Founding Fathers & Political Parties

Politics was supposed to be rational and collaborative, not competitive!

Our Founding Fathers did not anticipate or desire the existence of political parties, viewing them as “factions” dangerous to the public interest. Founders’ republican ideology called for subordination of narrow interests to the general welfare of the community. Under republican ideology, politics was supposed to be rational and collaborative, not competitive.

Our Founding Fathers were generally uneasy about political parties. For the most part, they believed that parties had the potential to tear the new nation apart. To these men, “political parties” meant factionalism, which they believed, could be fatal to the development of the United States as a unified country. It is no surprise, then, that political parties are entirely omitted from the US Constitution.

In 1796, George Washington in his Farewell Address warned us that, “through the course of time cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men would subvert the power of the people and seize for themselves the reins of government (the elected Committeeman) through private Associations. He went on to tell us that once they seized the reins of power, a/k/a the committeeman, the parties that would arise would;

(1) destroy the very engines (the political process) which have lifted them to unjust dominion,

(2) destroy the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities,

(3) open the door to foreign influence and corruption, thus the policy and the will of one country will be subjected to the policy and will of another,

(4) serve to organize division,

(5) ruin public liberty,

(6) stifle, control and repress,

(7) foment occasional riots & insurrection,

(8) kindle animosity of one part against another,

(9) put in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of the party elite,

(10) agitate the community with ill founded jealousies & false alarms,

(11) undermine the Constitution which could not be directly overthrown,

(12) distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration,

(13) drive the spirit of revenge,

(14) leads to despotism.” Washington concluded, “…parties are truly your worst enemy.”

In letter to Johnathan Jackson in 1780, John Adams said, “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

In a letter to Francis Hopkinson in 1789, Thomas Jefferson said, “I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a political party, I would decline to go.” 

In 1787, Thomas Paine said, “Party knows no impulse but spirit, no prize but victory. It is blind to truth, and hardened against conviction. It seeks to justify error by perseverance, and denies to its own mind the operation of its own judgment. A man under the tyranny of party spirit is the greatest slave upon the earth, for none but himself can deprive him of the freedom of thought.”

The generally hostile attitude toward political parties among the Founding Fathers was articulated most forcefully by James Madison in Federalist 10. There he argued that one of the most important functions of a “well-constructed Union” was to break and control the “violence of faction.” Madison clearly understood the enormous dangers that could attach to the founding of political parties in America. And it is because of attitudes like Madison’s, widely shared as they were among many of the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention, that political parties were excluded from the US Constitution.

FEDERALIST No. 10 – MADISON: The Union as a Safeguard against Domestic Factions [a/k/a political parties] and Insurrection. From the New York Packet; Friday, November 23, 1787, To the People of the State of New York: “Among the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community. There are two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property.

Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? Are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.

It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole. The inference to which we are brought is that the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.

If a faction (party) consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:

In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.

In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to center in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.

It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.

Hence, it clearly appears that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.

In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.”

In conclusion, political parties are a requisite for a democracy, until it murders itself! Political parties, within a “Natural Law Republic,” are contradictive and thereby destructive because there is nothing to debate we already defined their jurisdictions and powers, via our founding documents! In 1819, our founding fathers passed the Original 13th Amendment that prevented British BAR attorneys, a/k/a “Esquires,” a title of honor, from holding any office of trust because they brought “Roman Civil Law” into our courts and factionalism into our political discourse with the intent of destroying our Republic.

Amendment XIII: “If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, … from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them,…”

In response to the United States’ passing of the 13^th Amendment the British Monarch in 1822, via the “Treaty of Verona” made a secrete alliance with the Pope, breached their trust as International Trustees agreeing to undermine the American System of government. They set out on a covert action and issued Letters of Marque and Reprisal to the members of the Bar Associations (Esquires), allowing them to act as Foreign Agents on American soil and as privateers free to plunder America’s commerce, political, and judicial processes.

In 1823, President Monroe followed Adams’s advice and laid out an independent course for the United States, declaring four major points in his December 2, 1823, address to Congress. He made four basic statements: 1) The United States would not get involved in European affairs. 2) The United States would not interfere with existing European colonies in the Western Hemisphere. 3) No other nation could form a new colony in the Western Hemisphere. 4) If a European nation tried to control or interfere with a nation in the Western Hemisphere, the United States would view it as a hostile act against this nation. In his “Monroe Doctrine,” he said that the peoples of the West “are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.”

In 1871, the 41^st Congress under the control of the BAR passed the “Organic Act” without constitutional authority, an act of fraud, conspiracy, and subversion against the United States of America to depose our covenant, a/k/a the Declaration of Independence, with our Creator and thereby establishing a totalitarian government unaccountable to We the Sovereign People, under foreign control, behind which the conspiratorial erosion of our Constitution began. This, over time, covertly transformed our “Unalienable Rights” to civil rights, our “Republic” to a democracy, the “United States” to a corporation, and the “Laws of Nature’s God” to civil and criminal laws which have their roots in Babylon. This placed the United States under fiction of law, a/k/a civil law and as long as the People believe the fiction to be law, it is!!!

28 USC §3002 Definitions (15): “United States” means (A) a Federal corporation;

In 1876, the British BAR in collusion with treasonous Congress conspired to supplant the Law in exchange for money and power was successful in concealing the XIII Amendment, ratified in 1819. In 1878, seventy-five esquires (lawyers) from twenty-one states and the District of Columbia met in Saratoga Springs, New York in an act of high treason established the American Bar Association (ABA). Since that first meeting, the ABA has worked in the shadows infiltrating our government, our courts, our churches, our institutions, and our media. And eventually demoralizing our children in our schools all in an effort to expunge our common law and replace it with civil law a/k/a Babylonian law, Justinian law, or Roman law.

The legal profession as we know it today barely existed at that time. Today the ABA is one of the world’s largest professional organizations, with nearly 400,000 members and more than 3,500 entities. Today the ABA holds a monopoly over the minds of the federal and states judiciaries and attorneys that practice law in our courts. Law schools are nationally accredited by the American Bar Association (ABA), and graduates of these schools may generally sit for the bar exam in any state. There are 204 ABA accredited law schools. And there are 31 law schools that have not been approved by the American Bar Association. Some states permit graduates of these schools to take the bar examination or will admit to their bars a graduate of a non-ABA-approved law school who has been admitted to the bar of another state. But most states do not. Today, with almost a half a million BAR members, 80,000 of them work in Washington DC. They have perverted the rule of Law, deprived “We the Sovereign People” of due process and have supplanted our Article III courts with jurisdictions unknown.

The ABA schools, in an act of treason, teach that “In law,” a/k/a common law is the body of law derived from judicial decisions of courts and similar tribunals. Claiming that, the defining characteristic of “common law” is that it arises as precedent. Whereas Common Law is “NOT” precedent or legislated law, where one size fits all, it is NOT civil law! Common Law a/k/a Natural Law is governed by “maxims,” written in the hearts of man.

“For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;” – Roman 2:14-15

In November 1910, in an act of high treason, six men – Nelson Aldrich, Abram Andrew, Henry Davison, Arthur Shelton, Frank Vanderlip and Paul Warburg – met at the Jekyll Island Club, off the coast of Georgia, to write a plan to reform the nation’s banking system. The meeting and its purpose were closely guarded secrets, and participants did not admit that the meeting occurred until the 1930s. But, the plan written on Jekyll Island laid a foundation for what would eventually be the Federal Reserve System. And in 1913, the ABA controlled Congress passed the unconstitutional “Federal Reserve Banking Act” that gave control of America’s economy to a private corporation owned by foreign bankers who answer to no one and regulate the value of worthless notes of debt called the dollar, robbed We the People of our gold and bankrupted America. A conspiracy among Paul Warburg, Edward Mandell House, Woodrow Wilson, J.P. Morgan, Benjamin Strong, Otto Kahn, the Rockefeller family, the Rothschild family, and other European and American bankers which resulted in the founding of the U.S. Federal Reserve System which resulted in a takeover of the US economy, on behalf of the oligarchs. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 defies Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 5 of the United States Constitution by creating a “central bank of issue” for the United States. World War I, the Agricultural Depression of 1920, the Great Depression of 1929 was all brought about by international banking interests in order to profit from conflict and economic instability.

In March 1922, in an act of high treason, the New York County Association of the Criminal BAR announced that it planned a vigorous state wide campaign to abolish the Grand Jury institution. Former district attorney Robert Elder called upon public prosecutors to take the initiative in replacing the “inefficiency, ignorance and traditional bias” of grand jurors, and Judge Thomas Crain of New York supported the movement. Testifying before the Committee of Law Enforcement of the American Bar Association, he observed that “a judge or some other man learned in statutes should participate in grand jury hearings.” In Minnesota, attorney Paul J. Thompson urged his state to adopt the Wisconsin system of prosecution upon the order of a district attorney. In 1922 Judge Roscoe Pound and Felix Frankfurter conducted a survey of criminal justice in Cleveland and added the weight of expert testimony to those who sought to eliminate the use of grand juries. Pound and Frankfurter reported that juries were inefficient and unnecessary, since trial courts (politically driven men) were quite capable of protecting Americans against executive tyranny. And today “Civil Law Juries” controlled by judges and prosecutors have turned our “Courts of Justice” into “Dens of Thieves.”

In 1933 the War Powers Act, also referred to as the “War Powers Resolution,” or the “War Powers Resolution of 1973,” is a federal law that governs the president’s power to bring the U.S. into an armed conflict without first obtaining authorization from Congress as required under Article I Section 8 Clause 11. Thereby the United States Federal Government was dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act and President Franklin Roosevelt, under Executive Order 6102, unlawfully confiscated gold bullion, and gold certificates within the continental United States.

In 1934, the ABA controlled Congress passed the rules enabling act that provided for the exploitation of the “Law of the Land” replacing it with “civil law” giving the Supreme Court the unlawful power to abrogate the “Rules of Common Law.” In 1938, the US Supreme Court, steered by the subversive ABA, authored the “Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” whereas, under Rule 2 committed an act of Treason when they stated:

“The Supreme Court enacted uniform rules of procedure for the federal courts. Under the new rules, suits in equity and suits at common law were grouped together under the term “civil action,” claiming that “rigid application of common-law rules brought about injustice.”

In 1934, Congressman McFadden exposed the Federal Reserve Corporation, bringing formal charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, The Comptroller of the Currency and the Secretary of United States Treasury for numerous criminal acts, including but not limited to, conspiracy, fraud, unlawful conversion, and treason stating, “Mr. Chairman, we have in this Country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks, hereinafter called the Fed. The United States has been ransacked and pillaged. Our structures have been gutted and only the walls are left standing. The petition for Articles of Impeachment was thereafter referred to the Judiciary Committee and has yet to be acted on.

In 1944 the United States surrendered to centralized banking system. The prevailing economic system of the world is based on the Bretton Woods Agreement, which was established after the Second World War. While all the countries thought that the economies of the world would boost and the people would have more money in their hands, little did they know that it was just a plan to destroy the currencies of the world to make the dollar the currency anchor of the world. In 1947 the CIA & NSA was established, creating a National police state surveillance grid.

In 1948, the United Nations, an intergovernmental organization that promotes international cooperation in order to create and maintain international order, was established. The UN was established in an effort to institute a “One World Government.” The UN also supports population control by supporting government programs that promote forced-abortions, coercive sterilizations and today they are promoting an experimental vaccine that will alter our RNA and potentially destroy our immune system. In 1950 a congressional “Report on the National Lawyers Guild” revealed a BAR communist plot to destroy our Republic. In 1954 the ABA controlled Congress passed the incomprehensible Internal Revenue Code.

In 1954 the Reece Committee filed in Congress the “Dodd Report” that revealed un-America activities in government. It was found out that the big foundations were promoting internationalism and collectivism. By their subversive funding activities they posed a clear threat to our American Republic and way of life of American people. The foundations were monumental in shaping the education and foreign policy of the United States and not only this but the foundations had their presence in all areas of society and in some areas had become more powerful than the federal government. Research and experimental stations were established at selected Universities, notably Columbia, Stanford, and Chicago. Here some of the worst mischief in recent education was born. In these Rockefeller and Carnegie established vineyards worked many of the principal characters in the story of the suborning of American education. Here foundations nurtured some of the most ardent academic advocates of upsetting the American system and supplanting it with a Socialist state.

In 1963 President Kennedy was assassinated just weeks before he said,

“A revolution is coming – a revolution which will be peaceful if we are wise enough; compassionate if we care enough; successful if we are fortunate enough but a revolution which is coming whether we will it or not. We can affect its character; we cannot alter its inevitability”

In 1971, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in acts of high treason and lies the SPLC Intelligence Report, proclaiming to be the nation’s preeminent periodical monitoring the radical right in the United States, is fueling all government agencies and police departments into believing that anyone that uses specific words like militia, sovereign, oath keepers, constitution, patriots and even founding fathers, to name just a few, are armed, radicals and dangerous cop killers, whose names are put on the terrorist watch list. This agitation often causes police to over-react with excessive force and on a few occasions respond by SWAT when these words are used at traffic stops. Much of the over-reaction that fuels the police comes from that spews forth the lies of the Southern Poverty Law Center to unsuspecting law-enforcement agencies and departments. The SPLC is an arm of the BAR whose purpose is to excite violence by federal agents and police upon We the Sovereign People who are trying to make sense of our out of control federal judiciary and be free.

In 1993, Speaker-Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House revealing the bankruptcy of the United States into the Congressional Record. “All United States Offices, Officials, and Departments are now operating within a de facto status in name only under Emergency War Powers. With the Constitutional Republican form of Government now dissolved, the receivers of the Bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government for the United States. This new form of government is known as a Democracy, being an established Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America.”

In 2001, Homeland Security police state surveillance grid reached maturity. In 2013, John Kerry, in an act of Treason signed the United Nations Arms Treaty. On 11/21/2018, German Chancellor Angela Merkel at an event by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation in Berlin stated that, “Sovereign nation states must not listen to the will of their citizens when it comes to questions of immigration, borders, or even sovereignty.” And made it clear she is attempting to push the globalist agenda to its disturbing conclusion by 2021. Her words echo recent comments by the French President Emmanuel Macron who stated in a Remembrance Day speech that “patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism [because] nationalism is treason.” Macron, told the German federal parliament that, “France and Germany should be at the center of the emerging New World Order. The Franco-German couple [has]the obligation not to let the world slip into chaos and to guide it on the road to peace. Europe must be stronger… and win more sovereignty,” he went on to demand, just like Merkel, that EU member states surrender national sovereignty to Brussels over “foreign affairs, migration, and development” as well as giving “an increasing part of our budgets and even fiscal resources.”

Today – Out-come based socialist education is in full force in our schools destroying our American youth. And according to the Washingtonian, there are 80,000 lawyers working in Washington DC unwittingly and covertly spreading their venomous socialist agenda. These ABA subverts have flooded our courts and polluted our Constitution with more than 200 years of repugnant acts, statutes and rules. All of the aforesaid destructive acts, along with many more were possible because the federal government that centralized our education has removed civics, constitutional studies, and true American history from our curriculum, replacing it with an out-come based socialist education. “We the People” must act NOW if we are to save our Republic. We “MUST” take to heart what Thomas Jefferson warned us when he said,

“An enlightened citizenry is indispensable for the proper functioning of a republic. Self-government is not possible unless the citizens are educated sufficiently to enable them to exercise oversight. It is therefore imperative that the nation see to it that a suitable education be provided for all its citizens.” – Thomas Jefferson

Without this suitable education and action by the People themselves our Republic will be lost forever. Liberty and Justice would become treason in their “Empire of Lies!” All of the aforesaid acts, and much more too numerous to list, was made possible by the creating of “political parties” that set one group against another as they destroy “common sense” with politically correct narratives as we are led as sheep to the gallows.