Remove the Second Amendment: How to Enslave a Population. Plans that Joe Biden has to CONFISCATE weapons from the American citizenry.
Guest: Samuel Mitcham: author, professor, scholar and political observer. As the year closes Sandy Mitcham discusses the political landscape in America and what the future may hold if Joe Biden becomes president. Will there be succession?
American Liberty with Bill Lockwood is about the culture of America — not simply about politics. Bill Lockwood is a preacher, teacher, writer, and radio host with a weekly program based in West Texas.
For nearly thirty years, as some of us have attempted to sound the alarm over plans to reorganize human society into global governance, we have been mercilessly attacked and labeled as radical conspiracy theorists.
Now, as those very plans move ever closer to enforcement, many are beginning to ask questions about the origins of the plans. Who stands behind them, and where will it all lead? Will life be better? Will there be more freedom and happiness? Are we finally going to create a society free of war and strife, as promised by the promoters? Who’s right, the conspiracy theorists or the promoters?
First, a little history. One of the direct results of World War II, which had affected every nation, was the desire to find a way to prevent war. Most of all, the threat of nuclear war truly terrified everyone. This led to the creation of the United Nations as a way to provide a forum where nations could work out their problems in a public forum instead of on a battlefield. That was the selling point, at least.
The fact of the matter is, the United Nations is a club in which nations join voluntarily and pay dues for the privilege. However, from its very beginning, some envisioned a much larger role for the club. They envisioned the end of independent sovereign nations in which they charged were the root of war, strife and poverty. They claimed that for true freedom to exist, everything must be equal, including food, possessions, and opportunity. To achieve that, individual nations must surrender their sovereignty to the greater good – global governance overseen by the United Nations.
Right away, many socialist and communist-run nations grabbed hold of the concept. These were nations where the rights of the people were already determined by those in charge. In short, where government granted rights.
But there was one nation, in particular, that openly opposed this concept, because that nation had been created under the idea that every person possessed their rights from birth and that it was government’s job to protect those rights. Such a concept was completely antithetical to the growing determination to give the United Nations central power over the Earth. The United States was soon seen as the major obstacle to the globalist agenda.
Over time, a “cold war” between the totalitarians of the communist nations and the advocates of free nations erupted and the United States found itself the designated leader of the “Free World.” As a member of the UN’s Security Council, the United States used its single-nation veto power to foil many of the efforts by the communist nations to build a UN power structure. This caused major frustration to those behind the goal of global governance. A solution had to be found to bring the United States into compliance.
Finally, in the 1970s a novel tactic emerged in the form of the illusion of environmental Armageddon by way of the illusion of “Climate Change.” It was the perfect tool to propel the argument for independent nations. “It doesn’t matter what rights you think you have if you don’t have a planet to stand on!” The drive for global governance took hold, full speed ahead. One of the main proponents of the global governance movement, the Club of Rome said, “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All of these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be over come. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” There it was! The answer. The environment doesn’t recognize political or national boundaries. Just grab control of the land, water and air, and control every nation and every human life.
It didn’t take long for the globalist forces to jump onto the concept. Again, the Club of Rome laid out the party line necessary to grab control: “Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though it may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the task at hand. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.” So, according to this concept, in order to replace these leaders which were elected by the people, we are going to enforce global policy created by forces unseen, unknown, and equipped with their own agenda. Yep – that will solve the world’s problems!
It didn’t take long for the communists to grasp the idea. Former Soviet dictator, Mikhail Gorbachev, after the collapse of his socialist paradise, quickly set himself up as an environmentalist to promote this new world order. He explained to the State of the World Forum, “The emerging ‘environmentalization’ of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of world government.” And there is was — the real goal, out in the open.
The UN’s Commission on Global Governance went further to explain how it would all come about as it reported, “The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.” Now, how to set it all into place…?
The UN began to sponsor a series of international meetings, specifically focusing on the environment and how to “save planet Earth.” After a series of such meetings where private, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), officially recognized and sanctioned by the United Nations, met with government leaders, diplomats, and various bureaucrats, began to draw up a plan for using environmental issues as the basis for regulating human activity – all through the noble guidance of the United Nations, of course. Finally, in 1992, more than 50,000 NGOs, diplomats, and 179 world leaders, including U.S. President, George, H.W. Bush, met in an “Earth Summit,” in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Here, they introduced a series of four documents and treaties for the world to accept as guidelines for UN-led reorganization to save the planet.
Most significant of these plans was one designed to create a global plan of action for the 21st Century. It was named Agenda 21, and its supporters promoted it as a “Comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society.” All 179 world leaders signed onto the document, including President Bush, and promised to bring its goals into national policy.
Here’s a quick overview of the Agenda 21 plan:
There are four parts: Sections 1 is titled Social and Economic Dimensions. Details include, international cooperation to accelerate sustainable development policies, combat poverty, changing consumption patterns, protecting and promoting human health conditions, and promoting sustainable development by integrating environment policy into development plans.
Section 2: is titled Conservation and Management of Resources for Development. This section outlined plans for promoting sustainable agriculture and rural development, integrating those policies into planning and management of land resources, enforcing sustainable policy into every body of water from seas to rivers and lakes, waste management, and conservation of “fragile” ecosystems, .
Section 3: is titled “Strengthening the Role of Major Groups. Here we get into who was going to promote these policies in a divide and conquer tactic. First, the infamous NGOs who wrote the document gave themselves a major role under the chapter entitled “Strengthening the role of non-governmental organizations: partners for sustainable development.” But we were also to have “global action for women towards sustainable and equitable development.” Next, children were specifically targeted to be promoters of sustainable development. Another chapter outlined how to pull in local elected officials to promote support for Agenda 21 initiatives. Each chapter in this section of the Agenda 21 document focuses on more and more individual interest groups needed to push the agenda, from business and industry, to science and technology to farmers. No stone was left unturned in this outline to reorganize human society.
Section 4: titled Means of Implementation. Here, finally, are the details on how it was to be accomplished. As all of the individual groups are brought under the umbrella, now the enforcers would focus on the necessary financial resources, transferring environmental technology into decision making, and focusing on education process, not only for schools, but also for “public awareness and training.” And then, of course, there are the necessary “International legal instruments and mechanisms.”
Here it is, a complete and comprehensive outline for the agenda to completely transform all of humanity under the umbrella of globalism. And of course, it was urgent that the agenda be enforced as quickly as possible because, we were facing an environmental Armageddon caused by selfish, uncontrolled, ignorant humans, unfettered in unenlightened nation-states.
First Global Warming, and then later Climate Change became the focus of the looming disaster. And it simply did not matter if there was no true science to back up the scare tactic. As the Canadian Minister of the Environment, Christine Stewart, openly admitted, “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” There is was! The truth. This whole charade wasn’t about saving the environment, but about changing the world order with a new gang in charge.
Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation, further enforced that fact when he said, “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” There it is again – “economic policy!”
And finally, there was Paul Watson, a co-founder of the radical Green NGO called GreenPeace. He summed it all up very nicely, saying, “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” No muss, no fuss, just get in line and don’t question us!
However, there was still a skeptical world that had to be indoctrinated to follow the party line. So, it was important that the language, while keeping the urgent tension of environmental crisis in the forefront, used soft-peddle words to promote the policies. For example, soothing, reassuring comments such as, “we are just concerned about the environment, aren’t you?” “We want to help those less fortunate, living in poverty. Don’t you?” “Imagine all the people sharing all the world.” Nothing to worry about here, just a giant, loving, world-wide group hug. So, the agenda moved forward, with few questioning its details, motives, and true goals.
Meanwhile, forces inside the UN were determined to hurry along the real agenda — global governance. As we moved closer to the year 2000, many insiders saw the start of the new Millennium as the perfect opportunity to launch a full-scale framework for global politics. In preparation, the UN planned to sponsor a Millennium Summit to plan the future for the world. A document was prepared for presentation at the Summit called the Charter for Global Democracy. In the UN’s words, the document contained “detailed, practical measures which set out an ambitious agenda for democracy in international decision-making, now increasingly known as ‘global governance.”
The Charter contained 12 principles or goals. It would consolidate all international agencies under the direct authority of the United Nations. In addition, the UN would regulate all transnational corporations and financial institutions, along with the establishment of a new institution to establish economic and environmental security by insuring sustainable development. The Charter called for a declaration that Climate Change is an essential global security interest that requires a “high level action team” to control carbon emissions. And, the Charter called for the cancellation of all debt owed by the poorest nations, global poverty reductions, and for “equitable sharing of global resources,” including land, air and sea, plus various wealth redistribution schemes. Under the Charter for Global Democracy there would be no independent, sovereign nations, no private property or free enterprise. All would be controlled and regulated by UN edict – all in the name of environmental protection, of course.
But there is more. To establish a government, three main ingredients are necessary; a revenue taxation system, a criminal court system, and a standing army. Principle 3 of the Charter for Global Democracy demanded an independent source of revenue for the UN. Proposed were taxes on aircraft and shipping fuels and licensing the use of the global commons. The “global commons” are defined to be “outer space, the atmosphere, non-territorial seas, and related environment that supports human life.” In other words, the UN claimed control of the entire planet, its air and water, even outer space, and the power to tax use of it all.
Principle Number 5 would authorize a standing UN Army. Principle Number 6 would require UN registration of all arms and the reduction of all national armies “as part of a multinational global security system” under the authority of the United Nations.
Principle Number 8 would activate the International Criminal Court, make the International Court of Justice compulsory for all nations, and give individuals the right to petition the courts to remedy what they deemed social injustice, meaning redistribution of wealth based on emotional tirades rather than the rule of law.
There you have it, all the tools necessary to make the United Nations a full- fledged global government, a government over the whole world. But, the Charter for Global Democracy broke one major rule in the UN’s plans to dominate the world – it was too honest. It lacked the soft sell and, instead, marched brutally forward, revealing their true agenda. It was never officially presented to the Millennium Summit for world leaders to approve in front of the cameras. However, it remains a shadow agenda, with parts included in other documents. The Criminal Court does exist and there is still a drive for an environmental court. The UN continues to push for full ratification of the Law of the Seas Treaty that would give it full control of the waters of the planet. While the United States has not officially ratified the treaty, Congress has promoted regulations through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to enforce many of the same goals.
Meanwhile, the UN has continued to add more details, a little at a time, through documents released at yet more international gatherings. The Millennium Summit did issue 8 goals, mostly focusing on eradicating poverty, respecting nature, and “Protecting the Vulnerable.” The goals are there, just not the direct wording of the Charter. Peace, Brother!
In 2016, the UN issued Agenda 2030, containing 17 goals. They are all the same as Agenda 21 and the Millennium Goals, however each new document issued reveals a little more detail as the UN moves ever closer to enforcing all 12 principles of the Charter for Global Democracy.
Most recently, however, the Sustainable forces again took off the gloves of misdirection, and this time they have gotten away with it. This latest version is called the Green New Deal and it didn’t come as a declaration or a suggestion from another summit. This time it came as actual legislation introduced into the U.S. Congress and has been openly accepted as the center of political debate across the nation.
Even though the word “green” is in the title, it, too, is not an environmental policy. The Green New Deal is an economic plan to reorder society away from free enterprise, private property, and limited government. Gee, where have we heard that before? Oh yes, Agenda 21, Agenda 2030, and the Millennium Declaration!
The Green New Deal is divided into four pillars. First is the Economic Bill of Rights, demanding full employment, guaranteeing a living wage, Medicare for all, tuition-free education and the right to affordable housing. Can you find any issue there that is designed to save the planet?
Pillar 2 is labeled the Green Transition. Surely here is where we will find concerns expressed for clean rivers and air, right? Nope. We find money and tax schemes for global corporations who agree to play ball and spread the sustainable propaganda. This helps to fill their pockets as it kills competition from small, independent businesses. There’s also the usual attack on cars along with schemes to end shipping of food and products by truck or air. Each community, you see, will be responsible for providing all of its needs for the local population.
Pillar 3 called Real Financial Reform, turns banks into public utilities run by government, doing away with the stock market, all leading to higher taxes and the end of freedom of choice for your financial needs.
Pillar 4 is called a Functioning Democracy. It calls for the creation of a “Corporation for Economic Democracy” that will basically combine government agencies, private associations, and business enterprise into one big corporation, all to be controlled by one, central ruling authority. The last time I checked on such an idea it was called communism.
My colleague, climate change expert Paul Driessen, produced a very clear picture of what life will be like under the Green New Deal. Are you ready America? According to Paul’s analysis, the GND would, “control and pummel the jobs, lives, living standards, savings, personal choices and ecological heritage of rural, poor, minority, elderly and working classes.” Says Paul, the GND would turn middle America into vast energy colonies. Millions of acres of farmland, wildlife habitat, and scenic areas would be blanketed by industrial wind, solar, and battery facilities. Windswept ocean vistas and sea lanes would be plagued by towering turbines. Birds, bats, and other wildlife would disappear. As you are forced to rip out exiting natural gas appliances from your kitchen, replacing them with electric models, electrical power would only be there when its available, rather that when you need it. And don’t forget, as the GND moves to ban petroleum, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, paints, synthetic fibers, fertilizers, plastics for computers would all be gone, along with millions of jobs. Not to mention that the cost of near non-existent energy would soar.
This, then, is the future offered to us by the power-mad control freaks now plotting every day to “reorganize human society.” These policies now dominate political debate and are becoming established in more and more states and communities, yet any attempt to reveal the true goals are immediately labeled “conspiracy theories” and those sounding the alarm are called extremists.
Meanwhile, as we have all suffered through the COVID lockdowns, the forces behind these policies have been busy planning ways to use tactics they have learned from enforcing the pandemic to move forward with a “Green Reset” to tackle the so-called climate crisis. In a recent issue, Time magazine announced the “Great Reset,” asserting “The COVID-19 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to think about the kind of future we want… to share ideas for how to transform the way we live and work.”
Bill Gates said that large-scale economic shutdowns are “nowhere near sufficient” to curtail climate change. Rather, we need “to get rid of emissions from all the different sectors.” He went on, “Simply shutting down (the economy) is not going to get (us) to our goal. So just like we need innovation for COVID-19, we also need to get rid of emissions from all the different sectors and bring down climate change.” Are you ready to live in a cave with no heat or running water to satisfy Bill Gates’ demands to reorganize society? What else would be the alternative if we must completely shut down our entire infrastructure of transportation, industry, buildings, electricity, etc?
Green New Deal advocates, like Gates, see the COVID-19 outbreak as a signal to the international community that it is necessary to reform humanity’s relationship with nature, pointing to concerns that “as habitat and biodiversity loss increase globally, the coronavirus outbreak may be just the beginning of mass pandemics.” That’s the new scare tactic – piled on top of climate change. Just as the Club of Rome prediction declared decades ago, the real enemy is humanity itself. So there it is, now facing us like never before – the interconnection of climate change, the Green New Deal, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Step by step, changing and controlling human society.
The COVID-19 lockdown has been the master experiment as to how much manipulation people will accept out of fear. It has been the grand experiment to get us to stop driving, reducing energy use, and change our living habits. All called for in the Green New Deal. Arn Menconi, an environmental activist and recent candidate for the Colorado state senate said, the “coronavirus has proved we can afford the Green New Deal and Medicare for all.”
But there is much more planned for the reorganization of human society that few have counted on. Take careful note of the growing manipulation of the free market, a main target of Agenda 21/GND policy. Global corporations, such as Amazon and Walmart, that have agreed to join in Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) with government to promote the Sustainable policies, have been allowed to continue near normal operations and they are thriving in the lockdowns. Meanwhile local, small, independent businesses have been forced to close their doors. As those small business jobs are lost, employees are left with little alternative than to seek positions in the global behemoths or accept government handouts. Soon, we will begin to see the corporations demanding that employees accept Bill Gates’ mandatory COVID vaccines or lose their jobs. That means that more and more will have no choice but too march in lockstep with the dictates of their masters. Free thought, free market competition, and free expression will no longer exist anywhere but in the minds of those old enough to remember “when”. These are all the enemies of totalitarianism and must be curtailed.
They’ve managed to find the perfect scare tactic to get us all to “voluntarily” give up our liberties, allow government to shut us in our homes, kill our jobs, stop our schools, and destroy human contact. They have finally achieved the vision of British monarch, Prince Phillip who once said, “If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” Never tell these people a joke, because they will eventually turn it into global policy!
How do we stop this drive to destroy our way of life? One thing the COVID lock-down has proven, is that we must regain control of local and state governments. It was mayors and governors who led the way to enforce most of the draconian controls over our ability to move about, go to work and church, see our doctors, and open our businesses. That’s why it’s imperative that those concerned about stopping this transformation must become active on the local level, organizing, researching, speaking out and running effective local government campaigns.
One major obstacle standing in the way of the forces of freedom to stop this drive for global governance is that too many on the Right have ignored the threat, joining in the chorus against we who have been sounding the alarm. Not one mainstream, Washington, DC-based conservative organization will even mention the words Agenda 21 or the many issues connected to the global agenda. Many Republicans in Congress lamely accept many of the environmental positions, instead offering lighter, “more reasonable” positions. Once they do that, they’ve already lost the argument. Today’s mainstream Conservative movement has changed little of their tactics from those used 50 years ago, when they were fighting Soviet communism. Yet, as the environmental movement takes over the American beef industry and leads the way to destroy private property rights and single-family neighborhoods, little action is taken. We cannot win if we ignore the massive loss of property in cities and farms. We cannot win if we fail to stand with the growing number of Americans who are suffering from the radical environmental assault. We have to change the debate and appeal to the growing legions of victims. And we must learn that the most effective place to begin the fight is on the local level in our communities – not on Capitol Hill.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter in 49 states. Think about that when you look at today’s election results. When that happened, the Left said “never again” and they began to organize. They focused on the local level and not just city council and county commission races. No position was too small or unimportant, including appointed boards, and even city hall jobs. These are the places where policy is decided and regulations, licensing, and government attitudes are prepared and carried out. When was the last time a local Republican group discussed the importance of the office of City Attorney? Yet these are the positions of power that have enforced the COVID lock-downs. After this most recent election don’t you wish we had some influence over voter registration and Board of Elections? This is how the Democrats have managed to turn formerly red states blue. Pure determination.
Every freedom-loving American must become vitally aware that we now face the most powerful, determined force of evil to ever threaten humanity. To defeat them we must become equally determined to do the dirty work which our side has ignored for fifty years. This includes, local organization of precincts, finding viable candidates to run, and controlling the debate over issues as they appear, making sure our side is heard. We must decide to relentlessly focus on the three pillars of freedom, including protection of private property rights, taking necessary steps to help small business thrive, and assure that government is a servant of the citizens rather than citizens submitting to government.
Take such actions to secure your community as a Freedom Pod where these rights are the backbone of every decision made by your local government. If you are successful, the idea will get the attention of neighboring communities and another Freedom Pod will be planted there — and then the next and the next. These are the actions we must take to “flatten the Socialist curve” and take America back! As Winston Churchill said, “Never Give In, Never, Never, Never.”
Tom DeWeese is one of the nation’s leading advocates of individual liberty, free enterprise, private property rights, personal privacy, back-to-basics education and American sovereignty and independence.He is also the founder of The American Policy Center.He is the author of several books.
Is all talk about the use of CIA computer programs called Hammer and Scorecard to digitally change millions of votes and steal the election for Joe Biden sheer “nonsense”? It is according to Snopes, as well as the other establishment-anointed “fact checkers” such as PolitiFact.com, FactCheck.org, BuzzFeedNews.com, and MSN.com. So that settles the matter, right? Actually, it does not.
As has been reliably shown in critical reports by diverse sources (see here, here, here, and here), including The New American (see here), Snopes is notorious for its left-leaning bias. Ditto for many of the other “fact checkers” that comprise the gaslighting chorus that pretends to debunk any claim that contradicts the party line laid down by the Fake News industrial complex: “Nothing to see here, just silly conspiracy theories, move along.” (We’ll return to Snopes and the Big Media-aligned coterie of fact-check fraudsters later on.)
Legendary NSA “Spooks” Binney and Wiebe Weigh In
In an interview with The New American’s senior editor William F. Jasper on December 21, National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower J. Kirk Wiebe discussed the massive vote tampering that took place in the 2020 presidential election. He included evidence of vote fraud done via computer describing the criminal use of the CIA-developed Hammer and Scorecard programs, which many voices in the Fake News echo chamber claim don’t exist. He also discussed the Dominion Voting Systems software and machines used in many states, and the abysmal state of security and integrity of our voting system, a point that many independent studies by nonpartisan experts have been warning about for years.
Wiebe served in the NSA for decades and has been a key sentinel in many major national security crises and challenges. Together with the legendary Dr. William Binney and Ed Loomis, he helped develop many of the software programs and technologies that are crucially important in finding, monitoring, and tracking terrorists globally, as well keeping tabs on foreign state actors such as Russia, China, Cuba, and Iran. Wiebe, Binney, and Loomis were pioneers in the computer age for Signals Intelligence (SigInt).
For his many contributions to our nation’s security, Wiebe was awarded the Meritorious Civilian Service Award, NSA’s second highest distinction. Wiebe, Binney, and Loomis left the NSA when they learned that programs they had helped develop to keep America safe from foreign enemies were being used illegally by the NSA to spy on virtually all Americans. The trio became whistleblowers to alert American elected officials and the American people that the federal alphabet spy agencies are out of control.
Much of the media that treated them as heroes when they were exposing the illegal surveillance-state operations of the Republican Bush administration had little to no interest in their continued warnings when the Democrat Obama administration continued — and expanded — the illegal surveillance. Obama’s Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper publicly lied and committed perjury in congressional hearings when he stated that NSA has not/does not illegally spy on and collect data (including phone calls, texts, and emails) of millions of Americans. Yet, not only was Clapper not prosecuted for perjury and criminal violation of the privacy rights of tens of millions of Americans, he was rewarded with a commentator job at CNN. Meanwhile Wiebe, Binney, and Loomis continue to be considered media outcasts because they refuse to go along with the party line narrative of Big Media and the Deep State “Intelligence Community” (IC).
Wiebe Confirms General McInerney’s Cyber Warfare Thesis
On November 11, The New American conducted a video interview with Lt. General Thomas G. McInerney (USAF, retired), who has been the most high-profile expert warning about the digital side of the election rigging in tandem with the more traditional vote-stuffing methods. The three-star general, a highly decorated Vietnam War fighter pilot (over 400 combat missions) and top USAF/NORAD commander and DOD official, emphasizes that what we have recently experienced is not simply vote fraud, but actual cyber warfare carried out by “enemies foreign and domestic.” General McInerney laid out the criminal use of the secret Hammer-Scorecard program by the Obama administration (including DNI Clapper, CIA chief Brennan, and FBI director Comey) to throw U.S. elections.
Using his vast national security experience and hi-tech knowledge, Kirk Wiebe has joined together with General McInerney, General Paul Vallely (USA, retired), Dr. Binney, and other military and national security professionals to expose this existential threat to our Republic and our freedom. Wiebe argues that this massive election fraud, on an unprecedented scale, is the latest step in the ongoing, treasonous coup effort against President Trump by members of the Deep State, including high-level members of the Intelligence Community, which he served for many years.
Snopes and the “Factchecker” Posse Fail in Their Debunking Effort
Back to Snopes. The title for its November 9 attack on the Hammer-Scorecard thesis is, “Is There a ‘Hammer and Scorecard’ Operation to Manipulate Vote Counts?” Snopes then answers its own question with a subtitle that reads: “The director of the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) called the rumors ‘nonsense.’”
The body of the article begins:
In the days after news outlets called the 2020 U.S. presidential election and projected that Joe Biden would be the 46th president of the United States, the internet was flooded with various unfounded claims about voter fraud. One popular rumor concerned something called “Hammer and Scorecard.” While this rumor was wide ranging, it basically held that a “deep state” supercomputer named “Hammer” and a computer program called “Scorecard” were being used to alter vote counts.
Reiterating, in the next paragraph, that the existence of Hammer-Scorecard is only a “rumor,” Snopes goes on to state, “We should note that Christopher Krebs, the director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security — a position he was nominated to in 2018 by U.S. President Donald Trump — has called the ‘Hammer and Scorecard’ rumors ‘nonsense.”
Snopes then imbeds a tweet from Krebs at CISA:
Is Chris Krebs a Reliable Authority?
Snopes appears to believe that an argument from authority (especially a biased authority with conflicts of interest) can pass for dispositive evidence. Chris Krebs may appear to be an impressive authority by reason of his (former) position, but as we have shown (“Media Darling and Fired Cyber Security Chief Chris Krebs Is a Deep State Operative”), Krebs cannot be reasonably considered an impartial, nonpartisan observer. First of all, as we pointed out, Krebs and his agency have no competence or authority to issue any pronouncements concerning election fraud, as CISA and Krebs have acknowledged — after the fact, though the Krebs-CISA admissions have not received even a scintilla of the coverage that the media have lavished on their statements denying there was any election fraud.
Secondly, publicly available evidence indicates that Krebs (along with his CISA deputy, Matt Travis) is indeed a very partisan political hack, with deep ties to James Clapper, Michael Chertoff, Bill Gates, and other virulently anti-Trump individuals and groups. All of which is, naturally, completely ignored by Snopes, PolitiFact and the rest of the “fact checker” posse. They all rely heavily on the Krebs/CISA statements to “debunk” Scorecard-Hammer.
On the other hand, we have Generals McInerney and Vallely and NSA cyber experts Wiebe and Binney making very specific charges and assertions about Scorecard-Hammer — and providing evidence, along with their acknowledged expertise. Do Scorecard-Hammer exist? Snopes/Krebs say it’s just “rumor.” Well, the shortcut to a superabundance of solid evidence, including court documents, affidavits, court rulings, and testimony, showing that the program was indeed created by the CIA, can be accessed through the meticulously researched, in-depth reporting by investigative journalists Mary Fanning and Alan Jones at TheAmericanReport.org, which we will be covering in greater detail in forthcoming articles and interviews.
In short, among the evidence Fanning and Jones cite is the March 3, 2018 ruling by U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon in the case of Dennis Montgomery, et al, Plaintiffs, v. James Comey, Defendant, in which Judge Leon states that counsel for the government assured the court that Montgomery’s hard drives are being kept in a “secure facility.” Dennis Montgomery is the CIA contractor/inventor/technical whiz (his detractors say “con man”) who invented Hammer for the CIA for the “War on Terror.” Judge Leon states that the government counsel, representing James Comey and the FBI, “represented to this Court that the ‘hard drives are in a secure facility with the Intelligence Community’s Office of Inspector General” and that there was “no risk” that they were “going to be destroyed anytime soon.” Montgomery’s 47 hard drives reportedly contained over 600 million pages of illegally harvested surveillance data.
In his interview with The New American, Kirk Weibe stated that earlier this year, nearly eight months before the November election, he, along with his wife and Dr. Binney, delivered a thumb drive with 85,000 documents from Montgomery’s hard drives to the House Intelligence Committee in Washington, D.C. The purpose of providing the documents to Congress, he said, was to show them the gravity of our current situation and to warn them that these capabilities could be used in the November election. His warnings, apparently, went unheeded.
Pickling is the process by which foods are soaked in various solutions to increase the acidity of the food so that microorganisms that cause illness and food spoilage cannot grow. Socialism, and liberalism in general, takes on the form of a similar “fermenting process” by which logic, reasoning, and simple common sense cannot any longer grow in one’s mind. A case study—a Seattle City Councilwoman named Lisa Herbold.
It is not enough that our unconstitutional socialistic systems such as found in Seattle champion taking money from the “rich” to give to the poor in a multiplicity of government programs including: unemployment benefits, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, government grants, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid, Federal Student Financial Aid (FAFSA), Free School Meals for Children, Disaster relief programs, WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) subsidies, Senior Citizens’ Aid programs, government assistance with home energy, prescription drug aid, assistance in telephone services, Social Security, disability money, public housing vouchers, and the list goes on.
This is not to mention the fact that there is plenty of voluntary assistance to the poor by a multitude of churches and charitable organizations.
Enough is never enough with the lawless such as Councilwoman Lisa Herbold. She has proposed legislation whereby misdemeanor suspects can escape charges if they can show “symptoms of mental illness or addiction or if they can prove the crime provided for a need to survive.” This is the infamous “poverty defense.”
Herbold says that these defendants need to have an “opportunity to tell their stories” and allow the judges and juries “to hear their stories and make a decision based on the values of our city.” Sounds like spoiled children who cannot handle a teachers’ authority and have to “tell their side of things” when told simple commands in the schoolhouse, such as “sit down.”
The explanation for the “poverty defense” is explained by another on a Seattle television station. “In a situation where you took that sandwich because you were hungry and you were trying to meet your basic need of satisfying your hunger; we as the community will know that we should not punish that. That conduct is excused.”
Yet Lisa Herbold, being a government official, does not wish to live by the “values of her city.” When a man threw a rock through her house window, the councilwoman … yes … called the police. My Northwest reported that Herbold “was on the west side of the living room near the kitchen when she heard a loud noise that sounded like a gunshot and dove into the kitchen for cover.”
Not only is Lisa Herbold unable to see that no one wishes to live by Seattle’s valueless values—for a value does not respect persons rich or poor—but she herself refuses to abide by her own proposals. As a matter of fact, the entire city is seeing a huge spike in crime since the city of Seattle has approved an 18% cut to the Seattle Police Department. Consequently, murders have sky-rocketed. So much for Seattle’s take on values.
This is what occurs when you empty values of any meaningful content by excusing crime because of “poverty,” or organize to cut law enforcement.
Perhaps when Lisa Herbold phoned the police, she should have been told that the police that would have been sent was a part of the 18% cut and that she was on her own. And why call the police to begin with, Ms. Herbold? As Scott Lindsay, former mayoral Public Safety Advisor stated,” If you are engaged in 100 misdemeanors that are in our criminal justice system code, you are not going to be held liable. You are not going to be held accountable.”So why call against a man committing a misdemeanor?
What do you wish the police to do, Lisa? Arrest the man so that you can gather your friends on the streets and harangue in front of the cameras about “police brutality” and moan about law enforcement harassing people over misdemeanors?
Selwyn Duke tells in The New American of a tour guide in Hungary who once explained to visitors how that nations’ Marxists “dealt with” Christians. “It wasn’t that you couldn’t be a Christian … you could pray at home, worship at home and with your family, even get baptized and go to church. However, you had a choice. You could either be a Christian … or you could be successful.”
Unfortunately, this is the same picture that is being filled in America today, and will become eminently so if and when Biden takes the oath of office. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), which is America’s largest and most powerful LGBTQ Lobby, is pushing the incoming Biden Administration to target Christian Colleges and Universities, and in essence, Christianity itself. The HRC offers 85 suggestions in their Blueprint for Positive Change, including eliminating non-discrimination exemptions for religious colleges if they refuse to ABANDON the biblical position on marriage.
Holding the federal government’s “accreditation” standards above the heads of Christian educational institutions, the HRC recommends:
Language regarding accreditation of religious institutions of higher education in the Higher Education Opportunity Act could be interpreted to require accrediting bodies to accredit religious institutions that discriminate or that do not meet science based curricula standards. The Department of Education should issue a regulation clarifying that this provision, which requires accreditation agencies to ‘respect the stated mission’ of religious institutions, does not require the accreditation of religious institutions that do not meet neutral accreditation standards including nondiscrimination policies and scientific curriculum requirements.
There it is in plain language. Withhold accreditation to Christian Universities if they do not abandon biblical standards for teaching, hiring admissions, student housing, student life, college clubs and organizations, and even teaching. There will be no student loans—since the government already has removed that from the free market several years ago—no grants, no assistance to fund private university education. Christian schools must lose their Christianity.
Setting aside the forcible co-opting of “science” to imply that people are born homosexual—for science is not determined by political pressure, and science has NOT substantiated that people are born homosexual—consider also the fact that converting people to Jesus Christ is to be outlawed.
Beneath the section Department of Education, a sub-section is entitled “Prohibit Pupil Services from Engaging in Conversion Therapy or Referring Students to Conversion Therapy.”
“Conversion therapy,” the phrase that the LGBTQ community uses for making efforts to “convert” or “change” a person from their so-called “sexual orientation”, is absolutely forbidden. As noted above, the homosexual community dons the false mantra of “science”—aided and abetted by the Democratic/Socialist Party—and from that standpoint, demands that no “school counselor” or “school-based mental health professionals” or “social worker” provide or even refer students to “providers of conversion therapy.”
What shall we say to these things?
First, this means that the homosexual agenda is so weak that it needs the full strength of government force to demand that society “recognize” that homosexuals are “born that way.” It naturally follows from this that there will be no preaching of the message of Christ which requires repentance from sinful activity. This is tantamount to setting the government itself up to define what is SIN and what is NOT Sin.
For those who suppose that this would never occur in America, they are lagging in information. Such laws already exist in states such as California and New Jersey—the latter state having implemented similar programs during Gov. Chris Christie’s governorship.
Second, this is nothing less than an unabashed war on Christianity and biblical values and anyone who espouses them. Next we will be hearing, “Bring on the Lions!” It is past time for Christians to engage and get political, if they wish to preserve their freedoms. The Democratic Party, and now the government itself, is at war with you.
An example of how the homosexual agenda turns logic and morality upside down is its push for recognition of “inalienable rights.”
The Homosexual Lobby explains that, in the past, “The Commission on Unalienable Rights” was created by the State Department “to challenge the international consensus”; but it had a too “narrow view of human rights.” This narrow view has left “LGBTQ people” out. Hence, the HRC demands the Biden Administration bring on a “principles based approach” which would be fully “inclusive” for homosexuals.
In short, HRC demands that homosexual practices be counted as an inalienable right. However, This empties the concept of all meaningful content. Rights are inalienable because they are given by God—that’s why they are inalienable—they cannot be removed without incurring the wrath of God. This is sole reason government was formed to begin with—to protect what God gave us. “…to secure these rights governments are instituted among men…”
But HRC repudiates God and His Holy Word. As a matter of fact, not just the HRC’s strategy, but any effort that seeks a government endowment to define or give “rights” has nothing to do with the concept of “inalienable.” Government endowments are not inalienable. They are government grants; government creations. And what government can give, the government has the ability to remove. When God is removed from the equation the concept of “inalienable” evaporates.
Over a century and a half ago, Frederic Bastiat, who was trying to preserve freedom in France, explained to the world the following.
Life, faculties, production—in other words, individuality, liberty, property—this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.
The inescapable quandary of the homosexual community is this: it wishes to repudiate God—Who makes our rights “inalienable.” Yet, it wishes to retain the idea of “inalienable.” Beware of the HRC and its influence on the Biden Administration.
Conservatives were once a lonely band of freethinkers
In the early 1950s, liberal intellectuals shaped the American zeitgeist, while conservatives, to quote Yale professor Willmoore Kendall, manned “tiny outposts” over a broad front, rarely communicating with one another.
When 39 American and European conservative intellectuals, calling themselves “traditional liberals,” formed an organization in the spring of 1947, they did not meet in America but thousands of miles away in Mont Pelerin, Switzerland. Their mood was somber, for statism had permeated the governments of Western Europe while communism ruled in Eastern Europe with a little help from the Soviet Army. Led by the Austrian economist F. A. Hayek, these free-market scholars described their goal, rather grandly, as “the preservation and improvement of the free society.” Economist Milton Friedman contented himself with saying the meeting demonstrated that “we were not alone.” All too alone were conservative academics such as University of Chicago English professor Richard Weaver, Duke political scientist Ralph Hallowell, Louisiana State University political philosopher Eric Voegelin, Harvard historian William Y. Elliott, and UC Berkeley sociologist Robert Nisbet.
There were scattered conservative publications, with small circulations compared with those of established liberal journals such as The New Republic and The Nation. Human Events was a weekly eight-page political newsletter. Firmly anti–New Deal, it described the changes in American government since 1932 as “revolutionary” and called on Republicans to roll back the “iron curtain” that separated Washington from the rest of the country. But its call to action had attracted a circulation of only 5,000.
The one conservative youth group was the newly born ISI, with its paradoxical name, the Intercollegiate Society of Individualists (now the Intercollegiate Studies Institute). Encouraged by a $1,000 check from oil executive J. Howard Pew, ISI’s organizers argued that the push toward socialism in America had begun in the early 1900s with the formation of Socialist Clubs on college campuses. ISI’s plan was to “foment the organization of campus cells for the study and discussion of individualistic ideas.” The libertarian language reflected the ideology of its founding father, Frank Chodorov, who never met a government program he didn’t want to dismantle. With William F. Buckley Jr. as president, ISI reached 600 members in its first year and then quadrupled over the next several, revealing a campus appetite for at least some conservative ideas.
There were conservative newspaper columnists, such as George Sokolsky, and radio broadcasters, such as Fulton Lewis Jr., but liberals undercut their influence by linking them whenever they could with a “militant right wing.” CBS’s Mike Wallace, for example, invited his viewers one evening to listen to Lewis explain “the attraction the far right has for crackpot fascist groups in America.” Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
When The Conservative Mind was published in 1953, liberals joked that the title was an oxymoron. But they stopped laughing when they read Kirk’s synthesis of the thought of leading conservatives from the late 18th century to the 20th century, including Edmund Burke, John Adams, Daniel Webster, Benjamin Disraeli, George Santayana, and T. S. Eliot. The work established convincingly that there had been a conservative tradition in America since the Founding. Kirk made conservatism intellectually respectable. In fact, as NR publisher William Rusher pointed out, he gave the conservative movement its name.
As George Nash has written in his indispensable study The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945, there were three reactions to the Left in the aftermath of World War II. The first, as represented by Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom, consisted of classical liberals and libertarians, resisting the threat to individual liberty posed by the collectivist state. The second was the revolt of traditionalists, such as Weaver and Kirk, who urged a return to time-honored religious and ethical beliefs and a rejection of moral relativism. The third was, in Nash’s words, “a militant evangelistic anti-Communism,” shaped by ex-communists such as Frank Meyer and Whittaker Chambers, author of the powerful autobiographical work Witness.
Bill Buckley’s special genius as a master fusionist was his ability to keep these dissimilar, disputatious intellectuals on the same masthead for years to come. Why were there so few defectors? Because of Buckley’s extraordinary skill at harmonizing the conflicting voices of the conservative choir. Because he persuaded his fractious colleagues to concentrate on their common enemy — the Soviet Union — and set aside for the time being their undoubted differences. And because he helped them realize they were part of something historic — what Buckley would call “our movement.”
Lee Edwards is the distinguished fellow in conservative thought at The Heritage Foundation’s B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics. A leading historian of American conservatism, Edwards has published 25 books, including “Just Right: A Life in Pursuit of Liberty.”
Time for Separation?/Secession? Inspired by two articles: (a) Walter Williams’ “Its time to part company”–written twenty years ago; and (b) Thomas Del Beccaro in The Epoch Times (11/25-12/1/20) entitled “The end of the Electoral College Would Lead to the Breakup of the United States.” We explore the possibility that America, especially with the socialists taking over America under Joe Biden, might be on the verge of breaking apart. This is particularly the case if the ELECTORAL COLLEGE goes the way of all the earth–as promised by the Democrat Party.
This topic takes up the FIRST and SECOND segments of the show.
The Welfare State. A look at the Constitution–plus a reach back to the Goldberg v. Kelly (March 1970) Supreme Court decision which made welfare “entitlement” payments equal to “private property” and a “right” CREATED by the Federal Government. What are the implications of such a decision.
American Liberty with Bill Lockwood is about the culture of America — not simply about politics. Bill Lockwood is a preacher, teacher, writer, and radio host with a weekly program based in West Texas.