Because of spy redirects from picture and map clicks, this picture has been moved to
A compilation showing some of the history of the attacks on our liberty and our national sovereignty and exposing some of the attackers.
The other night I had a dream. Maybe it would better be described as a nightmare.
I was walking over snow covered hills near Valley Forge when I spotted a red trail in the snow. On inspection it appeared to be blood. Thinking it might be a wounded animal and that I might be able to help it, I followed the trail. It seemed to go on for miles, but ended abruptly in a ditch.
There lay a young man, maybe in his early twenties. His body was emaciated, still his hands suggested the power of a farmer or tradesman. He had a hole in his chest, but the blood had not come from the hole. It had come from his feet. They were bloody and wrapped in rags. He had marched for miles in the snow and bitter cold without shoes.
Then I realized he was still alive. He was crying. I knew there was nothing I could do for him, but I knelt down, hoping to comfort him in some way. I told him not to be frightened. He was going to a better place. He told me he had seen a better place. A place that he had helped create.
For a moment, he said, when the ball struck his chest, he was filled with despair. He thought of the incredible odds against which he was fighting and he thought his death was in vain. Liberty was unattainable. Slavery was the fate of man.
Then an angel came to him and showed him a great land populated by a courageous, high sprited, idealistic people, driven by their love of liberty. The angel told him that land was born of his sacrifice. I guessed that the tears were tears of joy, tears of happiness. For a moment a weight was lifted from my heart. But he continued to speak.
A second angel came--a dark angel. It showed him the great land, now withered and dying. It was ruled by evil men and filled with cowardly, souless people, a people without spirit, a people who gave lip service to freedom, but it wasn’t in their hearts. They were pragmatists and not idealists. They were willing to support evil if they thought good could not win, and so the land and liberty died.
Yes, the boy had been crying as much for us as for himself. But then he closed his eyes and the crying stopped. I closed mine. I didn't cry, but my heart screamed inside my chest. I felt the pain of the ball striking that boy.
You see, I live in the land of the dark angel.
Still, I had hopes that, if the CAP was successful, Canada could one day be a beacon of liberty to guide us back to freedom. With that thought in mind, I listened to their radio program that I spotlighted in a temporary “Alert” post.
I really didn't like what I heard. The speaker talked of “human capital” and spoke of government financed education. “Human capital” reminds me of the change I witnessed here, starting about 30 to 35 years ago. Personnel departments began changing to departments of “human resources.” People were becoming “resources,” much like a ton of coal, a pig of iron, or a barrel of oil to be used up in the manufacturing process and then disposed of as industrial waste. Here we have human beings as the capital used to build the economy of the State through education.
I have a special loathing for the idea of government “educating” the people. Both Hitler and Mao are sometimes credited with having said, “Give me the child at three and he's mine for life.” The Fabians may or may not have said the same, but they've certainly practiced control through “education.” Still, I don't think it's necessary for the state to control the child's mind as early as three. Many parents here have noted a marked change in their children's thinking after attending a few years of college. An intensive indoctrination campaign, even one begun at a later age, can work wonders.
One advocate of universal education by the state was Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson is one of my heroes. He was one of the wisest men I know of, but his wisdom was born of 20-20 hindsight. He was well read in history and was able to learn from the mistakes of the past such as the threat to liberty of combining the power of the state with the power of the church. But I don't think there were enough examples for him to see the dangers of combining the state with education, so he made the mistake of thinking state sponsored education a means to further liberty. Maybe this would be true if we had saints to run the state, but then, liberty might also be furthered by a bank run nation if we had saints to run the banks.
After reading a few more of CAP's newsletters, I couldn't escape the conclusion that the party is a socialist party. I don't think they try to hide it. While there is an element of nationalism, of patriotism, in the Canadian Action Party that can make them a worthy ally in the fight against NAFTA, CAFTA, and the North American Union, beyond that we cannot look to them as an ally in the fight for freedom. Socialism can never be a path to freedom. The four major socialisms of the past century, Communism, British/American Fabianism, German National Socialism, and Fascism are all rooted in the philosophy of Hegel. Hegel saw the individual as worthless except as a cog in the gears of the State machinery. Socialism, in any of its forms, is a negation of the individual. As such, it can never be a beacon of liberty.
On February 4, I sent this email to the Canadian Action Party prompted by a newsletter I'd received from them:
Although I'm not a Canadian, I've been on your mailing list for awhile. We definitely have a common enemy in NAFTA and the NAU. I'm sure you're aware that the consolidation of Canada, the U.S., and Mexico is only phase one. The rest of North and Central America will be brought under the thumb later.
I was curious. How does the CAP stand on Canada's relationship to England. It's my personal belief that England, especially the Bank of England, has run America since shortly after the Revolutionary (Secessionary) War. When Hamilton and Washington set up "our" first national bank liberty was doomed. I know your connection to England is more open, at least on the surface. How deep does it run? Is the Bank of Canada a part of the international banking cartel?
I received this response from Tim McCormick, Executive Director, Canadian Action Party:
Agreed, NAFTA has done nothing but harm to decent, honest, hardworking Americans and Canadians, while enriching the top 1%.
Strangely enough Rick, we the taxpayers own the Bank of Canada. It was started by the same money powers behind the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve in 1935, but Prime Minister William Lyon MacKenzie King realized the importance of the government having monetary control. He nationalized it in 1938 and we used it until 1972 experiencing the countries most productive years. However, in 1972, we were persuaded to take a seat at the G8 which required us to outsource for government borrowing. Our deficit went from 15 billion to 588 in about 20 years and remains over half a trillion today. For a country of 35 million, that's a lot of money, but of course I don't have to tell you about debt or the dire consequences it can have on the future of society.
Our number one platform issue is monetary control followed by sovereignty (ending NAFTA). We are a no nonsense truth telling party. We are anti-war and very leary of the corporate assimilation of Canada, North America and the world. Many CAP members are admirers of Ron Paul because of his stance on monetary policy, the corporate agenda and the military.
There it is. Full circle from monetary slavery to liberty and back to monetary slavery.
For a very short time, the United States was a beacon of freedom to guide the world. That beacon was quickly extinguished by Hamilton and the bankers. All Americans should pray for the success of the Canadian Action Party. If it can restore economic freedom to the Canadian people and their country, Canada may one day be a beacon to guide us back to freedom.
I was very concerned that the alleged assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords would draw the anti-Gun Nuts out of the woodwork. It looks like this may already be happening.
Bruce Reed has been selected by Joe Biden as his chief of staff. Dennis Hennigan of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said he thinks Reed “has his heart in the right place on guns” and will want to do the “right thing on guns” says a Politico news story on the Reed appointment.
No doubt the “right thing” will be further unconstitutional infringements on our fundamental human right to keep and bear arms to protect ourselves, our loved ones, and our country from criminal elements in our streets and in our governments. As “our” government becomes more and more tyrannical with each passing day, it's a good time to remind ourselves of what happens to disarmed citizens when faced with such tyranny.
The following are the words of Paul Harvey. I regret that my source did not list the date this aired.
Something To Think About
Paul Harvey on Guns
Are you considering backing gun control laws ? Do you think that because you may not own a gun, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment doesn't matter?
Consider: In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control.
From 1929 to 1953 approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, Jehovah's Witnesses, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.
It has not been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars. The results Australia-wide:
Homicides are up 3.2%, Assaults are up 8%, Armed robberies are up 44% in that country's state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300%.
It's time to state it plainly: Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding citizens.
There are a couple of lessons for Americans to learn from our own history. Remember that the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right and is automatic for citizens of any nation. It is, however, not a right of subjects or slaves.
The American colonies experienced an attempt at gun control at Lexington and Concord. The British tried to deprive their American subjects of their arms. That attempt failed and, after a long struggle using the arms retained, a new nation was born, a nation of citizens not subjects.
We see another example of restriction of the right in the old deep South. Slaves were not permitted to keep arms. It makes sense when you think of it. Had they been permitted to bear arms even close to the quality born by their masters, they wouldn't likely have been slaves very long.
If we give up our right to keep and bear arms, we will be saying, “Go ahead. Tread on me.”