The Virus - The Spying - The Culture - Everything You Need To Know About The China Threat

Guest Column 

Facing Up to the China Threat

by

       Brian T. Kennedy - American Strategy Group*

*Brian T. Kennedy is president of the American Strategy Group, chairman of the Committee for the Present Danger:China, and a board member and senior fellow of the Claremont Institute, where he served as president from 2002to 2015. He has written widely on national security affairs and public policy, including in The Wall Street Journal, National Review, Investor’s Business Daily, and Real Clear Politics. He is the author of Communist China’s War Inside America.

      We are at risk of losing a war today because too few of us know that we are engaged with an enemy, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), that means to destroy us. The forces of globalism that have dominated our government (until recently) and our media for the better part of half a century have blinded too many Americans to the threat we face. If we do not wake up to the danger soon, we will find ourselves helpless.

      That is a worst-case scenario. I do not think we Americans will let that happen. But the forces arrayed against us are many. We need to understand what we are up against and what steps must be taken to ensure our victory.

      Our modern understanding of Communist China begins during the Cold War, with President Nixon’s strategic belief that China could serve as a counter weight to the Soviet Union. This belief seemed to carry with it two great benefits. First, the U.S. wouldn’t have to take on the Soviet Union by itself: Communist China was a populous country that bordered the Soviet Union and shared our interest, or so we thought, in checking its global ambitions. Second, by engaging with China—especially in terms of trade, but also by helping it develop technologically—we would help to end communism as a guiding force in China. This second notion might be called the China dream: economic liberalism would lead to political liberalism, and China’s communist dictatorship would fade away.

      At the end of the Cold War, pursuing the China dream appeared a safe course of action, given that the U.S. was then the world’s preeminent military power. The 9/11 Islamic terrorist attacks reinforced the notion that superpower conflict was a thing of the past—that our major enemy was now radical Islam, widely diffused but centered in the Middle East. Later that same year, China was granted “Most Favored Nation” trading status and membership in the World Trade Organization. Little changed when the Bush administration gave way to the Obama administration. The latter’s “pivot to Asia” was mostly rhetorical—a justification to degrade our military capabilities vis-à-vis China, integrate even further the U.S. and Chinese economies, and prioritize the Middle East above all else.

      Under both administrations, the U.S. failed to build a military that could challenge Communist China’s aggression in the Pacific—specifically its building of a modern navy and its construction of military installations on artificial islands in the South China Sea—and acquiesced in the export of much of the U.S. manufacturing base to China and elsewhere.

       History will record that America’s China policy from the 1970s until recently was very costly because it involved a great deal of self-deception about the nature of the Chinese regime and the men who were running it.

                                                          

                                                                 Communist China Today 

 

      The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has a population of 1.4 billion. They are governed by the Chinese Communist Party, which has 90 million members, and by an elite class of approximately 300 million additional Chinese who are deeply invested in the regime’s success. Not all of them may believe in every aspect of what the party calls “socialism with Chinese characteristics”—an admixture of Maoist, Marxist, and Leninist communism—but they actively support the regime. The system benefits these elites, whose businesses, mostly state-owned enterprises, are privately run with active participation by the CCP. Once a business reaches a certain size, it will take on board a cadre of party members who serve as a direct liaison between the business and the government.

       However inefficient this may sound, understand that the CCP operates a massive global intelligence network through its Ministry of State Security. This network does its part to assist Chinese business and industry through industrial espionage, cyber warfare, and economic coercion. This type of state capitalism or neo-mercantilism has led to the creation of a modern economy that rivals that of the U.S. We might like to believe that communism in China cannot be sustained and will lead to the collapse of the regime. And it well may some day. But the CCP has proven extremely capable in building an empire that can govern 1.4 billion people. This required the conquest of a large number of peoples who were not willingly subjugated, as well as the physical mastery of a territory not easily managed. Doing this in such a short period of time and in such a ruthless and determined way is an achievement unparalleled in the known history of the world.

       Today the PRC has a military of two million men, including the world’s largest navy. This military may not be qualitatively on par with the U.S. military, but quantity has a quality of its own. In the last five years of U.S. naval war game simulations, in which the U.S. is pitted against China, the U.S. has failed to come out victorious. We do not have enough ships and munitions to defeat China’s navy absent the use of nuclear weapons. And while it is often said that the Chinese do not have a nuclear arsenal to challenge the U.S., the fact is we don’t know what the Chinese possess. We know they are capable of building nuclear weapons and advanced missiles and rocketry. We know they stole or otherwise obtained advanced U.S. technology involving warhead miniaturization and guidance systems and that they have had the industrial capacity to build these for nearly two decades.

       On our side, we know that the U.S. has not tested a nuclear warhead since 1992and has not built the kind of advanced arsenal that might be required to deter China. And we know that Chinese President and CCP General Secretary XiJinping adheres to the beliefs of Mao Tse-tung, who held that the U.S. was a “paper tiger” that possessed nuclear weapons but would not use them. There is also the rather disturbing belief, also a favorite of Mao, that even if we did use our nuclear weapons, we could not kill all of them. Such is the way a nation at war thinks.

      As for China’s air force, it possesses and is building today advanced fighter aircraft that rival anything the U.S has built. They may not yet have the quantity, but that will come with time. As for proficiency in war fighting, that is something that likewise can be acquired. For all of our nation’s military superiority, we have not been in combat with a peer competitor for half a century. As good as we may be, history contains many examples of militarily inferior nations developing military superiority. If we think that this is not what Communist China is seeking to do today, we are mistaken.

 

                                                                  Unrestricted Warfare 

      There is a famous book, Unrestricted Warfare, written in 1999 by two People’s Liberation Army colonels. It argues that war between the PRC and the U.S. is inevitable, and that when it occurs China must be prepared to use whatever means are necessary to achieve victory. This includes economic warfare, cyber warfare, information warfare, political warfare, terrorism, and biological warfare, in addition to conventional and nuclear warfare. The book’s purpose was not only to shape Chinese policy, but also to plant the idea in the minds of U.S. policymakers that China will consider nothing out of bounds. The book itself is an act of information warfare. Understanding the lengths to which the PRC is willing to go, might the U.S. prefer some kind of accommodation in lieu of building a military capable of challenging China’s strategic designs?

      In thinking about the implications of the word unrestricted, it is useful to look at the CCP’s treatment of its own people.

      Estimates put the number of those killed at the hands of the CCP—whether trough war, starvation, or execution—at roughly 100 million. The mass murder committed by the party and its Red Guards during the Great Leap Forward (1958-1962) and the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) alone resulted in some 70 million dead. And these numbers do not even take into account the forced abortions stemming from China’s one-child policy. That number is conservatively estimated to be 500 million—500 million children murdered in the womb.

      The Chinese government today is perfecting a system of social credit scoring that relies on constant monitoring of its people using the tools of social media, with the aim of grading each individual based on his or her support of the regime. This exerts a chilling effect on the people, who seem to have decided to go along with their communist masters lest they be excluded from whatever benefits they might enjoy from China’s economic modernization.

      Many of us have heard of the CCP’s imprisonment in concentration camps of one to two million Muslim Uyghurs in Xinjiang province. Fewer of us are aware of how the Chinese government facilitates the abduction of Uyghur women for sexual use by Chinese soldiers—or even worse, if that were possible, how the government harvests the organs of the Uyghur population for sale both in China and abroad. This latter atrocity has become a multi-billion dollar industry: the Uyghur organs, since they are uncorrupted by alcohol or pork, are especially desirable to wealthy Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere.

      The ability of Westerners to avert their eyes from such abject horrors is clearly illustrated by the new Disney movie Mulan, parts of which were filmed mere miles from some of these camps. Disney went so far as to thank the Turpan Municipal Bureau of Public Security, responsible for imprisoning the Uyghurs, for its help during filming.

      As an indication of the CCP’s treatment of Christianity, Chinese school textbooks are now promoting a false account of Christianity and of Jesus’s life and teaching. In the Chinese version of the story from the Gospel of John about the adulteress threatened with stoning, for example, Jesus explains that he too is a sinner and then stones the woman to death after the crowd disperses. Despite this and the CCP’s long history of persecuting Christians, Pope Francis will be renewing his agreement with the CCP that gives it effective control over how the Catholic Church, or what passes for it, is run in China.

       The CCP operates a vast intelligence network in the U.S as well. It is made up not merely of intelligence operatives working for the Ministry of State Security, but also a myriad of business and industry officials, Chinese scholar associations, Confucius Institutes operating on American campuses, and370,000 Chinese students attending American universities. Every one of these Chinese citizens is subject to Article 7 of the PRC’s National Intelligence Law of2017, which requires that “any organization or citizen shall support, assist, and cooperate with state intelligence work.” Students and others must report to handlers in Chinese consulates and embassies about who they meet, there search they’re working on, and whatever else is demanded.

      It should not be surprising that a combination of the efforts of this network and of China-based cyber criminals yields $500 to $600 billion of intellectual property theft annually. Also aiding the effort is China’s Thousand Talents Program, which seeks to recruit the brightest Chinese and American professionals to support Chinese science and industry. This has proved to be areal problem for the U.S.—consider the recent arrest of Harvard chemist Charles Lieber for not disclosing his ties to the Chinese government and the firing of the Chinese-American CIO of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, who had invested CalPERS funds in Chinese corporations tied to the People’s Liberation Army.

      Perhaps the greatest threat to the U.S. posed by the CCP is its corruption of America’s business and financial elites, who view the economic benefits of dealing with China as more important than America’s national interests. If there is a single group committed to the globalist project and the delusory China dream, it is Wall Street. Our great investment banks are now selling trillions of dollars in debt and equity in Chinese corporations to American investors and retirees. They are literally betting on the success of China at the expense of the U.S.

    

                                       The People’s War

 

       Over the past decade alone, the PRC has stolen almost $6 trillion of U.S. intellectual property, including tech innovations coming out of Silicon Valley and Seattle, entertainment coming out of Hollywood, and medical research and development coming out of New England and elsewhere. Properly understood, this is China stealing the wealth and future wealth of the American people. It is only recently that our government began trying to combat this theft in a serious way. At the same time, the U.S. has begun a strategic military buildup—including the creation of a new branch of our armed services, the U.S. Space Force, sending a signal that the U.S. would not cede the strategic high ground of space to China, which is already active in militarizing space.

      In response, on May 13, 2019, the PRC, through the Xinhua News Agency—which is controlled by the CCP—declared a “People’s War” against the U.S. This was specifically in response to U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods, which themselves were a response to restrictions of access to Chinese markets and China’s failure to negotiate in good faith on the theft of intellectual property.

       What was meant by this declaration of a People’s War? Was the phrase essentially rhetorical or did it signal a fundamental shift or escalation in Chinese thinking?

      I would not go so far as to say that the COVID-19 virus that originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology was part of this People’s War. But the virus did set into motion a radical reorientation of American society that had grave economic and political consequences.

      We know with certainty that after the virus began spreading in Wuhan in the fall of 2019, the Chinese government closed down flights from Wuhan, which is in Hubei province, to the rest of China. At the same time, it allowed flights from Wuhan to continue to go to Europe and to the U.S.—where the Chinese knew with certainty that the virus would spread. And when President Trump closed the U.S. to flights from China, its foreign ministry and one of the CCP's propaganda arms, the Global Times, pushed for a reversal of this policy—again, knowing full well how contagious the virus was. Indeed, the Chinese government locked down Wuhan and released videos of men in hazmat suits welding doors shut so that people could not leave their homes.

      The U.S. government and its Centers for Disease Control, which has offices in China, asked to be let into Wuhan to investigate. To this day China has denied us access. The initial gene sequencing for the virus that we received from China—evidence that led the now famous public health bureaucrat Anthony Fauci to say that China was being open and cooperative—was incorrect, a fact that made testing Americans for the virus all the more difficult. Were these decisions by the Chinese government part of the People’s War?

      When challenged on its dishonesty regarding the virus’s origins, the CCP’s Xinhua News Agency threatened that China could plunge America into a “mighty sea of coronavirus,” pointing out that China controlled the supply chain for the active pharmaceutical ingredients used in the production of 90 percent of our medicines. This fact alone—the result of the loss of the U.S. manufacturing base to China and other nations, an explicit policy of our government until recently—is a scandal of immense proportions that our government is now working to correct.

      Regardless of whether the COVID-19 virus was a by-product of biological weapons research or resulted from inadequate safeguards in a virology lab, iris the CCP that is to blame for its spread throughout the world, and it was criminal for the Chinese government to keep the world in the dark about the nature of the pathogen.

      Nor has COVID-19 been the only line of attack in this People’s War. It should come as no surprise that the PRC uses its diplomatic missions around the world as a base for industrial espionage and to conduct political and information warfare. Thus it was that on July 24 of this year, the U.S. State Department closed down the Chinese consulate in Houston, saying that it was serving as hub for CCP operatives who were engaging in theft of America’s research into, among other things, the development of a COVID-19 vaccine. To quote a State Department official:

      "Consulates are also bases of operations for Fox Hunt teams. These are teams of agents sent from China here to coerce economic fugitives—meaning political rivals of President Xi, the Communist Party critics, and refugees—coercing them, that is, to return to the PRC. Consulates enabled the activities of those teams. Consulates also enabled direct lobbying of state and local officials, as well as business people, to favor Chinese interests. And while that’s to be expected by diplomats, when it takes a turn towards the coercive or the covert, that becomes a national security problem"

      It is also believed that Chinese operatives in the Houston consulate provided intelligence to Black Lives Matter and Antifa rioters in Houston as a way of demonstrating their solidarity. Indeed, there is growing evidence that the CCP’s United Front includes these groups, and that some of the funding for BLM and Antifa is coming from CCP-sponsored or affiliated groups: Liberation Road, the Freedom Road Socialist Organization, and the Chinese Progressive Association.

      In conclusion, Americans are not looking for war with Communist China, but Communist China appears to be at war with us. As a first order of business, we must continue what we have at long last begun: building a military designed to deter Chinese aggression and pursuing trade and other policies that put our own national interests first.

      Equally important—especially given the violence in our cities that our foreign enemies cheer—is defending our American way of life and teaching our countrymen why America deserves our love and devotion, now and in the days ahead.

 

 

 

Georgia State Senate Committee Recommends Decertifying It's Electors in U.S. Presidential Election.

by

       George Sontag

      The Georgia Senate Committee released its report on the election irregularities probable fraudulent activity when it came to counting the votes. The conclusions are damning. They had listened to witnesses telling what they saw and other evidence that shakes people’s ability to trust the election report. They voted to rescind their certification.

                                     Below is the executive summary of the report:

      The November 3, 2020 General Election (the “Election”) was chaotic and any reported results must be viewed as untrustworthy. The Subcommittee took evidence from witnesses and received affidavits sworn under oath. The Subcommittee heard evidence that proper protocols were not used to ensure chain of custody of the ballots throughout the Election, after the opening of ballots prior to the Election, and during the recounts. The Subcommittee heard testimony that it was possible or even likely that large numbers of fraudulent ballots were introduced into the pool of ballots that were counted as voted; there is no way of tracing the ballots after they have been separated from the point of origin. The Subcommittee heard testimony of pristine ballots whose origin looked suspicious or which could not be verified and the inability of poll workers to distinguish between test ballots and absentee ballots. Signatures were not consistently verified according to law in the absentee balloting process.

      Poll watchers on Election Night testified that they had noted that ballots were not secured, that seals and security tags were not used, and the chain of custody was often lax or non-existent. During the recount process, the monitors observed similar patterns of unsecured ballots that had broken seals and open cases of ballots laying around for hours or overnight in unsecured locations. There was a lack of enforcement of the law, sloppy handling of the ballots by those counting, deliberate covering-up of voting numbers by workers, lack of following the process during the recount, unsafe handling of military ballots, and insecure data such as on laptops and flash drives. According to submitted testimony, there were also many equipment failures when ballots would not go through the machines and other times when ballots were counted more than once.

      A great deal of testimony supported evidence of a coordinated effort to prevent a transparent process of observing the counting of ballots during the absentee ballot opening period and on Election Night. Witnesses testified to hostility to Republican poll workers during the recount – directional signage was unavailable, doors were locked, and Republican poll watchers were sent home early or given menial assignments.

      Monitors throughout the state were often kept at an unreasonably long distance – some social distancing was understandable, but monitors were blocked from having the visual ability to see what was written on the ballots or to have any meaningful way to check the counting or to double-check that what was counted was actually assigned to the right candidate. They also could not observe what was entered into the ARLO system, nor could they be told the count that was being entered into ARLO. Instead, they were told that those numbers would be totaled and come back from the Secretary of State’s Office. They were also told not to take pictures, film, or have other means of acquiring proof of the process that they were experiencing based on a rule from the State Elections Board. That rule contravenes the spirit and purpose of the election law.

      Many states report more ballots than registered voters and most of these came in the form of absentee ballots that showed up long AFTER the counting had stopped and with NO witnesses other than Democrats. In Fulton County, they threw the Republicans and the press out because they said they were done counting for the night. As soon as the coast was clear, they pulled out suitcases full of votes. The next morning, Georgia had over 16,000 more absentee ballots than they counted on election night. Just enough extra votes to put Biden in the lead by about 12,000 votes. In this one case, President Trump had a huge lead election night but the four suitcases narrowed the gap and the additional absentee ballots gave Biden just enough to win. The committee wrote the 15-page review that is extremely critical of the entire election process.

      Another strange co-incidence? We have just found out that Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger’s brother Ron works for Huawei Enterprise Storage Solutions based in Shenzhen, China, a China government-owned company. Isn’t it funny how all roads lead to China? China went all out to get Biden elected, didn’t they?

 

 

When the White House Was Deadly

by

       M. Richard Maxson

      Water had to be brought in for the President and his family as the early White House had no well on the property so the question was, how to get the water into the White House. With the lack of ground water beneath the house, the Committee on Public Buildings set out to find a suitable source of water nearby. In a letter to President Thomas Jefferson on May 27, 1807, surveyor Nicholas King proposed pumping water from a spring just six blocks north of the White House. Located at the intersection of Massachusetts Avenue and 16th Street West (the current location of the General Winfield Scott statue), the spring sat at an elevation of about nine feet above the White House. King suggested delivering the water to the White House from the spring using a series of pipes and gravity. This proposed site and plan was never used. In1814, during the second British war, the White House was badly burned it’s exterior charred and interior destroyed.

      President James Monroe moved into the partially reconstructed Executive Residence in October 1817. Exterior construction continued with the addition of the semi-circular South portico in 1824 and the North portico in 1829. The water problem was solved when the Committee on Public Buildings purchased a spring in Franklin Square in 1831. The site was only four blocks northeast of the White House and was closer than the site that King suggested in 1807. Ground was broken on the site in 1833. Engineer Robert Leckie was put in charge of the project. Leckie had extensive experience in leveling streets and building water lines in Georgetown and Washington, D.C.

      Leckie used iron pipes to run the water from the spring in Franklin Square to three small reservoirs located in the Treasury building, the State Department, and the White House. Since the spring was at a higher elevation than the White House, gravity did most of the work. Leckie completed this system at the end of May, 1833. President Andrew Jackson was the first resident in the White House to take advantage of this new running water. No concern was given to the pipes, the water, its source, or even the bacteria-filled night soil depository that was located uphill, less than a mile away from the spring.

      Complicating matters in Washington, D.C. was the city canal. As if the contaminated water from the Franklin Square spring weren’t enough of a health risk, the Washington, D.C. canal was a danger all on its own. It ran along what is now Constitution Avenue in Washington, D.C. It was an original feature of the city, designed to connect the Anacostia River with Tiber Creek. Since the canal ran through the heart of Washington, D.C. and bordered the National Mall, it was subject to a lot of misuse. Soon after its opening in 1815, it quickly became nothing more than an open sewer, with reports of citizens dumping raw waste and animal carcasses. Since it was not covered, many drunken patrons, fresh from a visit to the local pub, found themselves immersed in its filthy waters. A foul stench emanated from it, exacerbated by the long and hot Washington, D.C. summers. The canal ran only one block south of the White House. It is easy to see how bacteria and disease could find its way onto the White House grounds from such a lengthy, uncovered channel. Today, recent research shows that all of these factors presented a larger danger than anyone at that time would realize.

      In March of 1844, President William Henry Harrison delivered his infamous inaugural address, a two-hour speech made in cold and rainy conditions that many at the time believed caused his untimely death the following month. Today, we know that is not true. Over a century-and-a-half later, science points to a different source of the president’s demise. In a 2014 study for Oxford Academic, Jane McHugh and Philip Mackowiak theorize that Harrison was actually killed by the running water in the White House. Their study first takes a look at the initial diagnosis from Harrison’s doctor, Thomas Miller; Miller claimed that the president’s eventual cause of death was pneumonia. However, the symptoms Harrison displayed during the time he lay on his deathbed in the White House were more consistent with that of enteric fever and a gastrointestinal infection, which could have been brought on by a parasite or bacteria introduced through contaminated water in the White House.

Death of William Henry Harrison (Library of Congress)

      Harrison initially complained to Dr. Miller of anxiety and fatigue three weeks after his inauguration. These ailments quickly gave way to nausea, constipation, and a rising body temperature. These symptoms were treated with a steady regimen of mustard plasters, laxatives, laudanum, and enemas. Obviously, Dr. Miller was treating President Harrison’s symptoms, and not the actual cause of his ailments.

      In their study, McHugh and Mackowiak theorize that since Harrison’s “pulmonary symptoms were not as severe as his gastrointestinal distress,” it is more likely “that he died of a gastrointestinal infection.” They go on to explore the possibilities of this infection being the product of the bacteria S. paratyphi. President Harrison’s infrequent, and then frequent (thanks to the many laxatives he was given) stool samples strongly resembled those of typhoid patients (in fact, a number of sources attribute Harrison’s death to typhoid, treating it as a settled question). The Oxford Academic study concludes, “There is ample reason to conclude that Harrison’s move into the White House placed him at particular risk of contracting enteric fever.” It wasn’t the inclement weather, it was the water that Harrison drank, bathed in, and cleaned with was the cause of his demise.

Mark Twain Saved Ulysses Grant's Family

by

       M. Richard Maxson

      President Grant died on July 23, 1885, from throat cancer. Grant was a notorious, lifelong cigar-lover. He not only smoked them but chewed them – as many as a dozen a day by his own admission. Historians report that once the public discovered his love of cigars, he received more than 20,000 as gifts. Grant was also a heavy drinker at times during his life.

       During his presidency, Grant helped steer through Congress the 1870 Enforcement Act, which reduced the influence of the racist Democrat Ku Klux Klan, as well as the 1875 Civil Rights Act, which sought to desegregate such public places as restrooms, “inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement.” Grant also buttressed relations with Britain, which had been strained by London’s wartime links to the Confederacy. He won by a landslide in his second run for the White House. He was put up for another term. No president had ever served a third term before–and as it turned out, Ulysses S. Grant wasn't about to either.

Although factions within the Republican party supported the idea of Grant seeking an unprecedented third term, debate over this potential move came to nothing when Grant himself vetoed the idea. But that debate did leave the Republican party with a lasting symbol–the elephant. One hundred and forty-three years ago, the elephant gained its first association with the Republican party. It appeared in a Thomas Nast editorial cartoon in Harper’s Weekly, addressing Grant’s apparent campaigning for a third term in the midst of the midterm elections.

      After leaving the presidency, Grant entered business on Wall Street in New York City. It didn’t end well. The victim of a shady investment scheme, Grant found himself broke later in life. Thanks to a pyramid scheme operated by his unscrupulous partner, Ferdinand Ward, Grant’s investment firm had instantly collapsed, wiping out his life savings. “When I went downtown this morning I thought I was worth a great deal of money, now I don’t know that I have a dollar,” the swindled Civil War hero lamented to a former West Point classmate. In fact, Grant had all of $80 to his name. His wife, Julia, had another $130. Kind-hearted strangers responded by mailing Grant checks. Desperate to pay his bills, the former U.S. president cashed them.

      Grant that summer suffered from an excruciating sting in his throat as well. Grant’s wife Julia remembers her husband was eating peaches – a favorite of his –when he first noticed a problem with his throat. “He proceeded to eat the dainty morsel; then he started up as if in great pain and exclaimed, ‘Oh my. I think something has stung me from that peach.’” Unfortunately, he ignored that warning. When he finally visited a doctor in October, Grant learned he had incurable throat and tongue cancer, likely a product of his longtime cigar-smoking habit.

      Knowing he was dying of throat cancer, he accepted a lucrative offer from his longtime admirer Mark Twain to write and publish his memoirs. Despite Grant’s terrible pain and failing health, they worked together for five weeks in a cottage on the grounds of the Mount McGregor Correctional Facility in upstate New York. The house is now the Grant Cottage Historic Site, where several of his personal effects are on display.

      Perhaps the most interesting item at the site is the glass of cocaine hydro chlorate solution, which Grant called his “cocaine water.” Swallowing small amounts of the liquid was the only treatment available to him. By the time Grant sought medical help for the pain and swelling in his mouth, the cancer was untreatable. But the cocaine solution helped alleviate the pain in his throat. Over time, the cocaine in the solution has settled to the bottom of the glass. Tim Welch, director of the Grant Historic Site, says, “Every year the New York State Department of Parks and Recreation measures this and makes sure that none of it is gone.”

      Ulysses Grant passed away just a few days after his memoirs were completed. At more than 600 pages, it was a runaway bestseller. The family was saved from financial ruin. His family reportedly received more than $450,000 from the sale of 300,000-plus copies of his memoirs, an inordinately huge sum of money for this period of history. Even though his presidency was racked with corruption and scandal nothing tarnished him. He is now considered one of the better presidents who had his hands full with the Reconstruction chaos and the end of the first Civil War?

Progressive Indoctrination Destroying America

 by

       George Sontag

      Free societies can be overthrown from within in a way that goes virtually unnoticed until it’s too late. The Progressive plan to overthrow America from within has made monumental strides over the last half-century. Communist doctrine has been methodically infused into our society by the post-1960s Democratic Party and its progressive allies throughout the popular culture. I don’t say that to be inflammatory. I say it because it accurately describes what has happened.

      Reading through Wikileaks released DNC emails, it becomes clear why the party didn’t want these released. The documents don't undermine democracy itself, rather, they undermine the illusion of democracy that the Democratic Party is selling to the American public and to the rest of the world. The emails provide a glimpse behind the curtain of an organization that purports to stand for hope, love, unity, democracy and progressiveness, revealing instead an elaborate effort to create division and to protect the establishment status quo. DNC officials were even caught discussing the use of religion as a wedge issue.

                                                   IT EXPLODED UNDER OBAMA

      Known as Obama’s ideological mentor, the late Italian

Communist Antonio Gramsci was one of the twentieth century’s most influential Marxist thinkers. Disillusioned that the communist movement in Italy failed to incite a Bolshevik-style revolution in his capitalist country, Gramsci developed a stratagem to quietly overturn capitalism in western societies from within. That stratagem is known as Cultural Marxism, the process of gradually infusing Communist doctrine into a society via its culture.

       Gramsci’s stratagem is reflected in one of his most pertinent quotes: “Socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches and the media.” A prime example of an undermined structural institution in this country IS its public education system, which has been infiltrated by Progressive teachers and administrators who have indoctrinated generations of impressionable young minds with the alleged virtues of Socialism. Appreciation for the military’s courage and bravery on the field of battle in defense of America has been replaced with lessons about the struggles of transgender individuals. Nowadays standing up and demanding the right to use whatever bathroom one wants has become ‘heroic’ and the new battle cry for the social engineers.

      The Marxist revolution in American schools was accomplished swiftly and largely outside the public eye. The ultimate goal of that subversive indoctrination is to supplant the values of the Founders with those of Marx and Lenin. In many of our public schools, teachers are no longer teaching their students to be proud of their country; they’re teaching them to be ashamed of their country and its two-party capitalist system. What children are taught in school today will determine what kind of country we have in the future. The relentless socialist brainwashing of America’s schoolchildren has yielded troubling results. Raising a child to regard America as racist and oppressive all but guarantees a disillusioned adult. A recent poll by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation found that 7 in 10 Millennials say they would vote for a Socialist in the next election.

      The Democratic Party long ago ceased to be the party of John F. Kennedy and has instead mutated into the party of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Democrats used to say they support organized labor. Now, they are openly calling for open borders, driving down wages for millions of workers across the country. They used to say they support free expression on college campuses. Now, they do everything possible to silence students and speakers who disagree with their views. Many Democrats used to say Socialism was a danger to America, but now they embrace radicals like A.O-C. and openly call for the creation of far-left Socialist programs.

      Since the election, (execution of President Trump) a survey shows that 72% believe this is the lowest point in the country’s history that they’ve witnessed. A May survey found that people are the unhappiest we’ve been in 50 years. Just 14% of people say they are “very happy.” The survey further found that just 4 in 10 expect their children to have a better standard of living than they have, the lowest percentage since the question was first asked in 1994.

T

William Barr Resigns

by

       M. Richard Maxson

      The Attorney General of the United States, William Barr has sent the president his 

resignation. A true American Patriot, rather than be ousted when the next administration

comes in for investigating Mr. Biden and his family. He did not want to fight the cover-up

or be fired for investigating it. His thinking is that the country has and is going through 

enough.Perhaps he felt that a new civil war would be enhanced by his remaining. 

Regardless, his letter is a true testament to the out going administration.

                                                                                                   Office of the Attorney General
                                                                                                   Washington, D.C. 20530
                                                                                                   December 14, 2020                                                                                           

President Donald. J. Trump
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500

 

Dear Mr. President,

       I appreciate the opportunity to update you this afternoon on the Department’s review of 

voter fraud allegations in the 2020 election and how these allegations will continue to be

pursued. At a time when the country is so deeply divided, it is incumbent on all levels of 

government, and all agencies acting within their purview, to do all we can to assure the 

integrity of elections and promote public. confidence in their outcome.  

      "I am proud to have played a role in the many successes and unprecedented achievements you have delivered for the American people. Your record is all the more historic because you accomplished it in the face of relentless, implacable resistance."

      I am greatly honored that you called on me to serve your Administration and the 

American people once again as Attorney General. I am proud to have played a role in the 

many successes and unprecedented achievements you have delivered for the American

people. Your record is all the more historic because you accomplished it in the face of 

relentless, implacable resistance. Your 2016 victory speech in which you reached out to-your

opponents and called for working together for the benefit of the American people was 

immediately met by a partisan onslaught against you in which no tactic, no-matter how 

abusive and deceitful, was out of bounds. The nadir of this campaign was the effort to cripple,

if not oust, your Administration with frenzied and baseless accusations of collusion. with 

Russia. 

      Few could have. weathered these attacks, much less forge ahead with a positive 

program for the country. You built the strongest and most resilient economy in American

history — one that has brought unprecedented progress: to those previously left out. 

You have restored American military strength. By brokering historic peace deals in the 

Mideast you have achieved what most thought impossible. You have curbed illegal 

immigration and enhanced the security of our nation’s borders. You have advanced the rule

of law by appointing a record number of judges committed to constitutional principles. 

With Operation Warp Speed, you delivered a vaccine for coronavirus on a schedule no one 

thought conceivable — a feat that will undoubtedly save millions of lives.  

      During your Administration, the Department of Justice has worked tirelessly to protect 

the public from violent crime; worked closely with leaders in Mexico to fight the drug cartels;

cracked down on China’s exploitation of our economy and workers; defended competition

in the marketplace, especially the technology sector; and supported the men and women

of law enforcement who selflessly—and too often thanklessly—risk their lives to keep our 

communities safe.  

       As discussed, I will spend the next week wrapping up a few remaining matters 

important to the Administration and depart on December 23rd.

        Wishing you, Melania, and your family a Merry Christmas and a Blessed Holiday Season.
God Bless.

Sincerely,




 

William P. Barr
Attorney General

The Supreme Court Had No Choice

 by

       M. Richard Maxson

      As we at the American Constitutionalist expected, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the claims of the states that the election of 2020 was fraudulent. It was expected because there is no clear cut clause in the Constitution to deal with massive vote fraud. The four states in a filing asked the justices to reject the lawsuit, which they said had no legal grounds. The Supreme Court agreed. The Court, if it took it up, would have to set new precedent outside of the Constitution and since it is the job of Congress to make law, NOT the court, it was denied.

      It was expected because the Constitution expected it’s citizens to be honest and honorable in making such an important choice. They never foresaw a situation of massive fraud, an organized effort from within the country by a political party, paid for with millions of dollars from foreign entities and anti-American values millionaire and billionaire Socialists within.

      So on Friday, the highest court in the land decided that Texas “lacked standing” to challenge the conduct of elections in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin under Article 3 of the US Constitution. "Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognisable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections," the court said in its ruling.

      Alan West of Texas remarked, “The Supreme Court, in tossing the Texas lawsuit that was joined by seventeen (21 at last count) states and 106 US congressman,(over 120 at last count) decreed that a state can take unconstitutional actions and violate its own election law -- resulting in damaging effects on other states that abide by the law, while the guilty state suffers no consequences,” West wrote, “This decision establishes a precedent that says states can violate the U.S. Constitution and not be held accountable,” West continued. “This decision will have far-reaching ramifications for the future of our Constitutional Republic.

                             What is the constitutional point that is in discussion?

Article III, Section 2 - Signed in convention September 17, 1787. Ratified June 21, 1788.

       “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”

      Article III, Section 2 creates a series of categories of “cases” or “controversies” to which the judicial power “shall extend.” Examples include “all Cases, in Law and Equity,” arising under the Constitution, cases “of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction,” and controversies in which the parties come from different states (“diversity jurisdiction”).

      However, a portion of Article III, Section 2, was changed by the 11th Amendment. The Eleventh Amendment’s text prohibits the federal courts from hearing certain lawsuits against states. “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” Yet the article in question explicitly states that the SCOTUS will be the original jurisdiction in “Controversies between two or more States; – between a State and Citizens of another State; – between Citizens of different States,” among other things.

      The conflict of the Amendment and the wildly different voter laws in the individual states have given rise to enforcing another part of the Constitution, the selection of the electors to the electoral collage. As of this writing, eighteen states and more than 100 Republicans in Congress endorsed discarding the results of the election and putting the White House in the hands of state legislatures.

      The global Socialist elite have made a Biden-Harris administration, now but inevitable. He and his followers have said they want to cancel Jefferson and Washington among other Founders as a racist and “change” America in the name of “equity.” Part of that agenda is abolishing the Senate filibuster and “packing” the Supreme Court by appointing additional justices, to cancel the supposed conservative majority. This Socialist coup is something Constitutional Americans - and the history books - won't soon forget.

The Dividing of America - Part 2

 by

       M. Richard Maxson

      More and more areas of American life have been withdrawn from voters’ democratic control and delivered up to the bureaucratic and judicial emergency mechanisms of civil rights law. The law gave bureaucrats and judges emergency powers to override the normal constitutional order, bypassing democracy. Civil rights law has become a second constitution, with powers that can be used to override the Constitution of 1787.

      The Civil Rights Act has become a second constitution. It came to dominate—and even overrule—legislation that had nothing to do with it. It The most traumatic example of this was the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. This legislation was supposed to be the grand compromise on which our modern immigration policy would be built. On the one hand, about three million illegal immigrants who had mostly come north from Mexico would be given citizenship. On the other hand, draconian laws would ensure that the amnesty would not be an incentive to future migrants, and that illegal immigration would never get out of control again. So there were harsh “employer sanctions” for anyone who hired a non-citizen. But once the law passed, what happened? Illegal immigrants got their amnesty. But the penalties on illegal hiring turned out to be fake—because, to simplify just a bit, asking an employee who “looks Mexican” where he was born or about his citizenship status was held to be a violation of his civil rights. Civil rights law had made it impossible for Americans to get what they’d voted for through their representatives, leading to decades of political strife over immigration policy that continues to this day.

      The Civil Rights Act also created groups, many of them not even envisioned in the original legislation and they got the hang of using civil rights law. Immigrant advocates, for instance: Americans never voted for bilingual education, but when the Supreme Court upheld the idea in 1974, rule writers in the offices of civil rights simply established it, and it exists to this day. These policies, qua policies, have their defenders and their detractors. The important thing for our purposes is how they were established and enforced.

      As civil rights laws have been extended by analogy into other areas of American life, the imputation of moral non-personhood has been aimed at a growing number of people who have committed no sin more grievous than believing the same things they did two years ago, and therefore standing in the way of the progressive juggernaut. Americans are not to be permitted to advance their knowledge by discussing the issue in public or to work out their differences at the ballot box. In the United States, as our way of governing has evolved since 1964, emergencies are declared on a moral basis: people are suffering; their newly discovered rights are being denied. America can’t wait anymore for the ordinary democratic process to take its course. To these people, the other party is a party of bigots.

      Say you’re a person who goes to church, and your seven-year-old son is being taught about “gender fluidity” in first grade. There is no avenue for you to complain about this. You’ll be called a bigot at the very least. In fact, although you’re not a lawyer, you have a vague sense that you might get fired from your job, or fined, or that something else bad will happen. You also feel that this business has something to do with gay rights. “Sorry,” you ask, “when did I vote for this?” You begin to suspect that taking your voice away from you and taking your vote away from you is the main goal of these rights movements. To these people, the other party is a party of totalitarians.

      That’s our current party system: the bigots versus the totalitarians. If either of these constitutions were totally devoid of merit, we wouldn’t have a problem. We could be confident that the wiser of the two would win out in the end. But each of our two constitutions contains, for its adherents, a great deal worth defending to the bitter end. And unfortunately, each constitution must increasingly defend itself against the other.

      When this legislation was being advanced one of the common sayings of activists was: “The sky didn’t fall.” They were right in the short term. But I think they forgot how delicate a system a democratic Constitutional Republic is, how difficult it is to get the formula right, and how hard it is to see when a government begins—slowly, very slowly—to veer off course in a way that can take decades to become evident. TODAY - WE ARE OFF COURSE.