister, decades-long agenda — the drive for civilian disarmament as a precursor to totalitarian control.

Establishment Insiders have pursued this agenda, domestically and through the United Nations for decades, but a corrupted media ensures that the public has zero awareness of the supporting organization and its real objectives. It’s not “demented ideology” driving the disarmament agenda; it’s a deceptive, unscrupulous power grab.

And so Ann, along with most of her controlled-media colleagues, ignores the critical reason why the horrible Florida crime has been so extensively adopted as a new convenient emotional pretext to drive the civilian disarmament agenda.

Americans who listen only to the major channels of Establishment opinion regularly hear about the monsters that have targeted defenseless school children and civilians. But they are not told about another monster in the wings — uncontrolled government, which so animated our founding fathers long before Professor R. J. Rummel documented the totalitarian record of the 20th Century in his Death By Government.   Nor are they reminded of the Rwanda genocide resulting from UN-supported civilian disarmament.

And naturally, Americans are not told of the organized forces behind the deadly gun-control deception. For example, in the their 1958 classic, World Peace Through World Law, Grenville Clark, head of the United World Federalists, and Louis P. Sohn, later a member of the Establishment’s Council on Foreign Relations, spelled out an agenda for a “world police force” and called for rigid controls on all firearms and ammunition possessed by police and private citizens.

A clever propaganda piece, “Jefferson’s ‘tree of liberty’ and the blood of schoolchildren,” published by a Senior Editor for Yahoo News (2-15-18) illustrates the media-created ignorance of the gun-control threat:

“The idea that Americans should arm themselves to fight ‘state overreach’ is a staple of gun-rights groups and politicians occupying the political terrain that runs rightward roughly from the NRA to the edge of the earth. It goes back at least to Thomas Jefferson, who wrote that ‘the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with blood of patriots and tyrants.’

“And — call me naïve — but I would much sooner entrust my freedom to America’s justice system, which is also part of the Constitution, than to a bunch of middle-aged guys running around the woods in camo pants, no matter what kinds of guns they have.”

Of course, the preferred value of an armed citizenry is as one deterrent against a blatant assault on our liberties or form of government. Nobody should imagine that a minority of unsupported civilians could prevail in battle with the state. If the deterrent failed, universal support for action by an informed public, including even members of the military, would be necessary to reestablish “the tree of liberty.”

But many defenders of the Second Amendment make the mistake of relying solely on gun ownership for safety against tyranny. Would-be totalitarians do not depend on a single campaign such as gun-control to secure their aims — they seek to manipulate public opinion through control of the mass media, to create dependence on government for basic necessities, such as health care, and to create a submissive culture, among many other initiatives.

Other Ignored Factors

On October 11, 1798, President John Adams, while addressing the officers of the Militia of Massachusetts, explained: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

We often find that Insider-controlled government is concocting a dangerous antidote to the poison it has itself created. In light of Adams’ admonition, consider the Federal government’s role in the culture war: the attack on the traditional family, the disrespect for religion, and the denigration of traditional moral standards.

Almost a century ago, Communist theoretician Antonio Gramsci, a prime strategist in the culture war, argued that in the developed Western democracies, the quick seizure of state power was doomed to failure. Instead, he insisted that for a revolution to be successful the supporting culture first had to be changed. The altered culture would then prepare the people, intellectually and morally, to accept the revolution.

In his 1969 book, Journey into Darkness, John Douglas, legendary FBI profiler and expert on the criminal personality, concluded:

“Unfortunately, no matter what we do with our criminal justice system, the only thing that is going to cut down appreciably on crimes of violence and depravity is to stop manufacturing as many criminals…. [T]he real struggle must be where it has always been: in the home.”

And the home has been the target of the Insiders and the liberal agenda for decades.

Revolutionary Parliamentarianism

An internal Czechoslovak Communist Party strategy paper, discovered following the post-World War II takeover of Czechoslovakia, documented the deceptive practice known as “revolutionary parliamentarianism.” The tactic seeks to create the appearance of widespread popular pressure for revolutionary action.

Sympathizers in parliament (Congress) can then advance the revolutionary measure as though they were just responding to overwhelming public demand. Others congressmen, finding it difficult to stand up to the illusion, are pulled along.

Let’s look at several current examples of how the media, sympathetic politicians, and revolutionary organization create the illusion of genuine mass support for the gun-control agenda:

“Congress is under intense pressure to take action following the shooting, which reopened a national debate on guns.” [Emphasis added] — The Hill (2-27-18)

What debate? What the media calls a national debate is merely a media-orchestrated propaganda assault, masquerading as a debate. The voices put forth in the “debate” are carefully selected to keep the message within “acceptable” bounds and with an “acceptable” impact.

And how is the pressure organized, by whom, and for what purpose?

“Teenaged survivors of the Parkland, Fla. High school shooting have amassed huge followings on social media in the weeks since a gunman attacked their school, assembling powerful social media tools in the national debate over guns and mass shootings….

“The survivors’ emergence as pro-gun control voices on social media is a new development in the response to mass shootings.” — The Hill (3-3-18)

No one should doubt the initiative of teenagers to make use of social media and the new tools of technology. But somewhere the activists among them were mentored or encouraged by unmentioned adult forces. Nor should we accept that several hundred teenagers all have the same mind or speak with one voice.

Earlier, AP (2-20-18) reported:

“Students who survived the Florida school shooting began a journey Tuesday to the state Capitol to urge lawmakers to prevent another massacre….”

“Three buses carried 100 students who, in the aftermath of the attack that killed 17 people, want to revive the gun-control movement.”

Are we really supposed to believe that the teens organized this all by themselves?   Consider this report in The Hill (2-20-18):

“Lawmakers say they are feeling more pressure than ever to act on gun control after the latest deadly mass shooting at a public high school.

“A large reason, aides and lawmakers alike say, is the emotional pleas from students who survived the shooting — and who have expressed horror at the idea that nothing will be done in response to the killings of their schoolmates.

The grass-roots movement, dubbed ‘Never Again,’ has kept an extra layer of pressure on members to enact stricter gun laws and take other steps to prevent future massacres….

“Still, the public outcry that followed last week’s shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., has fueled some hope among gun reformers that the political winds are shifting in their favor.

“Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) said the protests in recent days constitute ‘a new type of organic outcry,’ one even more prominent than the demonstrations that followed a similar shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012.

“But after the latest deadly shooting rampage in Florida, high school students are taking the fight into their own hands — a powerful shift that appears to be having an impact on the national conversation surrounding the emotional and heated gun control debate….

“Young activists have been making impassioned pleas on national television, demanding action from their elected officials and organizing rallies, walkouts and marches — including one planned for Washington, D.C., on March 24.” [Emphasis added.]

The Hill and Democratic Representative Mike Thompson would have us believe that the teens planned this all by themselves. AFP (2-18-18) reveals more of the extensive planning:

“The ‘March for our Lives’ will take place on March 24, with sister marches planned across the country, a group of students told ABC News, vowing to make Wednesday’s shooting a turning point in America’s deadlocked debate on gun control.”

And Fox News (3-5-18) also reported the advertised planning, while cooperating with the revolutionaries to hide the “rest of the story” and keep the public in the dark:

“So along with 16-year-old Madeline Paterna, Giancola began to arrange for her school to participate in the National School Walkout, a protest led by students demanding action against gun violence, on March 14 – one month after the Parkland school shooting….

“For 17 minutes at 10 a.m. across each time zone on March 14, students, school faculty and supporters around the world will walk out of their schools to honor those killed in the massacre at the Parkland high school earlier this year and to protest gun violence.

“More than 185,000 students are expected to participate in the walkout, according to the latest numbers provided by a Women’s March spokesperson. And a map of participating schools on the event’s website shows the walkout has gone international – with schools in Ireland, Israel and Mexico participating.”

Fox News did point to a group calling itself Women’s March Youth EMPOWER, sporting a clenched fist in its website logo, as the organizers of the March 14 demonstration.   But the Fox story supported the protest by pointing students to another website where students could find out if their school is participating and the story recited the group’s objective to “protest Congress’ inaction” at face value.

Good Morning America (2-27-18) reported on a Rhode Island executive order to “establish a new ‘red flag’ policy” to “help keep guns away from people who ‘could pose significant threats to public safety.’”

“‘The executive order I signed today is an immediate step we can take to make residents safer. It sets the table for a complementary legislative effort,” Gov. Gina Raimondo, a Democrat, said in a statement Monday. ‘We cannot wait a minute longer for Washington to take action to prevent gun violence.’” [Emphasis added.]

And for “authoritative” input to the public “debate,” Good Morning America gave us this:

“‘Today is a major victory for Rhode Islanders and an encouraging sign for people throughout the country as they demand lawmakers take concrete action to prevent gun violence,’ Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, said in a statement.” [Emphasis added.]

Leadership Betrayal

As usual, we see political leaders in both parties eagerly supporting the orchestrated Insider media spin that what the Florida mass shootings demonstrate is the need for government to give us more “gun safety.”   Here are a few examples:

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC):

“Propose something, Mr. President. And I think Republicans have an obligation to work with Democrats to make it law if we can,” Graham said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”  — The Hill (3-4-18)

Ohio Governor John Kasich (R):

“Ohio Gov. John Kasich commended young Americans for demanding that their elected officials take decisive actions to reduce gun violence in the aftermath of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla…..

“According to Kasich, their idealism may actually succeed in ushering in new gun measures to protect Americans.

“‘And the more they push, the better chance we have of getting something done — to have greater gun safety and better protection for everybody in our country,’ he said.” — Yahoo (3-4-18) 

House Minority Leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.):

“‘Yesterday, we were encouraged by what President Trump had to say, our members who attended the meeting,’ Pelosi said.

“The minority leader was also encouraged by Trump pushing for legislation that would institute background checks for firearms purchased online or at gun shows. A bipartisan measure from Reps. Peter T. King, R-N.Y., and Mike Thompson, D-Calif., that would do just that has reached 200 co-sponsors in the House.

“‘We’ve never had anything like 200 names on a gun safety bill. This is remarkable,’ Pelosi said. The King-Thompson bill is something Democrats have long pushed for in the wake of mass shootings like the one February 14 at a Parkland, Florida, high school that left 17 dead….

“‘I know if the comprehensive bill on background checks came to the floor, it would win,’ Pelosi said.” — Roll Call (3-1-18)

Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas):

Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas), who is leading the GOP response to gun violence in the upper chamber, told reporters after the meeting with Trump at the White House that he still favors a limited approach….

“‘For me the most obvious place to start is the Fix NICS [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] bill that has 46 cosponsors,’ Cornyn said of the bill he’s co-sponsored with Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy (Conn.).” [Emphasis added.] — The Hill (3-1-18)

A Final Word:  The Wisdom of James Madison

From his deep study of history, James Madison warned of the dangers of ignorance, deception, and betrayal:

“Although all men are born free, and all nations might be so, yet too true it is, that slavery has been the general lot of the human race. Ignorant — they have been cheated; asleep — they have been surprised; divided — the yoke has been forced upon them.

“But what is the lesson? That because the people may betray themselves, they ought to give themselves up, blindfolded, to those who have an interest in betraying them? Rather conclude that the people ought to be enlightened, to be awakened, to be united, that after establishing a government they should watch over it, as well as obey it.”

Please share this perspective widely!



“[M]y plan … unapologetically seeks to apply our nation’s timeless principles … to today’s challenges. It does so in a way that honors our historic commitment to strengthening the social safety net for those who need it most…. It fixes what is broken in our health-care system without breaking what is working.” [Emphasis added.]
— Paul Ryan, Young Guns: A New Generation of Conservative Leaders, 2011

“Scott Pelley: Universal health care? Donald Trump: I am going to take care of everybody. I don’t care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now.” [Emphasis added.]
— 60 Minutes, 9-27-15

The claim that the federal government should provide welfare has no basis in the design of America’s Founders. However, socialists rely on precisely that notion to create an ever-larger federal monster.

Unfortunately, hardly anyone in politics today acknowledges that to make America great again (and safeguard our liberties) we must get the federal government entirely out of the health care and health insurance businesses.

Ravages of Obamacare

Obamacare took federal welfare and control of the health insurance market a giant step forward:

“The Affordable Care Act expanded coverage to about 20 million more Americans by setting up state exchanges, where people could buy insurance with subsidies based on their income, and by giving states federal money to expand Medicaid to more of their populations.” — Yahoo News, 3-10-17

Since the law’s inception, Republicans have campaigned on the need to repeal Obamacare. Unfortunately, many have also embraced the goal of replacing it, thereby affirming that Obamacare addressed a legitimate need. More than a year ago, Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) correctly emphasized: “Replacing Obamacare is just actually replacing it with another government-run program and I think some of us as conservatives don’t want the government to be running that.” — Roll Call, 1-7-16

Bipartisan Treason

For decades, both parties have supported unconstitutional federal expansion.

One astute analyst recently assailed the Republicans for regularly following a ratchet pattern. On the campaign trail, they rail against Democrat-supported big-government. But once they gain the majority, their leadership simply adopts the previous socialist inroads as the baseline, makes a few tweaks, and calls it progress.

Opposition limited to defending against further expansion of federal authority can only lead to disaster. Major rollbacks must be the goal.

The American Health Care Act (AHCA)

So now that the Republicans control the White House as well as the House and the Senate, what about their proposal, the American Health Care Act?

Presented as part of a GOP plan to repeal and replace Obamacare, the AHCA would do neither. More than a dozen congressmen protested the betrayal:

“[M]embers of the House Freedom Caucus, backed by conservative Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah, have said that it doesn’t keep faith with the GOP’s promise to unravel Obamacare.” — Roll Call, 3-10-17

“‘It’s Obamacare in a different format,’ Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio … said in a phone interview.” — The, 3-6-17

“The House Republican leadership plan — quite frankly it is the largest welfare program that Republicans have sponsored in the history of the Republican Party.” — Rep. Mo Brooks (Ala.), “Rep. Mo Brooks: AHCA ‘Largest Welfare Program’ Sponsored By GOP,” MSNBC interview, 3-16-17, on YouTube

Conservative Review Senior Editor Daniel Horowitz makes a strong case that the AHCA is actually worse politics and policy than Obamacare. In a March 7th article, “RINO-Care: A more insolvent version of Obamacare … except this time GOP owns it,” Horowitz points out that the Ryan plan, with strong support from President Trump, would leave most of the regulatory structure and the exchanges in place.

And once the Republicans take ownership of this massive entitlement expansion, the challenge to undo the damage increases dramatically.

See No Evil

Yet the betrayal is even worse. Socialism is not a misguided humanitarian plan promoted by do-gooders. It is an evil deception. The humanitarian pretext cleverly serves to advance and cloak a totalitarian power grab.

Such is especially the case with socialized medicine. The socialist breakthrough came in 1965 with the enactment of King-Anderson (Medicare), but only after decades of infiltration and preparation by Fabian Socialist organizers, their Americans for Democratic Action front, and radical union organizer Walter Reuther. (See Media-Controlled Delusion, Chapter 1 Socialized Medicine and Code Blue, by Edward R. Annis, M.D., past president of the A.M.A.)

In a February 19 post, “Repeal and Replace (Big Brother!),” before the details of the Ryan plan became known, we predicted: “[T]hose expecting real progress will be deceived, because the media reports and political claims carefully avoid what is essential for the public to understand.” And what are those omissions? We identified three, quoted from our from Media-Controlled Delusion booklet:

  1. “First, almost no one dares mention that the Constitution does not permit any federal involvement in health care (other than to provide for the military and its own employees).”
  1. “Next, federal involvement locks in the third-party payer system (where someone other than the patient pays for even routine costs). The third-party payer system bears a good share of the responsibility for ballooning costs. Another primary source of rising costs is the immense federal bureaucracy created to manage the system.”
  1. By far the most serious omission in the health care ‘debate,’ however, is its failure to address the revolutionary organization, the deceptions, and the ulterior motive driving the steady expansion of federal authority…. The revolutionary socialist network extends back more than a century. The goal of this network is central control of virtually every human activity (socialism) and world government.” [Emphasis added.]

What to Do?

Currently, there is nowhere near a majority in Congress with the will to do the right thing — get the government out. Many Republicans will seek compromise with liberals in violation of the Constitution, claiming they are negotiating the best deal possible.

But that is a betrayal, too. The deal may appear to slow down our enslavement, but it deceives the public. The only responsible course for a principled congressman is to vote against the continuation of unconstitutional programs.

Despite lobbying by President Trump, Vice President Pence, and House Speaker Ryan, a number of conservative congressmen steadfastly refused to support the Ryan plan. As we go to press, House leaders twice abandoned a scheduled vote due to insufficient support.

Achieving a majority of principled congressmen in Washington cannot occur until there is more understanding created back home.   Former Congressman Lawrence P. McDonald (D-Georgia) showed that he could vote on principle and get re-elected, despite Establishment attacks, because his district had a strong base of informed voters.

As the patriot Robert Welch emphasized, “All we must find and build and use, to win, is sufficient understanding.” And that takes strong organization that is committed to correct principles and understands the forces working to enslave us.

Repeal and Accept (Big Brother!)

“The firm precept of dialectic materialism, whether expressed as one step backward for two steps forward, or two short steps backward for one long step forward, has always made these concessions to the necessity of deception an absolute requirement and precaution in all Communist progress.”
— Robert Welch, American Opinion, January 1962

To make America truly great again, Americans must force the federal government back under the chains of the Constitution — get the government out of where it does not belong. In just one area — health care — that means completely reversing course, taking Big Brother out of the picture.

As we wrote in Chapter 1 “Socialized Medicine” of our 2015 booklet Media-Controlled Delusion: “Our health care system does need reform — the reform of getting the federal government out.” But that won’t happen until more of the public understands crucial omissions in the so-called health care debate.


GOP Control — What to Expect

With the GOP now in control of the House, the Senate, and the presidency, many voters look forward to the GOP delivering on its six-year-old promises to “repeal and replace” ObamaCare.  But those expecting real progress will be deceived, because the media reports and political claims carefully avoid what is essential for the public to understand. We quote from Media-Controlled Delusion:

  1. “First, almost no one dares mention that the Constitution does not permit any federal involvement in health care (other than to provide for the military and its own employees). The once prominent constitutional objections to this usurpation of authority have long been ignored by Republicans and Democrats alike.”
  1. “Next, federal involvement locks in the third-party payer system (where someone other than the patient pays for even routine costs). The third-party payer system bears a good share of the responsibility for ballooning costs. Another primary source of rising costs is the immense federal bureaucracy created to manage the system.”
  1. By far the most serious omission in the health care ‘debate,’ however, is its failure to address the revolutionary organization, the deceptions, and the ulterior motive driving the steady expansion of federal authority….

“The revolutionary socialist network extends back more than a century. The goal of this network is central control of virtually every human activity (socialism) and world government.” [Emphasis added.]

The humanitarian socialist pretext of caring for the downtrodden is just that — a pretext, a pretext for a power grab to make Americans dependent on Washington for their most basic needs.

That huge century-long revolutionary investment in government control won’t be reversed unless there is much greater public understanding of the powerful forces and subversive agenda promoting it. Until that happens, the political hue and cry of “Repeal and Replace” will at best mean a small step backwards while accepting much of the socialist progress of the long ObamaCare step — in short, net progress toward universal government-controlled health care.

“And that points to one of the most effective ways for revolutionaries to overcome resistance to a loss of liberty — gradualism — proceed in stages so that the end result is not universally obvious.”

We strongly urge readers to check out the linked Chapter 1 of Media-Controlled Delusion, acquaint themselves with the crucial media omissions, particularly the history of the socialized medicine drive, and then share this post widely.

A Troubling Example

Many Americans wonder why our federal government keeps working against our interests and how it can be brought under control. An important step in the solution is to understand what Washington is doing — no easy task, as we shall see.

The “Electrify Africa” act is a prime example of what Congress is doing that it should not.   The Act would set development priorities for foreign nations and subsidize that development (through loans and loan guarantees).

In the previous (113th) Congress, the House passed this unconstitutional foreign meddling as H.R. 2548 on May 8, 2014 (see our scorecard, 113th Congress, Session 2, roll call 208). Only 1 Democrat opposed the measure, whereas Republicans were fairly evenly split —106 in favor to 116 against.   Fortunately, the Senate didn’t pick up the authorization measure, and it died — that year.

However, a similar version, S. 2152, was brought up in the Senate late last year and passed on a voice vote. Then on February 1 of this year, the House suspended the rules (2/3 vote required) to pass S. 2152, again on a voice vote. Not a single representative demanded a recorded vote. The president signed the measure into law a week later.

During the February 1 House debates (actually self-aggrandizing campaign statements, masquerading as debate) on the Electrify Africa Act, the legislation’s leading Democrat advocate, Pennsylvania’s Brendan F. Boyle, undoubtedly reassured conservative voters when he stated: “This legislation puts into law President Obama’s 2013 Power Africa initiative.”

Pretext vs. Reality

Those U.S. representatives arguing in favor of the measure spoke forcefully regarding how the Act would address the terrible electricity shortage that is holding back Sub-Saharan Africa economically.   The lead Republican advocate in the House, Representative Ed Royce of California, stated:

“[T]oday 600 million people living in sub-Saharan Africa — that is 70 percent of the population— do not have access to reliable electricity….

“Why do we want to help increase energy access to the continent? Well, to create jobs and to improve lives in both Africa and America. It is no secret that Africa has great potential as a trading partner and could help create jobs here in the U.S.”

Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? Yet we see several major problems. First the U.S. Constitution does not authorize foreign aid. Our government has neither responsibility nor authority to advance the welfare of other nations with taxpayer dollars, particularly when our nation is seriously in debt.

Second, private enterprise and foreign capital should be eager to make such investments as long as the regimes in those nations are stable and respectful of foreign investment.

However, here is the crux of our concern: Supporting socialist regimes may help build Internationalist control, but it is no way to help a people economically.

Ever since World War II, the Internationalist-controlled U.S. State Department has established a long, consistent track record of supporting socialist, even Communist regimes (e.g., Red China, and initially Fidel Castro), and undermining pro-Western regimes (e.g., backing the Sandanistas in Nicaragua against Anastasio Somoza and working to oust the Shah of Iran, replaced by the Ayatollah Khomeini).

As informed skeptics, we have to regard the humanitarian arguments as insincere pretexts to support a power-grabbing agenda.

The techniques employed in collectivist strategy are not new. Nineteenth-century French statesman Frederic Bastiat wrote that governments seek to increase their power by “creating the poison and the antidote in the same laboratory” — that is, by using government resources to exacerbate problems which can then be used to justify statist “solutions.”

The same strategy has damaged our economy. Government programs have provided both the carrot and the stick to drive heavy industry and manufacturing abroad. And collectivists would have us believe that more government programs are the solution to restoring our economic health.

For more on the solution, please see our “Congress Is the Key!” menu item.

Latest Assault on our Civil Liberties, The NDAA

Fundamental individual liberty and rights are central to our Constitution, and protection of the same from governmental infringement. Yet we see on a nearly daily basis, attempts by sometimes well-intentioned politicians, locally and nationally, to trample those fundamental rights in the name of a “greater good.”

The latest case in point, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed Congress with broad bi-partisan support, (proving once again that there is little difference between the two major political parties), and will reportedly be signed into law this week by President Obama.

The Act states, “Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pending disposition under the law of war.” And just who are those “covered persons” that can be so detained? Section 1031 seems innocuous enough by identifying anyone who had a part in the 9/11/01 attacks or “A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities,” against the U.S. But then this Trojan Horse language follows, “including any person who has committed a belligerent act.”

A broad interpretation of “belligerent” includes “hostile and aggressive,” and is not limited to the more specific acts of war, which the drafters of the legislation may have intended. This language swings the door of interpretation wide open to include any threatening, antagonistic, contentious, or confrontational conduct perceived to be a threat to the nation. It is not beyond the realm of possibility to see this president or any future president use this provision as justification for military detention without due process of Tea Party protestors or Occupy Wall Street activists.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution has served to enforce due process and habeas corpus by preventing unlawful arrest and detention, yet this one Act (NDAA) grants virtually unlimited power to the president to detain potential “terrorists” indefinitely, with all the ignominy of a military Guantanimo-like detention. And one of the most striking components of the legislation is that the “battlefield” of the “War on Terrorism” is expanded to include the homeland of the United States of America.

The Act, itself a violation of law since it was drawn up, debated, and passed in closed committee sessions without a single hearing, is clearly a violation of posse comitatus, established in 1878 which proscribes the use of the military on domestic soil to enforce the laws of the land.

While I rarely find myself in agreement with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), on this issue we’re of one accord. In their write-up of the NDAA they averred the Act “will direct American military resources not at an enemy shooting at our military in a war zone, but at American citizens and other civilians.” They continue, “The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.”

Section 1031 of the Act concludes with an attempt at assuaging civil libertarian concerns by stating, “Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” It may not be “intended,” but the act does precisely that.

Section 1032 further attempts to mitigate the far-reaching affects of the legislation by stating that the, “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.” While not “required,” it clearly leaves the door wide open for the possibility of military detention of citizens.

For students of history, this legislation eerily has a parallel in the Enabling Act of 1933 in Germany, where rights enumerated in the Weimar constitution were repressed or precluded by expanded central government control. The subsequent staged attack on the Reichstag or parliament building, led to the Reichstag Fire Decree, finalizing the transition of Adolph Hitler from Chancellor of the Republic, to Führer. Is that all it would take to make that final transition here?

At what point do we as citizens reject and stand up against such trampling of civil liberties? There was so much disapprobation over the Patriot Act, and this goes so much further. It’s impossible to not see another parallel from 20th century Germany in the words of Martin Niemoller, “First they came for the communists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is a regular contributor to the Idaho State Journal. He is also President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board. He can be reached at


Receive Alerts

Get the latest news and updates from Freedom First Society.

This will close in 0 seconds