Coup d'état in the U.S.A.? Part III American History from 1960

A friend, commenting on who really runs the world, wrote me: "Maybe some day we will find out who is actually running the show."

Well, that's a great question. Who can answer it? I'll give a rough try, FWIW. I cannot help but be sarcastic, however, as world history since 1960 is absurd in the extreme. 

1. Satan and his peeps run the show in the overall scheme of things, of course, even now in the Vatican (people have known this for decades, even Paul VI famously asserted it about the "smoke of Satan..."; he wrote that in 1972; it was formally published in 2018). 
2. But I'm guessing the people on earth pulling the strings are the big bankers, and that would include BlackRock and Vanguard, who basically own most things. 
3. There's some old banking families that still are incredibly powerful, and George Soros (and now his son) probably fits in to that crowd one way or another. 
4. Whether the World Economic Forum is a joke or a serious Fascist-style takeover threat, remains to be seen.

Whatever else is true, the American people are no more sovereign in America than Charles is Sovereign in England. The American people don't want what they're getting. Yet they still get it good and hard. 

• This is a bitter irony because the idea underlying the existence of the U.S.A. is that its people are sovereign; i.e. not a king, nor an aristocracy, nor a plutocracy, nor a bureaucracy, and certainly not God (the U.S. Constitution pointedly does not mention God at all and excludes organized religion from any governmental role), but the people in general. The people are sovereign. This was the idea John Locke had and Jefferson, Madison, et al., promoted. Today, what we seem to have instead is an "Intelligence Service" bureaucracy government with a Potemkin Village "face" made up of the worst people imaginable, a "Kakistocracy"!

Take the following example. The American people proved what they wanted to do about the Vietnam War by voting in Nixon in 1968 and after he showed he was clearly getting us out of that war, they landslided him back in in 1972. His popular vote margin stood at +23.2%. The popular vote margin was 47,168,710 to McGovern's 29,173,222. Nixon carried every state except Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. (The District of Columbia is a joke; it's a Democrat Party prison-insane asylum: it should be dissolved or completely "demilitarized" with no "self-government" or vote for those who choose to reside there, and certainly no federal courts of any kind except the Supreme Court – all other lower federal court jurisdictions are created by Congress.)

Same again with Reagan in 1984. Popular vote for Reagan was 54,455,075 votes versus 37,577,185 for Walter Mondale. Reagan carried every state except Mondale's native Minnesota (and D.C. again, of course). In every other presidential election, the Republicans ran their establishment ("GOPe") candidates (Bob Dole, John McCain, the two Bushes) and either lost (first two) or narrowly won (second two). Clearly, the sovereign people rejected those clowns.

But the huge populist wins didn't matter. A Deep State coup d'état sent Nixon packing, and his vice president before him, so we had our first "installed" president, Gerald Ford (whom today we'd call a classic do-nothing GOPe "RINO" who lost his election bid in 1976). They tried to assassinate Reagan in 1981 only two months after he took the oath of office, and in his second term, they left him a total "lame duck" with Iran-Contra and a host of other garbage. As for Nixon, he himself did only a fraction of what Lyndon Johnson did, only Johnson was for more brutal and far-ranging in crime than Nixon. Nixon famously said, when asked about Kennedy's assassination, "I never wanted the office so badly that I'd kill for it." (Paraphrase, but pretty close.)

And that brings up Kennedy's assassination. The CIA hated him (see: Bay of Pigs), so did the Mafia. Nobody hated JFK, though, as LBJ did. JFK was a womanizer and drug addict (originally because of his hurt spine); the only admirable thing about Jack Kennedy next to his Navy service was his anti-Communist stance. LBJ, on the other hand, was a womanizer, thief, liar, personally more corrupt in government, far more corrupt, than the entire Kennedy family. But push came to shove. Jack was about to bunk out of Vietnam for a number of reasons – the British P.M. told him to get out, he didn't want to escalate American involvement – and esp after the South Vietnam's president, Ngô Đình Diệm, was brutally assassinated (a CIA-backed op) on November 2, 1963. A mere 20 days after Ngô Đình Diệm's death, Kennedy himself was killed. It was also about a week before Kennedy was going to accuse Lyndon Johnson of corruption. Gee, what a coincidence! Johnson was the most corrupt and downright evil man ever to be president, and dumber than Bill and Hillary combined; he was definitely in the pocket of the "military-industrial complex". (But you'd never hear that if you only read mainstream news.)

So there you have it. After Eisenhower's warning to the American people about the "Military-Industrial Complex" (now "Deep State") in this farewell address on January 17, 1961, we got an Asian war no one wanted or could explain, especially galling in light of what we ought to have learned in Korea a decade earlier. (Today we're friends with Communist Vietnam and ignore their atrocious human rights/religion violations.) Add to that any number of wars in the Mideast, one of which we left with our tail between our legs and tens of millions of dollars of military equipment behind, and now a war in Europe we seem hell bent on turning nuclear, no less – not to mention two coup d'états, the election of the two Bushes (ham-handed types much of the time, though the older was a naval aviator in WWII and the younger one once owned a baseball team, so there!), the senior Bush, George H.W. Bush, being the son of Nazi financier and WASP scion Prescott Bush, a banker, mind you, who became U.S. senator; replaced in 1992 by Bubba Clinton and his harpy lesbian wife, deadbeats who never worked a day in their lives, then a pot-head homosexual poseur whose father is unknown, and his "man wife" (c'mon; ever see Michelle's "package"?), also deadbeats who never worked a day in their lives – we don't even know what grades they got in college except reading Michelle's dissertation makes one realize 'she-he' has about a fifth-grade education level. And now we got a demented non compos mentis puppet who, back when he was actually alive, was also a deadbeat poseur who never worked a day in his life, and even plagiarized his academic and other writings, molested his own daughter, caresses and "handles" little girls on camera, and who shelters his crackhead porn-whore addicted son, both father and son clearly bought and paid for by the Chinese. The latter, to round this off nicely by returning to where we started, now owning the Vatican. (Smoke of Satan, indeed.)

And I haven't even mentioned abortion, yet. 

I mean, whoever is calling the shots for the U.S.A. must think we're all collective imbeciles for allowing this farcical farrago fatuity to continue five seconds! (The same, the exact same, could be said about the world's bishops in regards to Bergoglio.) Perhaps we are collective imbeciles, or perhaps we just have to be pushed far enough to finally snap and push back. I have no doubt "they" the Powers-that-Be are waiting for that very thing. We'll have to see. 

How much longer can this go on? Financially, these cretins though their mismanagement and endless wars have bankrupted the country. This can't go on forever. And the educational system is a catastrophe. Read this from Ann Barnhardt. Certainly, "If something cannot go on forever, it will stop." This laconic comment by Herb Stein, a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, may well describe our near-future. 

One way, or the other.

 

          AnP

Christianity, Freedom, the American government and our current free-fall

Friends,

America is a mess, and the American Republic is just about dead. Why? I think it is, to an essential decree, because the anti-God or simply "No God Need Apply" embodied in the 1787 U.S. Constitution has finally born the fruits its policy was always destined to bear.

In any political discussion à la the U.S., "freedom" or "liberty" is central. It is said whereas English literature is about honor and French literature is about love, American literature is about freedom. The Declaration of Independence is famous for this line: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Yet the right to life American courts have denied for over half a century. It has been denied because Americans, both citizens and supposedly the government, worship not the God of Christianity, but "Liberty". 

Yet what is liberty? Are we at liberty to murder unborn children? Or are we at liberty to molest born children, or castrate and spade children? Or for that matter, run wild in the streets? Flash mob rob stores? Parade naked down streets or as in San Francisco, stand on sidewalks openly doing the most obscene things with our private parts? (Not to mention filling those streets with manure and urine.) If homosexuals are allowed to legally marry under the U.S. 1787 Constitution, something so absolutely NOT in that document that nothing could be more obvious, then why not? "Liberty" triumphs over everything else, including Truth. And this is because we think of liberty as the no-holds-barred, purely narcissistic "Pursuit of Happiness". The worship not of God but of Self. Actually, Jefferson's use of that latter "Pursuit" phrase actually means the pursuit of virtue, for traditionally, to be virtuous is to achieve true happiness. But very, very few seem to know this today. Today, the "Pursuit of Happiness" means doing whatever one damn (literally) well please it means, regardless of the consequences. 

Now, I should mention that the Catholic idea of "freedom" is not the big box store model. A big box store might offer 20 or 30 choices of canned peas, for example, and one is supposed to have greater liberty of choice in such an environment than one would have in a mom and pop store with two or three pea choices. But Christian Freedom means we are free to choose what God wants for us, what He made us for, the why of our existence. Instead of being forced to do what He wants, God wants us to chose it freely, of our own will, conforming His will to ours. It is like a gasoline engine being said to be "free" to run on gasoline, and not kerosene, or diesel, or airplane fuel or whiskey. A gas engine running on any of the latter is not "free". It will destroy itself. A human being choosing against God is not "free", but enslaved, and will destroy himself. Clearly, this is different in its essentials from the 18th century ideals of the Founders about "Liberty", and definitely not what modern narcissistic people mean by being "free" and pursuing their self-centered" happiness".

And Christianity in the U.S.? Today, Christian "freedom" sounds like how Christians survive in Muslim countries: i.e. underground, hidden away, being Christian out of sight. One might argue that the Faith starts in the home, and on a personal level, it does. Yet then too, Christianity has always been, or tried to be, a public religion, proclaiming Christ and Him Crucified "in season and out of season". Whenever they could, Christians became very much influencers on secular government, monarchical or democratic, imperial or republican, and acted as the conscience of the secular state, establishing what are called concordats with states demanding the right of public worship and the right to influence law, culture, and government decisions. There's been a separation of Church and State since the religion's Founder said "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, but to God what is God's." The Byzantine Empire and the Reformation German princes and Henry VIII did the Church no favor by making it a department of state. But God's portion has always included public worship and (dare I say it?) freedom to influence the secular state. 

Since the U.S. Constitution of 1787 didn't mention God at all, however, and formally stated the U.S. would have no "religious test" (Article VI, Clause 3*), slowly but surely, God has been driven from the American public square, until post WWII, when God got removed from pretty much all things governmental, much to the strengthening of the godless, and thus lawless, "Deep State". Jack Kennedy in 1960 actually publicly affirmed his religion (he really didn't have any) would not affect his governing. But just what IS that, actually? Hell demanding its influence be not challenged, is what.

Unfortunately, God is not allowed to illuminate anything in DC, the federal government "state". Especially in the "Ape of the Church" that is the official Vatican II Church in DC. Totally lawless, on many levels. President Trump is finding that out, and through him we can all recognize how insane things have become. Actually, NO courts should exist in DC, or any trials, because it is a one-party "statelet", fully "woke" and Communist. It's the nightmarish model of what Democrats and RINOs and all the innumerable narcissists want to turn the whole country into. No one in Washington, D.C. is "free" at all. And that's the reality planned for all of us.

* Most Americans, or the Remnant possessing some rudimentary education, think of the First Amendment to the Constitution about "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". This prohibited a national Church, such as the European countries had at that time. It also "freed" or gave "liberty" to people about religion, thus allowing the U.S. to be a "religious country". But actually, it served to remove the new Government from religious "checks and balances". There would be no moral counterweight to the government, except the easily manipulated or ignored "will of the people". It really existed to prohibit the government from being influenced in any official way by any Church whatsoever, atomizing the religion to each individual as a private, personal thing, only. None of the citizens had thereafter a collective moral outlet, except via voting. This clause in the Amendment was especially needed to preserve American chattel slavery, but also saved the government from being challenged legally by Churches over how it treated American Indians (breaking treaties with them at will, forcing them off their land, denying them the old English Common Law "Castle doctrine"), and so on. In short, it made "the Church" utterly irrelevant to the State. And, eventually, to most Christians.

        AnP

The American Left and the Breakup of the USA

Great article here at American Greatness on the American Left. It has one of the best descriptions of the Left and what it wants, and why it is the way it is. Highly recommended. 

The article is cast as a question of secession. A divorce from the crazies. I commented on that with the following:


Ideally, New England should be joined to Canada's Maritime Provinces in their own separate (and very poor!) country. Boston is the natural capital for such a country. Ontario, New York State and PA would be another country. It would probably contain Delaware and Maryland and an "Eastern Virginia" that included DC and its suburbs. NYC would of course be its capital. It, too, would be very poor -- industry has already fled a good portion of it. Southern Michigan, northern Illinois, and northwestern Indiana would be an autonomous "East Prussia" to this "Mid-Atlantic Nation" with its NYC capital. On the Left Coast, bye-bye to most of California and western Washington State and Oregon -- their eastern portions would remain in what survived of the USA, which would have its capital in Nebraska. British Columbia would join them. The Canadian Prairie Provinces would join the rump USA, the states of which would take on a lot of the independence of the Canadian Provincial system. And we'd have to to have very, very (indeed, hyper-) strict laws about who from these Leftist Nations could visit, let alone move to, the remaining USA.

Such a configuration would be a rational distribution of lands and peoples.

Of course, precisely because it would be rational, it would never happen. We have no option but to fight a civil war for the territorial country as it exists and force a "movement of Leftist peoples" out of the country -- if we win. It would be as it was when we expelled the Loyalists after the American Revolution.

An Préachán