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

The post Madison Vs Trump On Presidential Powers appeared first on Tree of Liberty Society.

The Founding Fathers of the United States issued grave warnings about the dangers of standing armies during peacetime. Though often dismissed as an outdated concern, their fears are increasingly relevant today. While few Americans worry about soldiers being quartered in their homes, the broader issue—state power enforced by militarized force—looms large in our communities.

False Choices in Modern Narratives

Modern discourse offers a misleading choice: Should we “defund the police” or “back the blue”? But both sides miss the deeper problem—an increasingly militarized domestic force that no longer serves the people but instead exerts control over them. Images of masked protesters and armed officers distract us from a critical truth: the real threat lies not in political slogans, but in centralized, unaccountable force.

Voices from the Founding Era

The 1776 Pennsylvania Constitution clearly stated:

“Standing armies in times of peace are dangerous to liberty; they ought not to be kept up.”

George Mason warned that:

“When once a standing army is established… the people lose their liberty.” (Constitutional Convention 1887)

St. George Tucker echoed this:

“Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to bear arms is prohibited, liberty… is on the brink of destruction.” (St George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentary)

Alexander Hamilton offered a counterbalance:

“A large body of citizens, little if at all, inferior to a professional army in discipline and arms… is the best possible security against a standing army.” (Federalist 29)

Their consensus? Liberty cannot survive where standing armies flourish unchecked.

The Domestic Army in Our Streets

Today, we face not only a global military presence but a domestic one as well. Local police departments are now equipped with military-grade gear: armored vehicles, sniper rifles, helicopters—even bayonets.

Examples include:

• Amador County, CA (Pop. 38,000): Two anti-mine tanks.
• Campbell County, WY (Pop. 46,000): Two mine-resistant vehicles and 17 M14 rifles.
• Winthrop Harbor, IL (Pop. 7,000): Ten helicopters and $6.5M in military equipment.

Why equip small towns like this? The answer, as even police insiders have admitted, is simple: “The only reason to have this equipment is to use it.” (Jim Fitzgerald, former New Jersey police officer, Former Director of the John Birch Society’s National Support Your Local Police initiative)

This gear is not intended for foreign enemies—it’s for domestic enforcement.

Citizens Labeled as Threats

Government reports over the years have listed “domestic terrorists” as:

• Anti-abortion advocates
• Supporters of Ron Paul
• Military veterans
• Parents protesting at school boards
• Those who display the Gadsden flag

These classifications show that it is not lawbreakers who are targeted—but dissenters.

Militias and the Founders’ Vision

The Founders’ answer to tyranny was not a national army or a standing police force—it was you. It was us. Local, well-trained militias, composed of citizens ready to defend their communities.

Constitutions from Delaware, New Hampshire, and Vermont all echo the same call:

Every citizen has the right to be protected and the duty to serve when needed.

These militias were not mercenaries beholden to city councils. They were neighbors defending neighbors.

When Police Became Standing Armies

Police, as we understand them today, didn’t exist in early America. Modern police departments weren’t introduced until New York City in 1844. Before that, public safety was handled by community members.

Sheriffs were originally limited to election oversight and judicial enforcement—not patrolling for infractions. Local “policing” meant community responsibility for health and safety—not full-time statute enforcers funded by federal grants and military gear.

The Consequence of Abdicated Responsibility

The deeper issue isn’t just standing armies or militarized police—it’s a citizenry that has surrendered its responsibility. We trust others to:

• Protect our rights
• Preserve our freedom
• Uphold our laws

But liberty cannot be delegated.

“Freedom is our responsibility.”

By giving away that responsibility—whether to police, politicians, or even military forces—we create an unaccountable monster. And it grows.

Morality: The Bedrock of Liberty

At the heart of the Founders’ vision was scriptural morality. Without it:

• We can’t discern true from false.
• We can’t receive divine guidance.
• We forfeit the blessings of liberty.

If we wish to restore liberty, we must begin with repentance and moral renewal. Only then can we ask for divine protection, wisdom, and the strength to resist tyranny.

Conclusion: The Real Enemy

We face no greater threat than the one already within our borders. Standing armies—whether under the Pentagon or the police department—are dangerous to a free people. The answer is not reactionary violence or misguided rebellion. It is principled, moral, grassroots preparation.

To preserve liberty, we must:

• Know our principles.
• Stand on scriptural morality.
• Train ourselves and our communities.
• Reject tyranny—especially the kind cloaked in “protection.”

Cops aren’t bad because of a “few bad apples”. Cops are bad because they shouldn’t exist.

Freedom begins with you.

Check out my personal experience with the standing army here https://treeoflibertysociety.com/when-i-got-no-knock-raid/

Read more about local police being the standing army the Founders warned about, check out these articles by Dr. Joe Wolverton:

Militarized Police: The Standing Army the Founders Warned About

When Local Police Become a “Standing Army”

Why Are Federal Agencies Being Armed With Military Grade Weapons and Gear?

Report: Local Law Enforcement Receiving Billions in Weapons From Pentagon

The Second Amendment: Protecting the Right of Armed Resistance to Tyranny

The post Standing Armies, Police Militarization, and the Loss of Liberty appeared first on Tree of Liberty Society.

Government Takeover In The United States Focused On Stopping One Religion

Government control of religion through marriage has a long history, spanning centuries or even millennia, but Utah stands out as a prime example in the United States.

On January 16, 1879, the Salt Lake Tribune editorialized,

“The Supreme Court… Has now reaffirmed what the… congress assembled in 1862 declared to be their highest view of the marital relations, namely, that marriage is the union of one man with one woman, and that every departure from this straight path of private rectitude and public good is criminal and should be treated as criminal.”

Ironic compared to their editorial of March 28 2014,

“Equality made marriage stronger…  The institution (marriage) is strengthened by extending marriage rights.”

The Tribunes’ perspectives may appear conflicting, but they are fundamentally aligned. They have consistently advocated for government oversight of the collective “church.” In the 1800s, this meant regulating religion through the institution of marriage between one man and one woman. Today, government control over religion requires a redefinition of marriage.

Mormons Fought to Keep Government Out of Marriage

 Orvando Hollister of the New York Tribune questioned President John Taylor,

“Is it not true that marriage is the basis of society, that out of it spring the social relations, obligations and duties with which governments must necessarily concern themselves? And is it not therefore within the legitimate scope of the power of every government to determine whether marriage shall be… Under its dominion?”

With John Taylor responding,

“I do not look upon it that way. Now if our marital relations are not religion, what is? …I do not believe that the Supreme Court of the United States nor the Congress of the United States has any right to interfere.” -History of Utah, John Taylor Papers, 2:32-33

The concept of marriage is strictly tied to religion, and the government lacks any valid claim to control it.

Submission to the State

The concept of “marriage equality” has primarily benefited those in power, particularly when enforced by the government. In the 1800s, the debate centered around whether the Church or the government would yield. At that time, a federal authority even suggested that the Church’s influence in these matters should be eliminated.

Today, under the guise of “equality,” the government is attempting to suppress religious freedom, using marriage as a focal point once more.

In December 2013, a federal court, claiming authority over marriage, imposed its will on individuals, forcing them to comply with state regulations that conflicted with their religious beliefs. Those in power seldom relinquish control, and in matters of religion, the prevailing authority clings tightly to its influence.

With the implementation of the Edmunds-Tucker Act, all marriages were mandated to be registered with the government, a responsibility that was once managed by religious institutions. Now, in the push to separate marriage from religion entirely, individuals are not only being compelled to refrain from following their religious convictions but are also being forced to act against them.

They Actually Admit it

Officials seeking to impose laws on the religious institution of marriage admit that their true aim is to take charge of religion:

“The purpose of the bill was to wrest from the hands of the priesthood the political power which it had so long wrongfully usurped and shamefully abused.” (Utah state representative Robert Newton Baskin, Reminiscences of early Utah, 1914, page 184)

REALITY: It’s a Government Attack on Religion, NOT a Religious Attack on Others

A leader in a prominent Utah denomination, Lance Wickman, explained,

“Let me just add to that, if I may. It’s not the Church that has made the issue of marriage a matter of federal law. Those who are vigorously advocating for something called same-gender marriage have essentially put that potato on the fork. They’re the ones who have created a situation whereby the law of the land, one way or the other, is going to address this issue of marriage. This is not a situation where the Church has elected to take the matter into the legal arena or into the political arena. It’s already there.”

Then, on the 26th of June, 2015, the US Supreme Court mandated that every state in the nation MUST issue licenses to a new group of people (sodomites) while still forcing the states not to issue government permission to other groups, namely those engaged in Plural Marriages.

Following the ruling, Dallin H. Oaks, one of the leading figures in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commented,

“All government officers should exercise their civil authority according to the principles and within the limits of civil government. A county clerk’s recent invoking of religious reasons to justify refusal by her office and staff to issue marriage licenses to same-gender couples violates this principle… neither the government nor its citizens should tolerate veto of a law (either its text or its operation) by officials not formally authorized to do so.” (“The Boundary Between Church and State” Second Annual Sacramento Court/Clergy Conference, Sacramento, California October 20, 2015)

It is interesting to contrast the above with John Taylor’s remarks on one’s duty regarding illegal acts of the government,

“Then do you profess to ignore the laws of the land? No; not unless they are unconstitutional, then I would do it all the time.” (Journal of Discourses 11:343)

The necessary tax status of church organizations throughout the country puts them at risk of revocation of their tax exempt status, which would affect religious institutions in two ways:

1. A new financial burden in paying the government taxes on revenue generated by tithing and other free will offerings.
2. Tithing and other offerings would cease to be tax-deductible, which might cause major donors to rethink where donations will go and consider something more financially advantageous.

Some are concerned it would hamper the ability of religious institutions to care for the poor and needy, shifting the burden again to taxpayers, again giving the government more power over the lives of the people.

This worry has also led to the belief that religious institutions might be compelled to submit to and follow government regulations. For institutions that believe in complying with God’s laws first, and that are at odds with ever-changing manmade restrictions, this poses a serious conflict to religious freedom.

Religious schools would be affected as well. They are compelled by fear, force and fraud to comply with IRS code, which states:

“Private schools must keep records that show that they have complied with requirements relating to… non-discrimination [a term which could be extended to include sexual orientation].”

In Friday’s ruling, Justice Kennedy assured the public that,

“the First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons.”

This statement falls flat when compared with a similar conflicting assurance given to the people of Utah in 1882,

“What [do I] care as to the belief of those who regard Joe Smith as a prophet?  Those who believe so are entitled to their belief.  Their right to that belief, [I] would defend, if necessary, but obedience to law is required, and the exercise of temporal power by ecclesiastical authority, in the least degree, will no longer be tolerated.”  (Governor Eli H. Murray, “The Crisis in Utah”, North American review, April 1882 pg. 346)

Individuals and institutions would do well to ignore and nullify such moves by government, and refuse government permission slips to enter into religious covenants. What’s next? Government permission to get baptized?

Learn more about the Founders solution of nullification with the resources in the link below.

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

The post Marriage Laws: Government’s Unrelenting Attack on Religious Institutions appeared first on Tree of Liberty Society.

How do police states get away with it? From Hitler to the present, totalitarians say that we must give up our rights and freedoms because it’s the only way for law enforcement to have the tools to protect us from catastrophic terrorist incidents. Of course, that’s the opposite course advocated by America’s Founding Fathers, like Benjamin Franklin, who counseled: “They that would give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.”

Now, I ask you: What do any of these things have to do with America today?

Read more about how to respond to tyranny in the book Killing No Murder and in the articles below:

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

The post How To Tell If You Are In A Tyrannical Police State appeared first on Tree of Liberty Society.