Pursuant to my opening paragraph, it’s stunning to me that so many people, including many of my peers, fail to realize the finality of the condition confronting the world, and specifically confronting America.

We’re not fighting a conventional war; therefore, conventional weaponry and strategies won’t work. Any and all attempts to reclaim loss ground are pointless, because an unconventional war cannot be won conventionally. We are in a full-blown spiritual war.

The enemies of America and global civilization as a whole understand said factoid very well. America was truly a gift from God to the world, second only to Moses, Abraham and other great leaders found in the scriptures. But, as I’ve repeatedly said: The only thing our governmental construct was unable to protect America from were evil and wicked men.

It’s one thing to not see the forest for the trees, but it’s another thing altogether to misidentify the trees.

America is being deconstructed piece by piece. Speaking metaphorically, the illusionists have the people focusing on how the rabbit got out of the hat and failing to realize that the rabbit was never in the hat.

The American public from womb to grave in ever increasing numbers are being misinformed and misled for the express purpose of destroying what God, through our Founders, gave us.

The truth has been misstated to the point that even well-meaning people unconsciously accept and advance the fraudulent representations.

The so-called intellectuals and elitists today view the four foundational constructs of America – church, family, education and military – with hostility. But, hating same is one thing, getting rid of these foundations is the goal.

Change the language and the founding documents become of no effect; e.g., the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation and the Declaration of Independence never mention nor refer to America as a democracy. That’s because America isn’t a democracy nor was it ever intended to be. (See: “Why the United States was Designed as a Republic” by David Shestokas.)

Don’t get me wrong. You’ll hear so-called conservatives and certain others correctly argue that America is a constitutional republic. But, day after day in public school classrooms and America’s equivalent to Pravda, i.e., higher education and the mainstream state media propagandists, malleable minds are brainwashed through an uninterrupted diet of references to a fictional “democracy.”

This error isn’t being committed by accident. This damnable lie is being advanced as heterodoxy for the express purpose of destroying the Constitution of the Untied States of America. It’s being advanced for the express purpose of undermining and abandoning the veritas of the Constitution.

Our son forwarded me an article about Washington becoming the fourth state, following Oregon, New Hampshire and Wisconsin, that will no longer require the bar exam to become a licensed attorney. This a travesty on its face; it’s a definitional miscarriage of language, because in order to be licensed for anything, one must pass a test of some sort on some level.

In reality, this is the next step in reducing the Constitution to no effect, without a Constitutional Convention.

People are ignoring the true rationale of the Fabianists. I’ve warned over the years that the democratic socialists advance with ophidian-like rapidness using gradualism and reformist guerrilla tactics. And their tactics are working, in large part because the foundations of America have been eroded by the pursuit of those entrusted to defend them, becoming more desirous of the riches/trappings of the godless than they are in honoring the foundations America was built upon.

I predict in the very, very near future these so-called attorneys will find themselves appointed to judgeships, ultimately leading to state supreme courts, all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). They will be hailed as evidence that doing away with bar exams and the renunciation of all licensing was a success with these persons placed in judicial positions.

It will be done with the usual political cast posing as a symphonic retinue to fakes and charades. We will be inundated with “firsts”: the first crayon-color unlicensed judge, the first queer unlicensed judge, the first unlicensed transgender, ad nauseam. Having not taken a bar exam will be reason for ascension to judgeships, because those people will be seen as more compassionate. Their efficacy will be judged on their ability to fundamentally disregard and alter the Constitution and laws of our once great nation.

Despite what is argued by those who refuse to admit this hellish transmogrification happened to America on their watch, I blame our collapse on the compromise of the church and our failure to hold politicians accountable.

This did not happen overnight. It has been structured and set in place in plain sight.

Consider the damage that has been done by the pathetic creatures masquerading as legal professionals today. The woman who couldn’t define what a woman was during confirmation hearings, now sitting on SCOTUS openly lamented the First Amendment, referencing it as a handicap and restraint to her idea of jurisprudence.

In their present incarnation, barely qualified judges, attorneys general and district attorneys are haters of modernity and political hacks, and we’re to believe removing the bar exam will be improvement.

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@wndnewscenter.org.

Boudin’s surprising comment came as part of a larger debate between the Left and Right on criminal justice issues at the March 8 gathering, called “Justice Unveiled: Debating Crime and Public Safety Conference.”

The ousted San Francisco prosecutor led a discussion with California district attorneys that also included Cully Stimson, a Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow who is a crime expert and former prosecutor. (The Daily Signal is Heritage’s news and commentary outlet.)

Stimson, coauthor of the book “Rogue Prosecutors: How Radical Soros Lawyers Are Destroying America’s Communities,” pressed the district attorneys about the so-called progressive prosecutor movement.

Stimson includes Boudin, now executive director of the Criminal Law & Justice Center at Berkeley School of Law, as a member of that movement. Crime increased dramatically during the progressive Democrat’s two years in office, and it continues to be a major problem for San Francisco.

“There’s nothing progressive about the progressive prosecutor movement, at least as you define the word ‘progressive,’” Stimson said.

The Heritage scholar said the movement is dangerous because it does nothing to cultivate public safety or protect victims, but instead focuses entirely on criminal defendants.

Violent crime rates fell in the 1990s for two reasons, Stimson said. The first reason is that states passed laws to keep repeat and violent offenders in prison longer. The second reason is the creation of various courts and alternatives to prison programs.

“Longer [prison] sentences lower recidivism rates,” Stimson said, adding later: “The U.S. Sentencing Commission has seven separate studies that show just that.”

Unfortunately, Stimson said, the progressive prosecutor movement, inspired by those who would abolish prisons, has worked ingeniously to put ideological sympathizers in district attorney’s offices around the country.

Their election gives each prosecutor the ability to reduce the number of prosecutions and the length of sentences, he said.

Stimson then posed a question to the district attorneys about their philosophy.

“An offender-oriented approach to prosecution rests on the unstated and therefore unsubstantiated assumption that the perpetrators of crime stand on the same moral plane as their victims,” he said.

Protecting the vast majority of residents of a community who don’t commit crimes from those who do is a cornerstone of the social contract, Stimson explained.

“How do you, in your role as the [district attorney], uphold your end of the social contract?” he asked.

In his answer, Boudin said that putting more people in prison “of course” reduces the number of crimes. Putting everyone in prison would end crime, he added.

The former San Francisco district attorney then said that those people who have spent the most time in prison are the least likely to recidivate and that we keep convicted criminals locked up for far too long in America.

“That’s a decision we make that separates us from every other civilized country in the world,” Boudin said. “It’s a policy choice, and it really doesn’t have to do with safety so much as a desire for vengeance and retribution, with the history of racism in this country.”

He said the progressive prosecutor movement isn’t about putting defendants over victims.

The Constitution created rights for criminal defendants, Boudin said, but it “does not create rights for victims of crime.”

He then pointed to various services that some states have created for crime victims, such as providing access to therapy and paying for medical expenses.

“Suggesting that because progressive prosecutors seek to comply with constitutional rights, seek to avoid having cases dismissed because of discovery violations, because of racial bias, is somehow tantamount to disregarding victims’ rights is simply not true,” Boudin said.

He then said that prosecutors are not asked to represent victims of crime, but “all of the people of our jurisdictions,” and that focusing on victims disregards the Constitution.

While the national focus of rising crime has been on progressive prosecutors, Boudin said, the “highest murder rates” are in red states and counties. What’s happening in large parts of the country, he added, is the prosecution of poverty.

Stimson disputed Boudin’s claim that red states are driving crime. He mentioned his related research indicating that Democrat-run cities for the most part are producing the crime numbers in red states and counties.

Boudin countered that most cities in America are run by Democrats, so that’s why most high-crime cities are blue. Stimson replied that, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, most crime is concentrated in the “inner city” and has been for a long time.

Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton, a Democrat, later weighed in. Becton said she doesn’t focus on politics, but believes that safety is a human right “and everyone deserves that.”

Although she respects Boudin’s viewpoint, Becton said,  she wanted to point out that he “never dealt as a prosecutor for the victims of crime, never looked at the 5-year-old that was shot and had the job of bringing that victim justice.”

“He cares about a lot of things,” Becton said. “But the lens that’s missing is the victim’s lens; it’s completely missing.”

If you go to a doctor for a heart problem, the Contra Costa County district attorney added, you want the doctor to understand hearts. It’s a problem, she said, when those who occupy positions of power, such as district attorneys, “never had the passion to protect somebody who has been victimized.”

Becton wondered aloud how someone who says the Constitution doesn’t recognize crime victims could become a DA.

Justice is not a “theory” or an experiment, she said, it’s about people’s lives.

Boudin answered that he did care about victims and expanded resources to care for them, including court interpreters. He also said, raising his voice, that conservative prosecutors treat victims only as “pieces of evidence” just to send more criminals to prison.

Crime victims don’t just want money as government services, Becton said, they want “justice” and “they want to know there is justice.”

It’s the duty of the district attorney to give them that, she said.

“The federal government has broken the compact between the United States and the States,” the Republican governor wrote in a one-page statement posted on the former Twitter on Jan. 24.

“The Executive Branch of the United States has a constitutional duty to enforce federal laws protecting States, including immigration laws on the books right now. President Biden has refused to enforce those laws and has even violated them. The result is that he has smashed records for illegal immigration,” Mr. Abbott wrote.

“Under President Biden’s lawless border policies, more than 6 million illegal immigrants have crossed our southern border in just three years.

“That is more than the population of 33 different States in this country. This illegal refusal to protect the States has inflicted unprecedented harm on the People all across the United States.”

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) promptly praised Mr. Abbott’s statement.

“This is the right position,” Mr. Roy wrote on X. “You have my full support to do what is necessary to protect Texas.”

The governor’s statement came as Texas continues to resist a U.S. Supreme Court order allowing the removal of razor wire fencing on a 2.5-mile stretch of Eagle Pass, Texas, that Texas authorities installed to prevent illegal migrants from entering the country. Eagle Pass borders the city of Piedras Negras, Coahuila, Mexico, on the Rio Grande River.

Both sides blame each other.

Attorneys for the Biden administration told the court that the wire barrier blocked U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents from accessing the illegal border crossers entering the country. Attorneys for Texas countered that the state was forced to erect the border barrier because the federal government has been unable to secure the border.

The federal-state border standoff appears to be developing into a full-blown constitutional crisis as armed law enforcement officers on both sides refuse to acknowledge the other’s authority. The state refuses to remove the razor wire and is installing more wire fencing.

The Texas National Guard is handing over those it apprehends to the Texas Department of Public Safety to be charged with trespassing under state law.

On Jan. 22, the Supreme Court voted 5–4 to let CBP agents remove the razor wire. The ruling stayed a Dec. 19, 2023, injunction issued by the conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit that allowed the wire to remain intact.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor voted in the majority, siding with the Biden administration. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.

On Jan. 24, the Biden administration demanded that Texas give up control over the Shelby Park area in Eagle Pass that it is occupying in an effort to keep illegal migrants from entering the United States, The Washington Examiner reported.

“The state has alleged that Shelby Park is open to the public, but we do not believe this statement is accurate,” U.S. Department of Homeland Security counsel Jonathan Meyer told Mr. Abbott in a letter.

“To our knowledge, Texas has only permitted access to Shelby Park by allowing public entry for a memorial, the media, and use of the golf course adjacent to Shelby Park, all while continuing to restrict U.S. Border Patrol’s access to the park.”

Jack Phillips contributed to this article.

The Hobby Distillers Association, an organization with over 1,300 members represented by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), filed a federal lawsuit this month against the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TBB) and Department of Justice (DOJ) over the government’s ban on at-home distilling. The ban is not just “bad policy,” CEI’s General Counsel Dan Greenberg told the Daily Caller News Foundation, it’s also “inconsistent with a proper view of the limited government constraints of the Constitution.”

“The Constitution created a Federal Government of limited and enumerated powers,” the lawsuit states. “The at-home distilling ban is beyond all of the powers of Congress to enact under the Constitution.”

President Jimmy Carter signed legislation legalizing the practice of homebrewing federally in 1978, though home distilling remained illegal, according to the Smithsonian.

The lawsuit argues that the ban does not fall under Congress’ authority to regulate interstate commerce, as it operates locally, or the federal government’s taxing power, as it “raises no revenue.”

“The interstate sales of beer and wine are regulated in much the same way as the interstate sales of distilled beverage alcohol are regulated, but beer and wine can lawfully be produced at home under federal law,” it states.

Distilling alcohol at home carries consequences of up to five years in prison or up to a $10,000 fine, per the TTB.

“While individuals of legal drinking age may produce wine or beer at home for personal or family use, Federal law strictly prohibits individuals from producing distilled spirits at home,” the TTB website states.

The activity would be properly regulated at the state level, CEI attorney Devin Watkins said in a statement. In some places, such as Alaska, Arizona, Massachusetts and Missouri, state laws allow individuals to distill alcohol at home, according to Reason.

The Ohio state senate introduced a bill in January 2023 that would permit any citizen over 21 to make up to 100 gallons of moonshine a year, according to News 5 Cleveland.

But because it’s still banned at the federal level, even home distillers in states that permit the practice could risk prosecution.

“Like so many laws in our overcriminalized society, however, there is uncertainty about how rigorously these laws are enforced,” C. Jarrett Dieterle, resident senior fellow at the R Street Institute, wrote for Reason earlier this year. “Similar to homebrewers in the ’70s and ’80s, it’s likely that some of America’s craft distilleries started out as clandestine home distilling operations.”

“We believe that, under the Constitution, at-home distilling is an activity properly regulated at the state and not the federal level."

CEI's @LibertyDevin on our lawsuit with the Home Distillers Association against the federal ban on at-home distilling.https://t.co/Ci4w1w5fQW

— Competitive Enterprise Institute (@ceidotorg) December 15, 2023

Greenberg said the ban is “somewhere between 100 and 150 years old” and is part of a federal tax collecting statute, which appears “completely unrelated to the legitimate use of the powers of the federal government.”

“It’s perfectly legal to distill beverage alcohol in some circumstances, as long as you don’t do it on your home property,” he said. “And it’s perfectly legal to distill fuel alcohol on your home property, in some circumstances, as long as you have a permit…the product that is produced with respect to fuel alcohol and beverage alcohol are chemically identical.”

The plaintiffs are just trying to explore the hobby of distilling beverage alcohol, but want to do it legally, Greenberg said. The lawsuit notes that multiple “have legally distilled before and would be able to distill if the law allowed them to do so.”

The Hobby Distillery Association’s efforts to lobby Congress to repeal the federal prohibition have “been blocked by an industry that does not want more competition,” the lawsuit states.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Whenever that term is used, one can be assured that the democracy they are referring to has no semblance to any actual democracy.

In this case, “ours” does not mean “all of ours” – it means “theirs.”

What they are protecting is their democracy; not a democracy of the people, but now merely a word used to fig leaf the ever-expanding slither of socialist socialite statism, the velvet fascism that is deftly hammering its way through the society and the culture.

The Colorado Supreme Court ruling disqualifying Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot there is absurd, legally indefensible, and a direct attack on the entire constitutional premise of the nation.

It eviscerates the basic right of the people to choose – however one may think of their choice – their own leader.

It torpedoes the idea of the balance of powers between the three branches of government. Until yesterday, judges have almost always steered clear of most election-related cases, in part because of that issue. In fact, the mantra that “Trump lost every challenge he made in court to the 2020 election” is true because, three years ago, courts did everything they could to not hear the cases – issues of standing, issues of timing, and issues well, what do you what me to do? Order a new vote? Few – if any – were heard on their merits.

The United States Supreme Court even ruled that a group of states did not have standing to sue states they thought mishandled the 2020 election. One would think a state would have standing in court to challenge how another state ran their elections because who is president impacts every state, but still the Supremes passed on even hearing an argument.

That is yet another reason this ruling is so mind-boggling dangerous – the precedent set is catastrophic to the point that the President of El Salvador Nayib Bukele was right when he tweeted “The United States has lost its ability to lecture any other country about ‘democracy’.”

That is how degrading this ruling is to the actual rule of law, not the “rule of law” the statists trot out to stifle, intimidate, and destroy their opponents.

Even though it should not be necessary to refute the Colorado ruling point-by-point – for the same reason people don’t try to argue with sidewalk schizophrenics that there really aren’t people and plants and dogs yelling at him – here are the particulars (from a previous piece) as to why the Colorado judges are wrong.

First, the events of January 6^th were not an insurrection attempt. They were wrong and stupid and the greatest gift ever given to the Deep State and the Democrats, but they did not constitute an insurrection. When you try to overthrow the government, you tend to bring guns and you tend not to make sure to wrap it up in time to get back to the hotel for dinner.

Second, to say Trump caused the problem is also not true. One could make the argument that Nancy Pelosi “caused” it because she point-blank refused to beef up Capitol security that day, thereby allowing bad actors to run wild, or that the FBI “caused” it via its embedded intelligence operatives.

Third, Trump has not been found guilty of a crime…yet. Therefore the idea is legally premature and the position taken by those in favor that “we all know it was an insurrection and he did it so we don’t need a trial” is not quite – at least for the time being – how the American justice system works.

Fourth, read the clause again – it says “elector of President,” not “president.” May seem like splitting hairs, but they’re really different. As to “officer,” even that is muddy as many legal scholars equate that with appointed personnel. Finally, Congress is specifically called out for the ban, but the presidency is not. So even if it ever gets to court it will not fly (unless, of course, that court is in the District of Columbia).

Fifth, even if you twist yourself into believing Trump cannot serve as president, it does not in any way, shape, or form bar him from running for the office. That would be a gross and obvious violation of his first amendment rights…oh, wait.

Sixth, to argue that insurrectionists are not allowed to serve in the federal government is patently false. A few years after the Civil War, Confederate soldiers were signing up for the US Army and Confederate veterans began serving in – wait for it – Congress. In fact, dozens of former Confederates – and not just privates but high officers – served in the House and Senate, no problem.

The last Confederate veteran to serve in Congress was Charles Manly Stedman of North Carolina, a major on Gen. Robert E. Lee’s staff – seriously – and he held his seat until 1930.

And he was a typical southern Democrat racist, by the way, pushing to erect a “Mammy Memorial” statue on Washington. And yes, it really means what you think it means: a statue honoring mammies because, as Stedman put it: “The traveler, as he passes by, will recall that epoch of southern civilization [when] fidelity and loyalty” prevailed. No class of any race of people held in bondage could be found anywhere who lived more [freely] from care or distress.”

So, if people who signed up to specifically go shoot people as part of an actual intentional rather widely advertised bloody insurrection – and clearly remained committed to the underlying cause – were allowed to serve in Congress, I’m pretty sure that sets a precedent.

Leaving the particulars refuted and turning back to the core of what is meant by “protecting our democracy” we must face the lie that has become the undercurrent of American discourse.

“Our democracy,” on its face, sounds reasonable, like “our constitution” or “our rights” as citizens. It seems inclusive, unifying, and based on a shared set of facts and beliefs. In other words, the “our” is meant to signify “everyone” and that’s good, right?

But in this case, the “our” specifically does not mean everyone but only some, as in “this is ours and not yours”.

The Romans called the Mediterranean Sea “Mare Nostra,” or “Our Sea” to connote power and exclusivity. The mafia is often referred to by its members as “Cosa Nostra,” or “Our Thing,” again to ensure a protective separateness from everything and everyone else.

Now, the organizations and people fetishizing “protect our democracy” mean it the same way the Romans really did and the mafia really do – “their democracy.”

“Democratia Nostra” indeed.

This trope is an intentional attempt to quell discussion and debate, to “other” (to use a woke term) people who question the idea, and to define anyone who does not subscribe to their statist, elitist, technocrat, oligarchical version of democracy as being a danger to the very idea of democracy itself.

Examples of this hypocritical – but strangely alluring – linguistic perversion abound. From the “Protecting our Democracy Act,” which would have essentially federalized elections, pushed by progressive Democrats to countless “non-profit, non-partisan” groups started by those same totalitarian wokesters, the term can be found being used – and never falling under media judgment – throughout today’s political landscape.

Like so many other tech companies (and their leaders, see Zuckerberg’s Center for Tech and Civic Life), Microsoft has an effort called “Democracy Forward.” At a recent conference on digital campaign security, a member of the project, one Ethan Chumley, used a rather telling phrase when describing what Democracy Forward does as “supporting the institutions we think (emphasis added) are fundamental to a healthy democracy.”

And what institutions are included? Defending Digital Campaigns is one, a “non-aligned” organization funded by Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and others to, in theory, increase campaign data security. Its board of directors includes former NSA and current DHS officials, former Romney presidential campaign manager Matt Rhoades, Hillary’s campaign manager Robby Mook, and the chairman of a group called DigiDems, which itself in financially supported by the Democratic Party and, of course, the law firm Perkins Coie of “Russiagate” fame (a perfect example of the DC swamp rabbit hole, by the way).

Democracy Forward also partners with NewsGuard, the organization that calls itself a media fact-checker and trustworthiness monitor that consistently places sites like The Federalist on its naughty list and the Guardian on its nice list. NewsGuard also slammed outlets that tried to cover the Hunter Biden laptop scandal and announced in January a partnership with the American Federation of Teachers to combat misinformation in the classroom.

For more information on the absolutely non-partisan, completely fair minded Microsoft effort, you can visit the website.

The group “Protect Democracy” was founded by a pair of Obama White House lawyers, one of whom during his college days helped found “Law Students Against Alito,” also claims to be non-partisan. Here is how it defines “The Threat” to democracy on is website:

These global trends impacting the entire democratic world, when combined with our own governance structures and history of white supremacism, have resulted in an amplification of the power of an anti-democratic, illiberal, and bigoted faction in our society that has always existed. That faction, first through Trump’s presidency and now through the political party it has largely captured…

Non-partisan, indeed If you want, you can check out the website.

Then there is Securing our Digital Future, an effort of Foreign Policy magazine. With a contributor list that reads like a parody of internationalism, the policies suggested essentially espouse the idea of saving democracy by killing freedom. One writer, Matt Masterson of the Stanford Internet Observatory (that’s what it is actually called), states that the “onslaught of misinformation” that started in 2016 has caused people to mistrust institutions before noting that the 2020 election was the most secure in modern American history.

To continue to protect democracy, Masterson suggests, in part, the following:

Accountability for those who knowingly spread disinformation to achieve their political or financial goals. Allies in democracy must identify, call out and collectively respond to adversaries’ attempts to destroy democratic institutions. This can encompass political accountability at the ballot box, as well as professional accountability, such as the loss of a law license for using the court to further disinformation, or the loss of financial support by refusing to do business with those funding the attacks.

The term was recently employed by the New York Times when announcing the hiring of Ken Bensinger to report on “conservative” media and ideas and such. Putting aside for the moment that he was the reporter that foisted the Fusion GPS Steele Dossier onto the public, the Times’ own reasoning for the hire is telling:

“…Ken’s new beat, filled as it is with people who reject mainstream narratives and question the institutions that hold up our democracy (emphasis added). Understanding the way information is developed, circulated and absorbed on the right is vital at this precarious moment…,” stated the Times in its announcement.

Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, MSNBC, AOC, CNN, Liz Cheney, etc., etc., ad infinitum have all used – may even be using it right now – the term “protect our democracy” and all, whether putatively right or left, mean it the same way – their democracy. But that is a democracy that, with apologies to the Washington Post, thrives in darkness and is protected by the prosperity and silence and loyalty of its members, a political code of Omerta that must be kept at all costs.

Our democracy, indeed.

The Colorado decision will almost certainly be overturned by the Supreme Court, but for “protectors of our democracy” that is not such a bad thing – it will give them an election hammer point: see, the Supreme Court bad, just like with abortion, and needs to be abolished…wait, reformed and expanded to include every proper viewpoint.

As the media will play along with this, it is yet another “Heads I win, tails you lose” political shell game being played to keep Trump – or anyone who threatens the Deep State, the “own nothing and be happy” drivers of the world, or the global nomenklatura – away from the levers of power,

It should not have happened, but what could happen has now happened.

And we will never be the same.

This is a classic disinformation tactic: Suggesting that the person who identified the problem must also solve the problem, otherwise they should not be taken seriously. This is called “deflection.” Often solutions to economic and social decline require that masses of people become educated on the threats so that they can organize to make changes, and that requires talking about the problems. Talking about the danger IS the solution (to a point).

In terms of direct conspiracy and tyranny, the solution is usually war and the elimination of the cabal behind the agenda. That requires talking about the problem and inspiring people to organize for the fight.

But what happens when you finally have the numbers to do something? I would partially agree that the conservatives, libertarians, independents and moderates that make up what I call the “Liberty Movement” tend to talk a lot more about the problems, to the point that solutions become lost in the fervor of discussion.

After nearly 20 years writing for the movement I have noticed a consistent pattern – When I publish an article identifying a concerted attack on the US economy, for example, the audience numbers run high. When I write an article about methods for preventing collapse, such as independent barter markets and localized production, the traffic is cut in half. The truth is, real solutions are not sexy, they are scary.

People can become addicted to watching the system break down and I realize it’s hard to look away from a train wreck. But when it comes time to doing something about the mess and make some hard decisions a lot of people run away. This has to change.

It is with this issue in mind that I am launching a series of articles focusing ONLY on solutions. These are not silver bullet solutions; they will not save people from struggle or hardship. They will not end the globalist empire with a single calculated social shift or technological innovation. Such solutions do not exist and anyone who claims otherwise is either ignorant or a fraud trying to lure you into complacency. The real solutions require hard work, sacrifice, courage, tenacity and above all, risk.

If a solution to tyranny and collapse doesn’t scare you at least a little, then it’s probably not a legitimate solution.

And, if there is one solution that has been demonized more than any other in our modern era, it’s the citizen militia. It’s hard to think of a greater taboo, a more sneered at and disdained concept than the militia, and that’s on both sides of the political aisle. Many leftists hate the militia because they fear it; many Republicans hate the militia because they think it makes them look “extreme.” Sorry sunshine patriots, but if there was ever a time for extreme measures, it is now.

Maybe it’s a matter of public conditioning? Militias are the villains in every movie, every TV show, every book and comic book. Articles in every major publication warn year after year of militias as the dark underbelly of American culture; a mode of organization for “racists” and “fascists” and most of all “terrorists.” They are the bad guys, right? Who wants to be seen as a bad guy?

So, conservatives and libertarians stumble around trying to come up with ways to organize a physical defense against the encroachment of authoritarianism without actually calling these efforts a militia. It’s understandable; the M-word has a stigma that was carefully crafted by the media over the course of decades.

Say you are starting a “neighborhood watch” and people listen with an open mind. Say you are starting a militia, and people see images of fat rednecks playing Batman in the woods with their buttcracks hanging out (rednecks are some of my favorite people, by the way). They shut down immediately, and they might not even know why. It’s because they have been trained to react this way.

There’s a reason why civilian militias were one of the first constitutional protections dismantled and rearranged by our government. Sadly, starting with giving the president the ability to call on state militias as a means of suppressing domestic rebellion through the 1800s, then slowly erasing militias altogether and replacing them with the modern National Guard though the Dick Act of 1903 (The NG is now nothing more than another branch of standing military and not a true militia).

An armed and most importantly TRAINED civilian population operating outside of federal oversight is a threat that no oligarchy would ever voluntarily allow. It is the ultimate wrecking ball against government corruption. This is why the 2nd Amendment has already, to some extent, been neutered.  It has lost one of two vital parts: Gun rights are still present, but citizen organization is gone. Without both elements the country will never be truly secure and free.

The reason the modern establishment media has been so hostile to the militia concept is because they fear patriot organization more than anything else. They want people isolated from each other, focused only on their own preparedness efforts but constantly vulnerable due to their limited ability to project defense or offense. If you are alone, your circle of security is your house and your front door – you are doomed. If you are part of a militia, your circle of security is your town, or your county, or perhaps even your entire state. You now have a chance to survive and stay free.

There will be people who argue that a militia solution is impossible because in order for such groups to be constitutionally legal they must be approved by the state government they reside in and operate at the whim of the White House. This is only if we were pursuing a “constitutional” militia; I think that ship sailed a long time ago. If the establishment has no respect for the original intent of the constitution, then we can no longer play by the same rules as our forebears. We have to organize outside of the lines.

Militias need to exist whether they are approved or not. Cooperation at the state or county level should be pursued, but this is dependent on the honor of that particular local government. If they are not cooperative and are not honorable then citizens will have to organize anyway.

I do foresee some red state governors taking action to form militias. I’m not the type of person that thinks every single political leader is “controlled.” If that were true then all the red states would have continued the covid lockdowns and tried to enforced vaccine passports as the blue states did. Instead, they fought back. I’ll give credit where credit is due.

If any liberty minded governors are reading this now, I would suggest that they seriously consider stepping up efforts to bring back the militia system in their state. These groups are going to form eventually anyway, adding some legitimacy through the state would defuse a lot of conflicts in the future. And I’ll tell you this, if you truly believe in freedom and the American ideal, there WILL come a time when you will have to lean on the common citizenry to maintain the security of your state. Not just from corrupt adversaries at the federal level, but from foreign invasion (or illegal immigration) as well as rioting and looting by leftist groups within your own cities. Don’t wait until it’s too late.

If a state government is not willing to back legally recognized militias, then it may be possible to organize at the county level. I would even say that the first county government to do this will start a firestorm and hundred of other counties will follow their example. All it takes is one to step forward. The same goes for state militias.

What would be the purpose of these militias? To act as a deterrent to forces with ill intent, first and foremost. We cannot allow the federal government and establishment elites to hold a monopoly on the ability to project power. If we do, then the country will be enslaved. And though I have faith in the power of asymmetric tactics, the 50 million+ gun owners now active in the US could be far more effective if they were working together to utilize those tactics. They would certainly offer a much more imposing obstacle to the elites.

Deterrence is the best possible defense. When that fails, better to have friends than to be alone.

Secondly, there is ample defense training going on all over America and there are millions of serious shooters here. Dare I say, there are more serious shooters here than in all other countries combined. And by “serious shooters” I mean skilled and dangerous shooters that can do extensive damage to an enemy. However, there is virtually no large unit training going on right now; everything is aimed at personal defense and sometimes small unit tactics. Militias would be useful in teaching Americans how to fight as a larger force if necessary.

Of course, that would be “paramilitary training” and that would be “bad,” but who cares? The optics are becoming less and less important as the system degrades and crisis rises. Finally, I think it’s time to draw the line in terms of the course our country is going, and establishing militias is a solid way to send a message.

For those waiting on civic solutions, I’ll just say that political efforts rarely bear fruit. One surprising exception was the resistance to covid mandates – It’s a good thing we had so many conservative governors willing to end the mandates and stop the madness at the state level. So yes, voting can do some good, but it should not be relied upon to save us. There needs to be organization beyond political parties into the realm of active problem solving and security. Millions of citizens sitting around doing nothing while waiting 2-4 years to drop a ballot in a box is NOT a solution to our current predicament.

The old disinformation arguments will surely surface in response to the militia idea – They will say that a militia wouldn’t stand a chance against a tyrannical government backed by a modern military and that your “AR-15 is useless against an F-16.” The Taliban in Afghanistan has something to say about that delusion, just as guerrilla groups have had something to say about it for generations. There’s not a military on the planet that can take on 50 million+ gun owners, they would run out of ordnance long before patriots ran out of people.

But beyond that, we have to ask the question yet again: Why are they so intent on removing 2nd Amendment rights and stopping the return of militias if these things are not a threat to their power? If gun owners could be wiped out by a handful of drones and tanks, then why haven’t they done this already and rounded us all up? The reason is clear – Because if the establishment starts that fight, they know there’s a chance they could lose. If they are afraid of unorganized and isolated patriots now, imagine how afraid the technocrats would be if we reestablished militias.

Article cross-posted from Alt-Market.

Pro-choice advocates are working in multiple states to get abortion amendments on the ballot after the fall of Roe v. Wade in 2022.

Pro-choice activists in several states are attempting to put abortion amendments on the ballot that could enshrine the practice into law.

Lawmakers in multiple states have passed laws banning abortion at various stages since the overturn of  Roe v. Wade. Pro-choice activists, however, are attempting to make headway to protect access in Ohio, Arizona, Nebraska, South Dakota and Florida by making abortion constitutionally protected.

Ohio’s proposed abortion amendment, which was introduced in February, would make the practice legal up to birth if a physician deems it necessary to protect the mother’s life, according to its text. GOP legislators introduced Issue 1 in May, which would have required proposed amendments to obtain a 60% threshold instead of just a simple majority, but it failedto pass during the Aug. 8 special election.

After the results in Ohio, Stephen Billy, vice president of state affairs for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, told the Daily Caller News Foundation that the pro-life movement is learning from past mistakes and is preparing to push back against these initiatives.

“We have learned many lessons from our defeat in these fights, but the main takeaway is that we must define the issues at stake early and often with a simple message,” Billy said. “So far, in all of the state battles, our side has failed to take this approach, allowing the left and pro-abortion industry and allies to define the effort.”

Arizona activists filed paperwork on the same day as Ohio’s special election for an amendment that would allow an abortion to be performed up until birth if a doctor deems it necessary to protect the physical or mental health of the mother.

The state banned abortion after 15 weeks, unless there is a medical emergency, following the Supreme Court’s decision in 2022 to overturn Roe v. Wade, according to the legislation. The law also made it a felony for a doctor to perform an abortion in the state.

Nebraska appeared to follow Arizona’s lead after the political campaign committee “Protect Our Rights” submitted paperwork for an amendment to protect access to abortion, despite state legislators passing a 12-week ban in May, according to the Nebraska Examiner. The committee is still working on drafting specific language for the amendment, but it would require 10% of the registered voters in the state along with 5% of the registered voters being from 38 of Nebraska’s 93 counties to get the measure put on the ballot.

Advocates in Florida have also been collecting signatures for an amendment, with organizers claiming in August that they had nearly half a million signees, according to NPR.

“As long as I have breath in my body, I’m going to continue to fight for freedom and liberation,” Trish Brown, who works with the grassroots organization Power Up People, told NPR. “I’m going to always continue to fight for being able to have control over my own body.”

Activists in South Dakota presented a proposal that would bar the state from creating restrictions on abortion before 13 weeks, and then would only allow some regulations, such as limiting abortions except in cases where the “physical health of the pregnant woman” is in danger, beyond 14 weeks, according to South Dakota News Watch. The measure is not supported by Planned Parenthood, which believes the measure is not far enough, according to The New York Times.

The amendments won’t make it onto this year’s ballots in the four states, but it could be a deciding issue for voters in 2024, according to the NYT. Several other states are still in the early stages of pushing abortion ballot initiatives; North Dakota, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Montana have made little official progress to get initiatives on the ballot.

“The ballot measures put forward in states across the country are a coordinated effort on behalf of the abortion lobby to impose their extreme agenda on pro-life states,” Billy told the DCNF. “We need political leaders and the movement to forcefully engage with these initiatives and we need to not only counter the deceitful messaging of liberal special interests but also the bias of the corporate media.”

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Many fear that it would give governments complete control over individuals by allowing them to track, and even block, individual transactions and to impose taxes at will.

In the United States, though, “money” has a constitutional basis so firm that, despite its name, a US government CBDC would not be “money” or even “currency.”

It could exist as one payment system among many, but without violating the US Constitution it could not be forced on Americans as the sole final means of payment…

Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power “to borrow Money on the credit of the United States” and “to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin.”

It also gives Congress the power “to provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and CURRENT Coin of the United States” and “to raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.”

Article I, Section 9 stipulates that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Laws; a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”

Article I, Section 10 says that “no state shall… coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.”

The reasons for those policies are well understood and uncontroversial. Americans wanted their new nation to be a common-currency area, so only the national government could have any monetary policy discretion.

The stickier question was always the extent of that discretion, particularly the federal government’s ability to issue bills of credit.

I believe, after much study, that the Founders and Framers would have tolerated temporary periods of fiat-money issuance during wartime or other major emergencies, but that they would not consider a permanent fiat system constitutional.

That position is obviously not the prevailing one, but it is also not necessary to establish the fact that a CBDC is not an electronic form of fiat money or any other type of “currency” under the Constitution.

As shown above, all three types of money specified in the Constitution – bills of credit, foreign gold and silver coins, and domestic gold and silver coins – were (and remain) physical bearer instruments.

In other words, they are “current” in the sense used in Section 8 above, meaning that mere possession provides sufficient proof of their ownership.

To tender current money is to turn over physical possession to another party in order to consummate a trade or pay a debt. Due to its physical nature and bearer-legal status, “money,” as used in the Constitution, can be used anonymously as a means of final payment.

In America’s constitutional context, a CBDC is a payment system, a means of exchanging money over physical distance.

The Framers were aware of the payment systems provided by eighteenth-century banks and merchants, but wisely made them no part of the Constitution. They did not conflate checks, bills of exchange, or other orders for the payment of money with money itself, and never made deposits or even banknotes a legal tender.

Can the Treasury or Federal Reserve proclaim that a CBDC is a new payment system that people may use instead of existing payment services? Yes, though it is not clear that a government CBDC will lower transaction costs enough to induce many to switch voluntarily.

Can the government say that CBDC is now money and confiscate Federal Reserve Notes and bank deposits like it confiscated gold during the New Deal? No, not lawfully.

About the Author

Robert E. Wright is a Senior Research Fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research. He is the (co)author or (co)editor of over two dozen major books, book series, and edited collections, including AIER’s The Best of Thomas Paine (2021) and Financial Exclusion (2019).

Article cross-posted from Money Metals.

On today’s episode of The JD Rucker Show, which will air at 8am Pacific, I discussed eight reasons pulled from headlines that we should never trust anything this government tells us. In fact, we should go forward assuming that all government is fully corrupted. That’s unfortunate because I am not an anarchist. I believe in the need for limited government, so if we can’t trust them then we’re forced to head toward the purest forms of government of and by the people. That’s not how the Constitution was written as a whole, so we’re in a big pickle.

I discussed these eight topics that should convince viewers that government is not to be trusted:

• Pretty much everything we’re being told about the Ukraine war is a lie. That’s not a “pro-Russia” or “anti-Ukraine” statement. It simply means that the news coming out about Ukraine from just about every source is produced by some government for their own purposes. Today, our government is doing whatever it can to keep the taxpayer money laundering business through Ukraine alive.
• The Arizona election (and many others) produced results that are mathematically impossible. On the show, I turned to Patrick Byrne for a brief statistical analysis of why there is no way Katie Hobbs could have legitimately won the Arizona gubernatorial election. And hers isn’t the only race that has been stolen.
• The push for electric vehicles is actually a push to eliminate ALL private vehicle ownership by “normal” people. They say they want everyone to drive electric cars, but they aren’t telling the inconvenient truth that there isn’t nearly enough lithium for that to even happen. Once they can outlaw gas vehicles for the sake of “climate change,” they will spring on us the reality that they really just don’t want us to have automobiles at all. Public transit, electric bicycles, and 15-minute cities are all part of the future they don’t want us to know about yet.
• The world economy is being herded toward collapse. There’s a very sad reality happening right now that’s not getting any attention. Governments across the globe are preparing for “bail ins,” which means banks will be given the power to take our money to preserve themselves. This along with every other ludicrous economic policy coming from our “representatives” tell us they are preparing for a full-blown economic collapse. Or, to be more accurate, they are manufacturing one.
• Most in government are attacking the Constitution instead of defending it. In the United States, public servants swear to defend the Constitution. But what we’re seeing in reality are attempts by people on both sides of the political aisle to sidestep or even subvert the Constitution altogether.
• Nobody in government, not even the “good guys,” are going after Pfizer following the Project Veritas bombshell. The Project Veritas bombshell about Pfizer’s “directed evolution” of Covid-19 should have prompted everyone in government to be screaming for answers. Instead, we’re getting silence. Even the “good guys” in government are avoiding the topic like an actual plague. Why is that?
• Governments across the world are pushing for food shortages so they have total control over supply and therefore the people. The Dutch farmers protested. They were then shut down. This is a microcosm of how governments across the globe are preparing to handle the coming food crisis. Instead of fighting it, they’re advancing it. As Henry Kissinger said, who controls the food supply controls the people.
• Child rapes are increasing and nobody in government is lifting a finger to stop them. There is absolutely no excuse in our modern society for child rapes to be increasing. With all the law enforcement technology and attacks on our privacy that we’ve suffered in recent years, how can “child sex traffickers” be achieving their evil goals so easily? And why are our “leaders” doing absolutely nothing to stop it? This, more than any of the other seven reasons, is the one that makes me have absolutely zero trust in government.

Even if you don’t watch the show, know this: Our government at just about every level and in nearly every country on the planet is not working on our behalf. They all have puppet masters of some sort, most notably the globalist elite cabal that’s pulling so many strings. It is my sincere hope that today’s show will open some eyes, not to mention hearts and minds.

We’re drowning under the weight of too much debt, too many wars, too much power in the hands of a centralized government, too many militarized police, too many laws, too many lobbyists, and generally too much bad news.

It’s harder to believe that change is possible, that the system can be reformed, that politicians can be principled, that courts can be just, that good can overcome evil, and that freedom will prevail. So where does that leave us?

Benjamin Franklin provided the answer. As the delegates to the Constitutional Convention trudged out of Independence Hall on September 17, 1787, an anxious woman in the crowd waiting at the entrance inquired of Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” “A republic,” Franklin replied, “if you can keep it.”

What Franklin meant, of course, is that when all is said and done, we get the government we deserve.

Those who gave us the Constitution and the Bill of Rights believed that the government exists at the behest of its citizens. It is there to protect, defend and even enhance our freedoms, not violate them.

Unfortunately, although the Bill of Rights was adopted as a means of protecting the people against government tyranny, in America today, the government does whatever it wants, freedom be damned.

“We the people” have been terrorized, traumatized, and tricked into a semi-permanent state of compliance by a government that cares nothing for our lives or our liberties.

The bogeyman’s names and faces have changed over time (terrorism, the war on drugs, illegal immigration, a viral pandemic, and more to come), but the end result remains the same: in the so-called name of national security, the Constitution has been steadily chipped away at, undermined, eroded, whittled down, and generally discarded with the support of Congress, the White House, and the courts.

A recitation of the Bill of Rights—set against a backdrop of government surveillance, militarized police, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, eminent domain, overcriminalization, armed surveillance drones, whole body scanners, stop and frisk searches, vaccine mandates, lockdowns, and the like (all sanctioned by Congress, the White House, and the courts)—would understandably sound more like a eulogy to freedoms lost than an affirmation of rights we truly possess.

What we are left with today is but a shadow of the robust document adopted more than two centuries ago. Sadly, most of the damage has been inflicted upon the Bill of Rights.

Here is what it means to live under the Constitution, twenty-plus years after 9/11 and with the nation just emerging from two years of COVID-19 lockdowns and mandates.

The First Amendment is supposed to protect the freedom to speak your mind, assemble and protest nonviolently without being bridled by the government. It also protects the freedom of the media, as well as the right to worship and pray without interference. In other words, Americans should not be silenced by the government. To the founders, all of America was a free speech zone.

Despite the clear protections found in the First Amendment, the freedoms described therein are under constant assault. Increasingly, Americans are being persecuted for exercising their First Amendment rights and speaking out against government corruption. Activists are being arrested and charged for daring to film police officers engaged in harassment or abusive practices. Journalists are being prosecuted for reporting on whistleblowers. States are passing legislation to muzzle reporting on cruel and abusive corporate practices. Religious ministries are being fined for attempting to feed and house the homeless. Protesters are being tear-gassed, beaten, arrested and forced into “free speech zones.” And under the guise of “government speech,” the courts have reasoned that the government can discriminate freely against any First Amendment activity that takes place within a so-called government forum.

The Second Amendment was intended to guarantee “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Essentially, this amendment was intended to give the citizenry the means to resist tyrannical government. Yet while gun ownership has been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court as an individual citizen right, Americans remain powerless to defend themselves against red flag gun laws, militarized police, SWAT team raids, and government agencies armed to the teeth with military weapons better suited to the battlefield.

The Third Amendment reinforces the principle that civilian-elected officials are superior to the military by prohibiting the military from entering any citizen’s home without “the consent of the owner.” With the police increasingly training like the military, acting like the military, and posing as military forces—complete with heavily armed SWAT teams, military weapons, assault vehicles, etc.—it is clear that we now have what the founders feared most—a standing army on American soil.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits government agents from conducting surveillance on you or touching you or encroaching on your private property unless they have evidence that you’re up to something criminal. In other words, the Fourth Amendment ensures privacy and bodily integrity. Unfortunately, the Fourth Amendment has suffered the greatest damage in recent years and has been all but eviscerated by an unwarranted expansion of governmental police powers that include strip searches and even anal and vaginal searches of citizens, surveillance (corporate and otherwise), and intrusions justified in the name of fighting terrorism, as well as the outsourcing of otherwise illegal activities to private contractors.

The Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment work in tandem. These amendments supposedly ensure that you are innocent until proven guilty, and government authorities cannot deprive you of your life, your liberty or your property without the right to an attorney and a fair trial before a civilian judge. However, in the new suspect society in which we live, where surveillance is the norm, these fundamental principles have been upended. Certainly, if the government can arbitrarily freeze, seize or lay claim to your property (money, land or possessions) under government asset forfeiture schemes, you have no true rights.

The Seventh Amendment guarantees citizens the right to a jury trial. Yet when the populace has no idea of what’s in the Constitution—civic education has virtually disappeared from most school curriculums—that inevitably translates to an ignorant jury incapable of distinguishing justice and the law from their own preconceived notions and fears. However, as a growing number of citizens are coming to realize, the power of the jury to nullify the government’s actions—and thereby help balance the scales of justice—is not to be underestimated. Jury nullification reminds the government that “we the people” retain the power to ultimately determine what laws are just.

The Eighth Amendment is similar to the Sixth in that it is supposed to protect the rights of the accused and forbid the use of cruel and unusual punishment. However, the Supreme Court’s determination that what constitutes “cruel and unusual” should be dependent on the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” leaves us with little protection in the face of a society lacking in morals altogether.

The Ninth Amendment provides that other rights not enumerated in the Constitution are nonetheless retained by the people. Popular sovereignty—the belief that the power to govern flows upward from the people rather than downward from the rulers—is clearly evident in this amendment. However, it has since been turned on its head by a centralized federal government that sees itself as supreme and which continues to pass more and more laws that restrict our freedoms under the pretext that it has an “important government interest” in doing so.

As for the Tenth Amendment’s reminder that the people and the states retain every authority that is not otherwise mentioned in the Constitution, that assurance of a system of government in which power is divided among local, state and national entities has long since been rendered moot by the centralized Washington, DC, power elite—the president, Congress and the courts.

Thus, if there is any sense to be made from this recitation of freedoms lost, it is simply this: our individual freedoms have been eviscerated so that the government’s powers could be expanded.

It was no idle happenstance that the Constitution opens with these three powerful words: “We the people.” As the Preamble proclaims:

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION for the United States of America.

In other words, it’s our job to make the government play by the rules of the Constitution.

We are supposed to be the masters and they—the government and its agents—are the servants.

We the American people—the citizenry—are supposed to be the arbiters and ultimate guardians of America’s welfare, defense, liberty, laws and prosperity.

Still, it’s hard to be a good citizen if you don’t know anything about your rights or how the government is supposed to operate.

As the National Review rightly asks, “How can Americans possibly make intelligent and informed political choices if they don’t understand the fundamental structure of their government? American citizens have the right to self-government, but it seems that we increasingly lack the capacity for it.”

Americans are constitutionally illiterate.

Most citizens have little, if any, knowledge about their basic rights. And our educational system does a poor job of teaching the basic freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. For instance, a survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that a little more than one-third of respondents (36 percent) could name all three branches of the U.S. government, while another one-third (35 percent) could not name a single one.

A survey by the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that only one out of a thousand adults could identify the five rights protected by the First Amendment. On the other hand, more than half (52%) of the respondents could name at least two of the characters in the animated Simpsons television family, and 20% could name all five. And although half could name none of the freedoms in the First Amendment, a majority (54%) could name at least one of the three judges on the TV program American Idol, 41% could name two and one-fourth could name all three.

It gets worse.

Many who responded to the survey had a strange conception of what was in the First Amendment. For example, a startling number of respondents believed that the “right to own a pet” and the “right to drive a car” were part of the First Amendment. Another 38% believed that “taking the Fifth” was part of the First Amendment.

Teachers and school administrators do not fare much better. A study conducted by the Center for Survey Research and Analysis found that one educator in five was unable to name any of the freedoms in the First Amendment.

Government leaders and politicians are also ill-informed. Although they take an oath to uphold, support and defend the Constitution against “enemies foreign and domestic,” their lack of education about our fundamental rights often causes them to be enemies of the Bill of Rights.

So what’s the solution?

Thomas Jefferson recognized that a citizenry educated on “their rights, interests, and duties”  is the only real assurance that freedom will survive.

As Jefferson wrote in 1820: “I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of our society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”

From the President on down, anyone taking public office should have a working knowledge of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and should be held accountable for upholding their precepts. One way to ensure this would be to require government leaders to take a course on the Constitution and pass a thorough examination thereof before being allowed to take office.

Some critics are advocating that students pass the United States citizenship exam in order to graduate from high school. Others recommend that it must be a prerequisite for attending college. I’d go so far as to argue that students should have to pass the citizenship exam before graduating from grade school.

Here’s an idea to get educated and take a stand for freedom: anyone who signs up to become a member of The Rutherford Institute gets a wallet-sized Bill of Rights card and a Know Your Rights card. Use this card to teach your children the freedoms found in the Bill of Rights.

A healthy, representative government is hard work. It takes a citizenry that is informed about the issues, educated about how the government operates, and willing to do more than grouse and complain.

As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, “we the people” have the power to make and break the government.

The powers-that-be want us to remain divided over politics, hostile to those with whom we disagree politically, and intolerant of anyone or anything whose solutions to what ails this country differ from our own. They also want us to believe that our job as citizens begins and ends on Election Day.

Yet there are 330 million of us in this country. Imagine what we could accomplish if we actually worked together, presented a united front, and spoke with one voice.

Tyranny wouldn’t stand a chance.

WC: 2308

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His latest books The Erik Blair Diaries and Battlefield America: The War on the American People are available at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission: John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.