Help support ad free content with a one time donation or becoming a member today.

Thank you to our sponsors
https://connollyandsonsconcrete.com/
https://www.dentistry4health.org
http://www.highercallingfirearms.com
http://www.americanappliancehvac.com
https://insurewithcompass.com/sbarlow.html

TRANSCRIPT

So now let’s look at another organization, one of these, you know, people, the
National Rifle Association that states that it’s there to protect your Second
Amendment rights. What, I mean, I think it’s known, but I think it’s good to
illustrate what is the public image of the National Rifle Association? In a recent
closed door speech to donors, politicians, and media, Bill Clinton spoke about
American gun owners. Quote, A lot of these people, all they’ve got is they’re
hunting, then they’re fishing, or they’ve been listening to this stuff for so long
that they believe it all, unquote. And we all remember Barack Obama’s 2008 comments
to a room of San Francisco elites. Quote, it’s not surprising then they get bitter.
They cling to guns or religion, unquote. The arrogance in their superiority requires
this reminder. They don’t rule us. They don’t give us rights. We grant them power.
They don’t make us safe. We pay to protect them. They don’t make us free. We’re
free already. And as long as we have the Second Amendment, we always will be.
We are America. And our politicians are only as powerful as we, the people,
allow them to be.
In an effort to energize the gun rights activists, he released this incendiary
fundraising letter. That the semi -auto ban gives jackbooted government thugs more
power to take away our constitutional rights, break in our doors, seize our guns,
destroy our property, and even injure or kill us. Aren’t you concerned when you say
Nazi bucket helmets, government thugs, kicking down doors,
killing maiming people?
your God -given rights. And that, oh my, look at, look at, he is, you know, calling
out the government for being the jackbooted thugs that they are. And he is standing
up to that liberal Tim Russert, man, he is going to show him what’s up. That’s the
public image. Again, words versus fruits. So we look at the real NRA,
according to their own records, their own words. They received government funding From
their inception in the 1800s, all the way up until the 1970s. In the 1920s,
they actually pushed for gun control measures in nine states requiring a permit to
carry a gun. The NRA, before the NRA gets involved, there’s no permit.
You don’t have to get government permission to carry a gun. NRA gets involved, and
they push a bill that says, you need government permission to carry a gun. and a
waiting period in a record of purchase going to the government. So because the NRA,
we now have records of who purchases guns. They lobbied to ban mail order sales of
guns in 1967. Prior to 1967 and the NRA’s pushing of a bill,
you could buy a gun just right over the mail. In the 1968, they lobbied for
tracking of guns and banning the shipment across state lines unless you were
licensed. You’ve got government permission to do so.
In their own publication, the American Rifleman in 1968, they bragged about their
involvement of pushing more government intrusion into your right of self -defense,
saying, the NRA supported the National Firearms Act of 1934, which taxes and requires
registration of such firearms as machine guns, sought off rifles, and shot off
shotguns. NRA’s support of federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd
bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills, which through amendment,
would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts, bragging about their
taking away
zones and now the NRA who is supposed to be supporting your Second Amendment is
saying, we want you to have Second Amendment free zones where you’re not allowed to
be able to protect yourself. We think it’s reasonable to expect full enforcement of
federal firearms laws by the federal government. That’s why we support Project Exile,
providing five years federal prison for violations such as having a folding stock or
bayonet. The NRA wants you to spend five years in federal prison for simply having
a stock that folds or a knife at the end of your gun. This is the guys standing
up against Jack Boot Thugs. The Constitution authorizes zero restrictions on your
right of self -defense. But the NRA promoting themselves as defending the Second
Amendment, wants to destroy the Second Amendment and is working to destroy it. Now
they’re actually, you know, back after the Patriot Act, after the 9 -11 attack on
the Twin Towers, the demolition of the Twin Towers, they actually opposed gun owners
and expanding the government’s powers in the unconstitutional Patriot Act. You had
Rand Paul actually introduced legislation to stop this, and the NRA opposed Rand
Paul’s amendment, saying there have been no reports of the current Patriot Act being
abused, being abused. The whole thing’s an abuse. With respect to firearms records,
however, supporters suggest a far -fetched scenario in which every firearm sales record
in the country, tens or hundreds of millions of documents dating back to 1968 could
be sought. Of course, it’s being put into databases at this time. And so they
opposed actually preserving your right to privacy and your right to defend yourself.
They backed language that allows the BATF now to get access to every gun owner’s
purchase going back decades.

The post The NRA’s Shocking Impact on Gun Control appeared first on Tree of Liberty Society.

This is an excerpt from “Independence Month,” which you can watch in full, for FREE, here: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/cujwjd97pkst6amgyafa0/july-25-2022-independence-month.mp4?rlkey=175ddlkr446hgf0yjedcrjw8m&st=tc0dl2yd&dl=0

Help support ad-free content with a one time donation or becoming a member today.

Thank you to our sponsors

https://connollyandsonsconcrete.com/

https://www.dentistry4health.org

http://www.highercallingfirearms.com

http://www.americanappliancehvac.com

https://insurewithcompass.com/sbarlow.html

TRANSCRIPT

So what were some key points that were laid out in the Declaration of Independence about why they dissolved their union with the colonies of Great Britain? Because in the Declaration of Independence, they said that these things shouldn’t be done for light and transient purposes. That you can’t just be like, “Oh, you’re mean to me.” It’s got to be something serious. It’s got to be something that—not just because you’re angry—but there’s a real legitimate principled reason for the dissolving.

So they said that the king has erected a multitude of new offices and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. So now, is that something that we see today? Pulling up new offices, sending out the officers of those offices to harass the people and to take away—to bother the people—and then to take away the things that they have, their substance. I mean, not just going in there and grabbing their food out of their plate, but their ability to be able to provide for their families. This is absolutely—we see the same thing going on today.

Right now, there are at least 345 agencies, government corporations, quasi-official agencies, boards, commissions, etc., which claim authority to write rules for individuals and businesses. None of these people are elected. None of these people are accountable. And in fact, the government doesn’t even know how many employees are a part of this system. They don’t even know. And so we have the same thing here—maybe even more so. I don’t know if the king had 345 different of these agencies out there. We’ve been able to find new ways to harass people.

And then we have examples of this. The feds come in and they arrest a family using the Commerce Clause of the vile… of the Constitution, saying, “Hey, you’re not allowed to sell raw milk.” So the federal government came into a local community and threw them in prison—just simply because—and ruined their ability to feed their families simply because they had the audacity to sell milk that still has vitamins in it.

We have OSHA. This is just last year—or this year, I’m sorry, January of this year—is fining workplaces over $13,500 for every infraction to accommodate President Biden’s vaccine mandate. So that never came to fruition, but that was something that they were prepared and ready to do. And it’s something that there’s a version of that’s happening all of the time to different businesses throughout the country. So yeah, they are—just like—they are eating out our substance.

Four companies accused of violating COVID-19 health protocols are fined by OSHA. So because they didn’t enforce mask mandates, they were fined by OSHA. So they’re eating out our substance. We’re seeing the same thing.

So another one: the king has affected to render the military independent and superior to the civil power. Okay, so meaning—he took it away from the Parliament even—and their ability to be able to dispatch the military—and took it to himself, as an individual, to be able to decide when the military is used.

So in the Constitution, the military is supposed to be under the civil power—meaning you have a Congress that has to declare war for the executive branch to be able to direct the military for a space of two years. And beyond—even closer to the civil power—the local people, you have the National Guard, and it should be the militias (that don’t exist right now, unconstitutionally). Your local governors were the ones that were supposed to be the ones that sent them out. And they could nullify—they could say, “No, this is an unjust war. This is improper,” and they wouldn’t send them out. So that’s what we have now.

But just like the king did during the 1700s, we have the president sending out 10,000 troops to Afghanistan as Taliban forces… So instead of Congress doing this, we have the executive branch doing it. He says Biden is boosting U.S. troops in Europe because of Russia’s war in Ukraine. So instead of Congress declaring a war and our local leaders sending out the local militia to fight these foreign battles, the president is rendering the military independent and superior to the civil power. This has happened over and over again. You have other presidents—they called up the National Guard and directed them to the Middle East under the direction of the presidency and the United Nations, and not under the civil power.

Our military has been sent up to Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Bosnia, Yugoslavia, Ukraine, Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Nicaragua—tons and tons of different places. Our military has been sent out under the direction of what would be the equivalent of the king or president, instead of the civil power.

So: “He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation.” So now our government has signed us up to over—almost—90 different foreign institutions, subjecting us to their laws—making it… well, their pretend legislation—making us obey, making us assent to the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the G20, the NAFTA, the new version, USMCA, NATO, and dozens upon dozens of other international bodies that are telling us what to do and making rules for individual businesses and families to obey.

So the family would obey it—but not directly. They’re not realizing that they’re getting a directive from the United Nations or the World Bank. But their loaning system, the regulations on why their house was built, for example—these are all done under international regulations. And so we are being forced to assent to these organizations’ pretend legislation.

So now, another thing that was a claim against the crown was transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses. So we have U.S. citizens who are being held prisoner in Guantanamo Bay and other foreign prisons without due process. And there are other prisons that we have and we’ll be talking about.

So Christie asked, when was the last time our country went to war legally? That was during World War II—it was the last time war was declared by Congress. So it’s been a while.

“He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us.” Just the most recent example of this—this has happened throughout the years though—is: I did a video, I did a report exposing how I could prove that the government was behind the riots that we had in 2020. They are exciting—the government is stirring up and directing and organizing insurrections among those terrorist attacks amongst us.

So how do we come to a dissolving again? Amongst those which join together to form a government in a country, it is absolutely requisite that there be a perfect consent and agreement concerning the use of the means of government. If they do not agree, they will clash. Right? This is what we’re seeing today. This is a clear parallel that we see going on, that we can see. You don’t have to be a prophet. You don’t have to be able to see into the future. You just have these things that people have noticed. Right? Isaac Newton didn’t invent prophecy—gravity—he discovered it. He was able to explain it.

And so the same thing here. What we’re saying is that, well, you know, it’s come to a point in the United States that it’s not even like, “Hey, this is going to happen.” This is happening right now. Everything that we’re seeing is happening. It’s leading to these clashes that were talked about.

And so John Adams—it was something that they understood. And so what did he say when he saw these things happening? We had all of those things that the Founding Fathers listed as their grievances against the crown, listed in the Declaration of Independence. I encourage everyone to go back and read that if they haven’t.

He gave a talk—and this was what’s interesting—this was before the Declaration of Independence. Okay, a lot of times people think that the war started after the Declaration of Independence. But the Founding Fathers recognized that even though a war hadn’t been declared, that the crown had declared war on them through his actions.

And I mentioned this before, just the last couple of weeks—we need to start to realize that the war on us has already begun. We just have to recognize it. It’s already started.

“If we postpone independence, do we mean to carry on or to give up the war? Do we mean to submit to the measures of Parliament, Boston Port Bill and all?” Are we going to postpone? Are we going to give this up? Are we going to say, “Oh, we’re going to get hopium and say that this is going to get better later on?” “Do we mean to submit and consent that we ourselves shall be ground to powder and our country and its rights trodden down in the dust?”

“The war, then, must go on.” Because they’re not going to do that. “We must fight it through. And if the war must go on, why put off longer the Declaration of Independence?” That measure will strengthen us.

So he was selling the idea of having a Declaration of Independence. And he says, this isn’t going to cause more problems for us. These problems are already here. And that’s what we see a lot of times today is, “Hey, you calling out the conspirators, you saying what they’re doing is bad, is going to cause more problems.” No, the problems are already here. We need to stop the gaslighting of saying, “Hey, we’re just going to try to make nice with these people.” They’ve already declared war on us. Calling it for what it is—it’s only going to strengthen us.

“It is my living sentiment, and by the blessing of God, it shall be my dying sentiment: Independence now and independence forever.”

And it was this talk—amongst others—that was able to help build support for what needed to happen. There was no reconciliation. There was nothing that could be done to bring the colonies back under British rule. The people had recognized what was going on, and the king was just getting more and more tyrannical. And the only thing to do was to be trodden down or to leave.

The post Independence Now and Independence FOREVER! appeared first on Tree of Liberty Society.

Iran is consistently presented as the “globalist boogeyman,” especially with recent events. This isn’t new. An article from 17 years ago shows Dick Cheney and George W. Bush threatening to act on Iran, with the President unwilling to leave the conflict unresolved. This agenda has been in the works for a long time. In 2004, Condoleezza Rice, another Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member, stated that “Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear arms,” warning that President Bush would use “all the tools that are available to him to stop Iran’s program”. The message is clear: Iran is not allowed to have a nuclear weapon.

This narrative continues. In 2012, Benjamin Netanyahu claimed Iran was “on the brink of a nuclear bomb in six to seven months”. Just two days ago, another article echoed this, with Netanyahu declaring an operation necessary to “roll back the Iranian threat to Israel’s very survival,” stating that Iran could produce a nuclear weapon “in a very short time” if not stopped. This “boogeyman” narrative has persisted for 20 to 30 years.

They constantly bring up arguments about Iran being a “Muslim dictatorship” that does “horrible things to women and children,” and how they “shout death to America and death to Israel,” thus justifying their inability to have a nuclear bomb. But who is promoting this narrative? Those in the Satanic Conspiracy, along with its members and associated roundtable groups such as the Council on Foreign Relations.

So, why is the conspiracy so fixated on disarming Iran, even if they never truly intend to act, perhaps using it as a distraction? We need to understand the real goal when one nation dictates another’s right to possess weapons. Ask yourself: What would happen if Iran, or Russia, or England, or Israel, or any other nation, told the United States it wasn’t allowed to have nuclear weapons anymore? We’d tell them to “pound sand,” right? This is the mindset they’re trying to instill – that certain nations aren’t allowed to defend themselves.

Who Wants War with Iran?

The Satanic globalists want war with Iran. We must understand this when we look at the news and the scare tactics used to garner support for efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

War with Iran is an extension of the “Freedom from War” agenda. This is a U.S. State Department document, “Freedom from War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World,” State Department Document 7277, released in September 1961.

State Department Document 7277: The Disarmament Agenda

Let’s delve into State Department Document 7277. It states the goal is “to contain and reduce the nuclear threat,” meaning nations that haven’t agreed to a treaty prohibiting nuclear weaponstesting shall do so, and the “production of fissionable materials for use in weapons shall be stopped”. The ultimate goal is to ensure that all nations, without approval from the United Nations, are not allowed to produce any means of self defense.

Stage two of this program outlines “progressive control disarmament and continuously developing principles and procedures of international law” to a point “where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened UN peace force”. One of the primary goals is to prevent any nation from opposing the UN army. They use Orwellian “double-speak” by calling it a “peace force,” but it’s clearly a UN army.

The final phase of the disarmament program aims for a world where “States would retain only those forces, non-nuclear armaments, and establishments required for the purpose of maintaining internal order,” and they would also “support and provide agreed manpower for a UN peace force”. This means nations would either not develop anything beyond what they currently have, or they would be forced to get rid of armaments, keeping only what’s necessary to quell dissension against the New World Order within our nation’s borders. If a nation “needs help”, the UN Army can be called in to stop any “rebellion”. Essentially, they want to disarm both nations and individuals to prevent opposition to the UN and to tyrants within their own borders.

Furthermore, the manufacture of armaments for a nation’s internal use would be prohibited, except for “agreed types and quantities to be used by the UN Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order”. All other armaments would be “destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes”. And like all good communists, “peace” means not opposing the New World Order.

This document, State Department Document 7277, is the current policy of both the United Nations and the United States. The conspiracy’s goal is to disarm individuals and nations, taking away their means of self-defense and their ability to declare war on anyone not in compliance.

The Principle of Self-Defense

What’s happening with Iran is a direct reflection of this. The United States, in partnership with Israel, is essentially telling Iran it has “no sovereignty” in terms of what weapons it can possess, and that they will enforce this by force and by death. The principle here, as outlined in State Department Document 7277, is that the UN will be able to disarm any nation so they can’t compete with the military, the United Nations”. This principle also applies to individuals: if the government has the right to disarm nations, then in principle, it has the right to disarm individuals. They’ve explicitly stated this.

This State Department document, 7277, is shocking and still in force. We can see its implementation with what’s happening now with Israel and Iran. This isn’t just about Israel and Iran; it applies universally. The fundamental principle is the right of self-defense. Just because I don’t like my neighbor’s church doesn’t mean I get to take away his guns.  We need to understand “the law of nations“.

The core point is the right of self-defense. You can’t just claim your neighbor is doing something you don’t like and take away their guns. “Self-defense against unjust violence is not only the right, but the duty of a nation and one of her most sacred duties”. “Self-defense being authorized by the law of nature,” it “naturally belongs to everyone and requires no permission”. (See Emer De Vattel, Law Of Nations, 1758)

We don’t need UN permission to defend ourselves if attacked, just as an individual doesn’t need to call the police for permission to defend against a robbery. It is a natural right, and anyone that tries to take it away from you is a tyrant. This applies to nations as well as individuals.

Cato’s Letters, another foundational text for the Founding Fathers, states that “the great principle of self-preservation, which is the first and fundamental law of nature calls for this procedure”. “Whatever is necessary to the public safety is just”.(Cato’s Letters 1:94) “All men have a right to defend themselves”. “There is no law that can be legitimately passed that prevents you from defending yourself”. In fact, “Whoever violates this primary law of nature ought by the law of nature to be destroyed”. (1:291-292) This principle must be applied universally: if someone says another doesn’t have the right to defend themselves, “they’re wrong and they should be destroyed”.

Joseph Smith, in an 1844 letter to his wife, Emma, said: “There is one principle which is eternal. It is the duty of all men to protect their lives and the lives of their household whenever necessity requires and no power has a right to forbid it”. This is an inherent right for both individuals and groups. He also strongly stated that “Any man who will not fight for his wife and children is a coward and a bastard,” (Words of Joseph Smith, BYU Religious Studies Center, pg. 162) emphasizing that self-defense is not just a right, but a duty for individuals and nations.

George Q. Cannon urged, “it is also for your salvation to equip yourselves now”. He suggested having weapons readily available, stating, “there is nothing that the devil is so much afraid of as a weapon of death”. This highlights that the conspiracy fears self-defense, which is why they push for gun bans and promote the lie of “peaceful resistance”. (Journal of Discourses 5:164-165)

Brigham Young similarly stated,

“By what means did [God] keep the mob from destroying us? It was by means of being well armed with the weapons of death to send them to hell cross lots. We must be so prepared that they dare not come to us in a hostile manner without being assured they will meet a vigorous resistance, and ten to one they will meet their grave. I am my own policeman, and have slept, scores of nights, with my gun and sword by my side, that is, if I slept at all. I am still a policeman. Now is the day to watch.” (Journal of Discourses 1:171-172)

Pointing out that the modern local police department is a relatively new invention, and historically, individuals were responsible for defending themselves against mobs.

The End Goal: Global Disarmament under the UN

When we support denying any nation or person the right to defend themselves, we are supporting the “satanic conspiracy’s agenda of disarmament”. The goal, as we’ve seen, is the disarmament of nations. When world leaders say a country “cannot be allowed to own nukes,” they are following this State Department document. They are either knowingly or ignorantly, but most likely knowingly, implementing the New World Order agenda of allowing only the United Nations to have weapons, except for what’s needed to quell internal rebellion.

We need to understand this because many people are acting emotionally, supporting nations like Israel, even when they’re “claiming to be Israel when it’s not”. They say we must “stop these bad guys” because “they have a religion that I really don’t like” or “they’re doing things that I really don’t like”. While Iran may “shout death to America,” if they attack us, we have the right to defend ourselves, and they have every right to defend themselves if attacked. I will protect everyone’s right to defend themselves.

Enslavement and disarmament go hand in hand; ultimately, the goal is to disarm to enslave. Any church that advocates for disarmament is essentially advocating the enslavement of mankind. The arguments often heard on conservative media about Israel and Iran are problematic. They suggest killing people based on their “thoughts” or what they “say they want”. It doesn’t matter how bad the thought is; “nobody should be killed or murdered for their thoughts”. When Iranian comments about wiping Israel off the map are taken in context, they often mean that Israel is an “illegitimate nation” due to its foundations and “war crimes,” not a desire for a new Holocaust. While some may sincerely want that, it is “no grounds to murder somebody”.

The Wisdom of the Founding Fathers: Mind Our Own Business

What was the Founding Fathers’ position on engaging with other nations? It’s encapsulated in John Quincy Adams’ words: “America goes not abroad in search for monsters to destroy”. She is a “well-wisher to the freedom and independence,” but “she is the champion and vindicator only of her own”. We don’t vindicate or champion anyone else’s cause. America “will recommend the general cause by the countenance of her voice and the benign sympathy of her example”.

Adams warned that “by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence,” America “would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and entry of individual avarice, envy, and ambition”. The “fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force”. No matter the argument for intervention, the natural result is force. (John Quincy Adams, 4 July 1821)

This is precisely what we’re seeing: the implementation of the United Nations program to disarm the world, allowing only the UN to control global weapons, thus preventing resistance to their tyranny. It’s crucial to understand these principles, not just for current events, but to be aware and beware of the lies promoted by so-called conservatives promoting the globalist agenda. Anyone advocating to “stop Iran from having nuclear weapons” is part of the New World Order, or at least promoting their agenda. They expose themselves as a mouthpiece of the conspiracy and should not be taken seriously.

The post The Surrender of Sovereignty: What ‘Iran Can’t Have Nukes’ Really Means appeared first on Tree of Liberty Society.

This is an excerpt from The Silent INVASION of YOUR Town. View Ben’s full interview on the Dangerous Info podcast here: https://treeoflibertysociety.com/the-silent-invasion-of-your-town/

Get the book the powers that shouldn’t be are afraid for you to read at https://treeoflibertysociety.com/invasionbook/.

Help support ad-free content with a one time donation or becoming a member today.

Thank you to our sponsors

https://connollyandsonsconcrete.com/

https://www.dentistry4health.org

http://www.highercallingfirearms.com

http://www.americanappliancehvac.com

https://insurewithcompass.com/sbarlow.html

TRANSCRIPT

The Constitution doesn’t grant us our rights

In fact when you look at the Bill of Rights it’s a list of thou shalt nots

It’s basically like the Ten Commandments but for government

Thou shalt not write a law… government cannot write a law about freedom of speech about… you cannot infringe your right to religion

That doesn’t mean that the government buys you a press

That doesn’t mean the government buys you a website

It doesn’t mean the Second Amendment says government can’t take away your right to defend yourself

That doesn’t mean the government buys you a gun

They don’t provide you with anything

It’s simply saying government can’t do this

And then the Tenth Amendment says and if we didn’t give you the authority to do something just because we didn’t say you couldn’t do it if we didn’t say you could you can’t

And so we’re totally reversed now where we think that if they were prevented from it that’s what they can’t do

But anything else they can’t

It’s the exact opposite

We need to get back to understanding make America states again where we are… the states are the creator of the government which means we’re the master

And so we need to stop thinking of the federal beast as our master and start to reassert ourselves as the master and saying you’re told… not only were you told not given permission to do this you were specifically told you can’t do this and we’re not going to allow it anymore

The post Can They Just Take Away Your Freedom? appeared first on Tree of Liberty Society.

Help support ad-free content with a one time donation or becoming a member today.

Thank you to our sponsors

https://connollyandsonsconcrete.com/

https://www.dentistry4health.org

http://www.highercallingfirearms.com

http://www.americanappliancehvac.com

https://insurewithcompass.com/sbarlow.html

TRANSCRIPT

And so then we see the political theater, where on TV, you have the Democrats and Republicans pretending to fight each other.

They’re going to argue and they’re going to say that the other side hates with the other side hates freedom and they’re, you know, we’ve just got to be whatever side you’re on, you get to pick one because this is a real battle.

Whereas behind the scenes, they’re actually helping each other.

They’re actually on the same side.

Now they’re not just friends.

They’re actually promoting and working on the same agenda together and we just don’t realize it because we’re looking at the words as opposed to the fruit.

So, we’re going to kind of look at an example, a specific example of political theater.

We’re going to start with something that happened in the past, make it a little bit easier for us to kind of accept the fact that we were probably fooled.

And so, a lot of people, right, you’re going to say here, “Well, the lesser of two evils.”

Of course, George Bush, we didn’t agree with everything.

We can’t have And so at least he’s better than Bill Clinton. And so we’ve got to choose the lesser of these two evils.

And so a great speaker on the constitution, man by the name of Stephen Pratt, who’s no longer with us, actually gave a presentation, giving these two men as examples of what happens when we choose the lesser of two evils based on what we see on TV.

What is the media feeding us of who’s the lesser of two evils.

And answering, asking ourselves these questions, who increased the debt more?

So we’re going to find out who’s the lesser of these two evils.

It was actually George W. Bush that increased the debt more.

Who spent more money unconstitutionally?

It was actually George W. Bush that spent more money unconstitutionally than Bill Clinton.

Who grew government more?

By a long shot, it was George W. Bush more than Bill Clinton.

Who sent more troops into UN wars?

Again, George W. Bush.

Who attacked the Second Amendment more?

That one, you might have a little bit of a, you know, back and forth on that one.

Who got the feds more involved in education?

George W. Bush.

Who defended abortion more?

Abortion rights actually expanded and more money, more funding from the government went to abortion under Bush than actually Clinton.

Who had more globalists in his cabinet?

Shockingly enough, maybe to some of you, it was actually George W. Bush that had more globalists in his cabinet than even Bill Clinton.

That pesky, horrible Democrat that was just an immoral person that was trying to take our guns and was working with China as a horrible as a person he was. If you’re judging it on these things, you’re going to say that actually Bill Clinton was the lesser of two evils.

But that’s the false argument.

It’s not about the lesser of two evils because we’re not told the full story.

We need to understand that it’s a distraction because both of these men are on the same team.

They’re both fighting for world government.

They’re both working to destroy the liberty and independence of this nation.

And so fighting about who’s the worse or who’s the better is a distraction that benefits the conspiracy because you’re still picking between two globalists.

So both of them are going to get you to where the conspiracy wants you to be.

So left, right, it’s the same evil outcome.

Is it the lesser of two evils?

Now, of course not. We have this cartoon here that is just like, you know, the turkey choosing between the axe and the machete on which way he’s going to die.

Now, we want to compare, right?

Because what is the propaganda that gets us to believe the lesser of two evils, and that one person is less evil than another?

Leading up to the first Bush administration when he was running for office, they would have these debates, and he would present himself as being very anti-global globalism and pro-American independence.

And so let’s look at this.

Let’s see what does he say, what are his words?

But we can’t be all things to all people in the world, Jim.

And I think that’s where maybe the vice president I began to have some differences.

I’m worried about over committing our military around the world.

I want to be judicious in this use.

You mentioned Haiti, I wouldn’t have sent troops to Haiti.

I I think it was a mission worthwhile. It was a nation -building mission, and it was not very successful.

It cost us billions, a couple of billions of dollars, and I’m not so sure democracy is any better off in Haiti than it was before.

I’m not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, “This is the way it’s got to be.”

We can help.

And maybe it’s just our difference in government, the way we view government.

I mean, I want to empower people.

I don’t want to help people help themselves not have government tell people what to do.

I just don’t think it’s the role of the United States to walk into a country and say, “We do it this way, so should you.”

So we see, this is the narrative that they want you to think that he’s like, you know, this is just a difference in our philosophy of government.

You believe and we should be the policemen of the world and I think that we should empower people.

And so he’s saying that he’s anti-globals, these pro, you know, just keeping America out of the affairs of the world, no, we’re not the world’s policemen, but what’s the actual record, right?

He had five nation building, United Nations approved wars.

He did more than the previous administration.

So clearly what he was saying, his words were different than his fruits, as we’re supposed to judge.

And so of course, right, as if there was a difference.

After when Obama got into office, you have these billboards saying, do you miss me yet?

It was just a more of the same, not understanding that, right?

The same thing, we look at the national debt, continues to go up each president.

The Planned Parenthood, spending money on abortions continue to go up, no matter what.

Taxpayer money to the United Nations, global government continues to go up.

And so we need to start to under… because, you know, the media is attacking him, that must mean he’s doing a good thing.

And so therefore we have to support this new hero that is getting attacked by the conspiracy, right?

The conspiracy hates me, but behind the scenes, you know, it was just a stunt that made people think that he was a good guy, that the conspiracy hated.

And so this is one of those examples. We’re gonna go over again, the public image versus the actual record, the fruits that we’re supposed to judge by.

And so, you know, just some background like myself, this was a hard thing for me to accept because Ronald Reagan was the president when I was a kid growing up and I just, you know, loved his talks.

And I was like in the second grade and my dad pulled me out of school and we’re gonna go to the state Capitol, we’re gonna hear president Reagan speak.

And so you got the nostalgia, you have that, you’re hearing their words and you’re like, yeah, that’s exactly right.

And you find it really hard to believe that they would be doing something, not just not living up to the rhetoric, but the complete opposite of the rhetoric.

So let’s see what Reagan, what is the public image of Reagan and then compare it to the record.

This is the issue of this election.

Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

The full power of centralized government.

This was the very thing the founding fathers sought to minimize.

They knew that governments don’t control things.

A government can’t control the economy without controlling people, and they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose.

First of all, I think you must have some principles you believe in.

In mine, I happen to believe in the people and believe that the people are supposed to be dominant in our society, that they, not government, are to have control of their own affairs to the greatest extent possible with an orderly society?”

Well, Johnny, I think that one of the things is that people keep looking at government for the answer and government’s the problem.

“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”

So you have the rhetoric of an anti -communist, tear down this wall, government’s the problem, not the solution.

I believe in empowering the people.

That’s what we think of when we think of Ronald Reagan.

But there’s a fantastic book called “The Insiders” by John F. McManus.

I encourage you to all get a copy of it.

And look, it goes into even more detail than I’m able to go tonight on the record.

But I think it’s important for us to be able to go over that.

What’s the real Reagan?

What’s the real record of this man?

And not just once he became president some people will say well yeah he was scared because of that assassination attempt on him again right that false hero going back to even being governor of California the record is the same started as governor of California he attended the Bohemian Grove rituals that we mentioned in the previous boot camps as governor he raised taxes introduced the communist Manifesto Plank of the graduated income tax, he introduced tax withholding from paycheck.

So basically making every single employer in the state of California an agent of the government taking money out of every individual’s pocket, instead of them having to actually write a check to the government and realize how much they’re being manipulated and stolen from every single month.

Raised sales taxes and taxes on business. So even as governor of California, his spending increased more than the other states, including a 61 % in communist socialist welfare spending.

He attacked, of course, Jimmy Carter when he was running for president for having CFR, council on formulations and trilateralists in his cabinet.

But then after winning his first primary In the 1980 election, he replaced his campaign manager with a member of the Council on Formulations and globalist William Casey.

And then he appointed Casey as the head of the CIA once he became president.

He ran ads that were critical of George Bush’s seniors at membership in the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Formulations.

But then after, of course, winning the nomination, he stated that he would pick a running mate with his values.

And who did he pick with his values?

The CFR trilateralist, George Herbert Walker Bush. He also appointed council and formulations members, Ambassador Ann Armstrong, Senator Howard Baker and Henry Kissinger as his foreign policy advisors, globalist as his foreign policy advisors.

Then on election day, he appointed CFR members as secretary of treasury and secretary of commerce.

Then after stating that he opposed the trilateral commission because they were soft on national defense, he appointed a trilateral member as the secretary of defense.

The real Reagan, right?

We see he’s just five months into his administration.

His cabinet was packed with 257 members of the council on foreign relations.

In senior positions, such as heads of state and defense departments, he backed the US taxpayer bailout of the Soviet satellite of Poland as Polish citizens were being imprisoned for supporting freedom.

The Soviet Union wouldn’t have lasted as long as it did if it was not for Ronald Reagan.

Authorized the funding for nuclear steam turbines for the Soviet satellite of Romania and a steel plant for communist China.

He sold arms to communist China.

But when the free people of Taiwan wanted help, he denied it to them.

He campaigned to cut the budget by $13 billion.

In office, he actually increased it by $110 billion, and then passed the largest tax increase in history up to that point of $227 billion.

It doesn’t sound like much of an anti -communist, anti-globalist when you look at his fruit versus his words.

Now let’s look at another organization, one of these people, the National Rifle Association that states that it’s there to protect your Second Amendment rights.

I think it’s known, but I think it’s good to illustrate what is the public image of the National Rifle Association.

In a recent closed door speech to donors, politicians, and media, Bill Clinton spoke about American gun owners.

Quote, “A lot of these people, all they’ve got is they’re hunting, then they’re fishing, or they’ve been listening to this stuff for so long that they believe it all,” unquote.

And we all remember Barack Obama’s 2008 comments to a room of San Francisco elites.

Quote, “It’s not surprising, then they get bitter. They cling to guns or religion.” Unquote

The arrogance of their superiority requires this reminder.

They don’t rule us.

They don’t give us rights.

We grant them power.

They don’t make us safe.

We pay to protect them.

They don’t make us free.

We’re free already. And as long as we have the Second Amendment, we always will be.

We are America, and our politicians are only as powerful as we, the people, allow them to be break in our doors, seize our guns, destroy our property, and even injure or kill us.

Aren’t you concerned when you say Nazi bucket helmets, government thugs, kicking down doors, killing maiming people?

Aren’t you inciting people?

Aren’t you willing now to apologize for the tone of this letter?

Those words are not far.

In fact, they’re a pretty close description of what’s happening in the real world.

Wow, look at that hero, man.

He is sticking it to him.

He is calling out those pesky Democrats as those gun grabbers that they are, and that they’re there to protect your God-given rights.

And that, oh my, look at, look at, he is calling out the government for being the jack-booted thugs that they are.

And he is standing up to that liberal Tim Russert.

Man, he is gonna show him what’s up.

That’s the public image.

Again, words versus fruits.

So we look at the real NRA, according to their own records, their own words.

They received government funding from their inception in the 1800s all the way up till the 1970s.

In the 1920s, they actually pushed for gun control measures in nine states requiring a permit to carry a gun.

Require the NRA, before the NRA gets involved, there’s no permit.

You don’t have to get government permission to carry a gun.

NRA gets involved and they push a bill that says you need government permission to carry a gun.

And a waiting period and a record of purchase going to the government.

So because of the NRA, we now have records of who purchases guns.

They lobbied to ban mail order sales of guns in 1967.

Prior to 1967 and the NRA’s pushing of a bill, you could buy a gun just right over the mail. In the 1968, they lobbied for tracking of guns and banning the shipment across state lines unless you were licensed, you got government permission to do so. In their own publication,

The American Rifleman, in 1968, they bragged about their involvement of pushing more government intrusion into your right of self -defense, saying, “The NRA supported the NRA.”

…through amendment would put new teeth into the national and federal firearms acts, bragging about their taking away your right to defend yourself. Further on, it says the NRA supported the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition, not just guns, but in government control of the ammunition itself.

The NRA supported the original Dodd bill to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as Senate Bill 1975 in August of 1963.

Can you believe this?

So the real NRA we have here, again, the same guy that was on Tim Russert saying, you know, these guys are jack-booted thugs.

So we have the free speech zones and now the NRA, who’s supposed to be supporting your Second Amendment, is saying we want you to have Second Amendment free zones, where you’re not allowed to be able to protect yourself.

We think it’s reasonable to expect full enforcement of federal firearms laws by the federal government.

That’s why we support Project Exile, providing five years federal prison for violations such as having a folding stock or bayonet.

The NRA wants you to spend five years in federal prison for simply having a stock that folds or a knife at the end of your gun.

This is the the guys standing up against Jackbooted thugs. The Constitution authorizes zero restrictions on your right of self-defense, but the NRA, promoting themselves as defending the Second Amendment, wants to destroy the Second Amendment and is working to destroy it.

Now, they’re actually, you know, back after that with the Patriot Act after the 9 /11 attack on the Twin Towers, the demolition of the Twin Towers, they actually opposed gun owners and expanding the government’s powers in the Unconstitutional Patriot Act.

You had Rand Paul actually introduce legislation to stop this and the NRA opposed Rand amendment saying there have been no reports of the current Patriot Act being abused, being abused, the whole thing’s in abuse.

With respect to firearms records, however, supporters suggest a far -fetched scenario in which every firearm sales record in the country, tens or hundreds of millions of documents dating back to 1968, could be sought.

Of course, it’s being put into databases at this time, and and so they opposed actually preserving your right to privacy and your right to defend yourself.

They backed language that allows the BATF now to get access to every gun owner’s purchase going back decades.

So now we go into Glenn Beck as the next false opposition.

Just some background.

Glenn Beck in 2003, his company merged with Simon and and Schuster and ViacomCBS.

Then in 2006 and 2008 he had his own CNN who’s a corporate member of the Council on Foreign Relations program.

2008 to 2011 he had his own FOX which is also a corporate member of the Council on Foreign Relations program and then Glenn Beck promotes conspiracy outlets regularly by hosting and the articles from the New Yorker, Washington Post, USA Today and others and even has people on his show that are members of the Council on Foreign Relations.

And he also just as a side note spoke at the CPAC convention in 2019 and other years.

So let’s look at Glenn Beck actually in his own words.

What does he say?

So people know his record, so let’s look at what he says himself.

I think the bailout is the right thing to do.

100 billion dollars that you’re hearing about now is not only, I believe, necessary, it is also not nearly enough.

Well, folks, we are getting new hints that President Obama may be increasingly open to the idea of a brand new national sales tax on everything you buy.

They call it a VAT, a value -added tax.

But in the scheme of things, I think it’s fair to look at a value -added tax.

Will Republicans hand the left a big, vat victory?

The subtitle reads, “Mitt Romney won’t rule out the possibility of imposing a tax.”

Dan Mitchell, the Cato Institute, joins us now.

You say that Americans should fight VAT toward last and dying breath.

Every candidate running for president should have to sign in blood that they will never allow this European tax system to destroy the American — America’s fiscal future.

We can bring the country back.

You have to have a national sales tax.

I actually agree with you.

I want a 2 % VAT.

I want a 2 % VAT.

I’ve probably heard that President Bush yesterday acknowledged for the very first time the existence of secret CIA prisons.

Thank God.

It’s these types of things, the stuff we never usually hear about unless we read the New York Times, that actually makes me feel more secure.

I want a Jack Bauer out there.

I love seeing cops doing bag checks on subway stations.

I love seeing cops doing bag checks on subway stations.

What we’re talking about is waterboarding and whether or not you’re morally in favor of waterboarding or not, it is a far cry from torture.

And it’s going to take somebody who sits in front of Congress who’s not afraid of them anymore and does what Jack Bauer did and That is, yes, I did torture, and I’m proud of it.

I’m for the bailout bill.

It is going to cause us great pain if we don’t have it.

He’s reminded us over and over again that President Bush was in office when Tarp bailout happened.

Well, we were all against that.

We were all against that.

Well, he says, I’m going to get every penny back from those greedy bankers, and most people cheer as I do.

I didn’t want them to get the money in the first place.

Bush started the bailouts.

Yes, he did.

Hated him for it.

I will always tell you the truth, even when it hurts me personally.

Here’s the problem.

I mean, everybody will say, “Oh, that Glenn Beck, he’s a conservative.

He just loved the Bush administration.”

No, I didn’t.

I did say the same things about George W. Bush.

I did complain about his out-of-control spending.

I did complain about his abandoning free market principles to save the free market system.

I did complain constantly. 11 ,687.

That is the number the Dow Jones closed at yesterday.

That number is the highest ever.

Our budget deficit has actually shrunk by 22 .3 % since last year.

The economy is in fine shape.

Two things, two things here.

This is why I like George W. Bush.

This is why I like George W. Bush.

President Bush is a man who personally feels the pain of every lost soldier.

Those weapons of mass destruction gotta be somewhere.

He feels the pain of every wounded hero, every lonely, grieving parent this war has caused.

Nope, no weapons over there.

But above all, I can tell you that the president has incredible passion and resolve.

Maybe under here.

Any of these 9 /11 truthers who I’ve been telling you for years are dangerous.

These truthers are exactly the kind of people who want to rock this nation’s foundation, tear us terrorist apart.

One of the groups that I’ve been warning about for a very long time of these 9 /11 truthers.

This is the kind of group that a Timothy McVeigh would come from.

Senator Santorum voted for the Patriot Act for an expansion of Medicare and for raising the debt ceiling by trillions of dollars.

Senator Rick Santorum from Pennsylvania may just be the Winston Churchill of our day.

One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a libertarianish right.

Libertarian view is, you know, isolationist from national security point of view.

I don’t pick or choose or back any presidential nominees.

I am throwing my support behind Rick Santorum now.

Please win, Rick.

Please.

Rick, I came on your radio show, and you said…

Now, I said I’m going to ask you 30 questions, but I gave answers to all 30, and then you finished.

And then you finally said, I want to kiss you in the mouth.

That’s what you said.

Santorum once held his nose and voted to fund abortions.

And Romney once openly and gleefully endorsed them.

I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country.

And I think this is the guy.

This is the mechanic that can fix our finances.

He’s the guy who can fix the engine of our economy.

I believe that with everything in me. If it’s between

And Romney, there isn’t a world that much difference.

The defense he makes of Romney Care could basically be a defense of Obamacare.

And I welcome you to the first of the 2012 presidential debates.

And the best course for health care is to do what we did in my state.

Last night, you saw somebody who took the stage that appeared to me to be George Washington.

MittRomney is obviously the choice of the Republican establishment.

He is not a politician.

He is a man that I would strive to be like.

Those are the folks who brought us tarp and stimulus, wars fought on credit cards, federal agents writing their own search warrants, and the federal government taking over education.

In two weeks’ time, America goes to vote for the next president in the United States.

Mitt Romney believes in all these things, but here’s the crusher.

So does President Obama.

There’s not a dime’s worth of difference.

The American people have a very, very clear choice.

Mitt Romney might as well be Barack Obama on everything from warfare to welfare.

If you want a reason to vote for Mitt Romney, here it is.

He knows what’s going on with the Federal Reserve and he is warning us.

Should the chairman of the Federal Reserve be appointed again.

You know, I think he’s doing a good job.

I think he’s doing a good job.

I am going to vote for this guy.

Look, I’m not going to spend my time going after Ben Bernanke.

I’m not going to take my, my effort and focus on the federal.

I, uh, sincerely hope that we are not at a place as Americans to where we are going to let the Democrats jam down the green new deal because because we’re at home panicked.

I want to have a frank conversation with you and ask you where you stand.

I mean, I’m in the danger zone.

I’m right at the edge.

I’m 56 in July.

They’re saying if you’re sick and you’re 60, don’t even come in. So I’m in the danger zone.

Now the German people, they got this. If If you’re handed that hat and it’s got skull and crossbones on it, don’t you look at it and go, “Um, I don’t think I thought I might be on the wrong side.”

And that just screamed, “Wrong side, wrong side.”

That was a little bit long, but I think it was really important because he is seen by so many as such a conservative or a hero for liberty to show his back and forth, his lies, his support for people that were clearly and obviously being called out at the time.

It wasn’t like, oh, nobody knew.

It was obvious.

There was lots of people calling out Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney for those things.

And then, you know, he supported Bush, he supported the bailouts, and then afterwards when it became unpopular and it was already too late, he says, “Oh, I was always against Bush and the bailouts.”

And so he’s being deceptive, and he is pushing the official narrative.

And so that way everybody’s saying, well, you know, when Beck, you know, he researches this stuff and he’s liberty-minded, he wouldn’t be backing this if there wasn’t something to it. And that’s the role that he plays.

And so it’s essential that we understand this principle of false opposition or we’re going to continue to fall for it.

So the bait and switch is that they claim to be doing something good, well of course they’re doing the complete opposite.

You have legislators, government officials, fake charities, conspirator charities, fake freedom organizations and non -governmental organizations that use this tactic of course all the time.

Often uses the problem reaction solution formula to sell on their bait and switch campaign.

So here’s a real quick short video that it shows an example that we’re seeing a lot now with housing to get out.

You have both so-called conservative or Liberty organizations pushing into 21 housing as well as the open lefty globalists doing the same thing.

Myth: Stacking more people into tighter spaces makes housing affordable.

Fact: Stacking more people into tighter places artificially inflates housing prices.

Even the Liberal Sierra Club admits high -density housing raises housing costs and the extreme high -density zoning in Hong Kong has made housing so expensive that many live in cage homes the size of dog kennels.

The affordable housing agenda is a devious scheme.

So you have so -called conservative states as well as states like New York and San Francisco pushing the same thing, wherein states like Wyoming and Utah and Idaho, their conservative legislatures are actually passing legislation forcing every city in their state to have a certain amount of high density housing.

You can see in Hong Kong, they’re actually living in kennels and they’re paying $2 ,000 a month to live in a kennel.

The post How To Recognize Political Theater appeared first on Tree of Liberty Society.

Salt Lake City, Utah held one of these with massive corporate media coverage June 11th 2022, but as usual, it wasn’t gang bangers and mafioso’s turning in their guns, but grandma’s and grandpa’s naively doing as the media tells them. Check out our report:

If you like what we do and want to support our work, please consider becoming a member or making a onetime donation today

The post City Gun Buy Back Is a Flop For Gun Grabbers appeared first on Tree of Liberty Society.