Do You Really Believe Anything?


The last few weeks I have been doing some deep thinking -questioning the actions, lifestyle, and fundamental principles of myself and those I have been associated with.

I am coming to the conclusion that on important matters –most people do not really believe anything. This applies to theology, morality (which really cannot be separated from theology), politics, liberty, culture, or “prepping” for disaster or potential systemic collapse.

True belief is more than mental assent or words acknowledging something to be true.

Let us consider economic and social collapse for an example. Our economy rests upon inherently valueless fiat paper money (aka bank notes, bank bills) which are not redeemable in gold or silver coin. The current banking cartel running this is the Federal Reserve System, which is a front for the Rothschild international banking family. (See my last post, or for a more in depth analysis of this see Eustace Mullins Secrets of the Federal Reserve or G. Edward Griffin’s The Creature from Jekyll Island).

The utterly unconstitutional Federal Reserve runs our economy, controls interest rates, and determines how much (valueless) paper money may be printed and put into circulation. If the Federal Reserve printed too much “money” or manipulated interest rates too severely, it could cause a massive inflation and economic depression far worse the1930’s Great Depression or the recession of 2008.

Likewise, if China dumped all of the American debt it holds on the world financial markets simultaneously, it would trigger financial ruin for the U.S.A. Also, if the Middle Eastern countries refused to accept Federal Reserve paper “dollars” for their oil, it would likely have drastic consequences to the American economy.     

     The economy of the world is currently built on consumption, cheap labor (China, Mexico, etc.), petroleum, and fraudulent financial games. This system is unwise, unconstitutional, immoral, and unsustainable. At some point, it will collapse. Will it be a controlled collapse engineered by the elite so that they may consolidate their power (like the Soviet Union experienced), of will they be so greedy that they let it go so far that even they cannot control it?

Our whole economy relies upon paper fantasy dollars and petroleum. With no petrol, we have no gas or diesel fuel. With no fuel for vehicles, no one goes to work –including police, firemen, and medical personnel. With no fuel for vehicles, all distribution of food, medicines, and other commodities to corporate stores stops. As in, immediately stops.

Soon, power plants cease operation, from lack of fuel and workers. The “grid” of electrical, water, sewage/sanitation services and the distribution of food to stores stops. Rioting begins. Disease breaks out. The cities implode. The U.S. Army is called in; martial law is likely declared and the Constitution suspended.

An alternate to this is for an EMP to hit all of the U.S. –or even the whole earth- simultaneously. Then everything electronic stops even when there is still petroleum fuel available. Because of lack of electronic communications and potentially non-functional vehicles, the military might be unable to restore (a tyrannical) order. Otherwise, the situation is the same.

Will the merchants of the earth mourn as the international commerce economy suffers a cascading collapse, perhaps in a single day (go read Revelation 18)?

If one really believed that this could/would happen, would they be living a life on consumption in the city? Of course not. If one truly believed this was going to happen, they would be fleeing the city for a sustainable rural existence.


A great deal of the “prepper” type people seem to be in the mindset of buying a bunch of industrially produced supplies of freeze dried food, toilet paper, and maybe an AR-15 –and preparing to hunker down for a few months until the Glorious State (the one that they oppose as currently unconstitutional and perhaps even tyrannical) restores order so that they may resume their old jobs and begin consuming consume goods and amassing material goods/toys. Even if Social Security is gone, maybe their 401 (k) will still be there!

This “industrialized consumer prepper” type mindset is fundamentally flawed –and destined to fail. People have lived since the beginning of time until about 150 years ago without most of the stuff that most modern day Americans would literally die if deprived of for a single month. Think about that.

People raised gardens and animals, preserved food, bathed, wore clothing, made tools and weapons, and traveled before electricity was discovered, petroleum engines devised, or the first smoke belching factory built.

To advance implies going beyond a first step, and then achieving something else. For example, a blacksmith turning locally produced ore into an iron plow instead of fashioning one of wood and stone is advancement.

A society that is so weak and removed from working with their hands and the soil and is (temporarily) living in urban luxury and consuming food from corporate farms and buying plastic Chinese garbage –while unable to personally fabricate any plow, much less work the soil- has not advanced. It has degraded.

If one truly believed that we were heading for a massive economic collapse –they would be preparing. A good wake-up call would be to read Michael Bunker’s book Surviving Off Off-Grid. I read this book about three years ago, and it was one of the few truly life changing books that I have ever read.

In Surviving Off Off-Grid, Bunker, a Christian agrarian separatist, lays out the destruction facing our society, the “metal colonization” and fragmentation that we have experienced to make this unreal society possible, the way of life of our ancestors, and the path out –to life, health, and liberty!

If one cannot provide food, water, sanitation, means of coking, and heat for themselves and their family for at least 30 days with no gird utilities or outside assistance –then they are living perilously. And 30 days is a minimum. The ideal is to have at least a year –from harvest to harvest- of food and be living off grid in total sustainable self-reliance. Probably less than 1% of Americans live like that. Being able to is a goal that I am personally working toward.

Reading the latest book on Trump, the Clinton crime family, the CFR, the UN, the 2nd Amendment, Obama’s crimes, the Federal Reserve, or a non-interventionist foreign policy will not matter if you are caught unprepared when society goes down. Americans, including patriots, have lost touch with reality.

Regarding politics and liberty, does anyone who truly supports the Constitution and the republic given us by the Founding Fathers actually think that any of the four people running for president will restore our liberty and defend the Constitution? Really? They will all continue its destruction, albeit perhaps in different ways and at a different pace.

Is not voting for the lesser of the two evils an open endorsement and enabling of evil? I covered this in my August 12th post The Lesser of the Two Evils? here on this blog. The lesser evil argument overlooks noncompliance.

The stupid lesser of two evils argument goes something like this. You have the choice to be (1) robbed, (2) beaten and robbed, or (3) beaten and robbed after watching your wife raped. Which choice does a man make? A man does not choose any of the three.

A man arms himself and stops the aggression on his person, family, and property. If he thinks he will be tactically unable to withstand the assault, he falls back to the hills with his family and prepares to if need be resist from a position of vantage. The man does not bend and comply with his enemies.

When all the candidates are unacceptable, a man does not vote. He chooses to remove himself from the corrupt system.

Anyone truly politically aware realizes that America is so far from her founding principles that she is unrecognizable. The Founders’ republic is on life support, if not already dead. It is very hard to say this, but it is true.

At this point there is little for a true patriot to do other than legally and physically remove himself from the system as much as possible, live a self-reliant rural lifestyle, stay in physical shape, and maintain proficiency with his small arms. But Republican Party types do not wish to do any of this. They absolutely LOVE the corrupt, Founder’s ideology trashing system; they just want to run it instead of the Democrats.

Basic morality is gone, even in the churches. For a moment, lay aside filthy movies and women dressing for Sunday services as much (or more) like whores than 1960s movies depicted whores as. Also lay aside effeminate men, women dressing like men, and doctrinal issues. Let us just consider basic theoretical morality concerning wishing evil on others for personal financial gain.

I used to (emphasize use to) attend a (by modern liberalized standards) conservative Baptist church. At this church one of the men, who was in the roofing business, told me that he prayed for weather/natural disasters to keep him in work roofing. Seriously. I told him I thought this was not right of him, and he replied something about needing money to feed his family.

It would have been fine for him to pray for God to financially bless people so that they might have their house re-roofed –or even build a new house for him to be paid to roof for them. But to wish disaster on people for his own financial benefit is totally immoral. This is the cesspool of greed and ignorance of the more conservative sort of churches. I shudder to think of what the more liberal ones are teaching!

Another example of this religious apostasy is Franklin Graham’s current “Decision America” tour. He stopped to hold a prayer rally at the Indiana state capitol in Indianapolis on Wednesday, October 5. (See the online article Franklin Graham urges voting, skips endorsement by Zach Osowski of the Evansville Courier & Press). Franklin Graham is the son of Billy Graham. On Franklin’s “profile” page on the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association website it claims that “at age 22, after a period of rebellion and traveling the world, Franklin committed his life to Jesus Christ while alone in a hotel room in Jerusalem”. Why was this young rebel alone in Jerusalem at age 22?

In Indy, Graham stated: “shame on you if you don’t vote”. He also implied that he liked Mike Pence better than Trump, and that one must look at the whole ticket, not just the lead man. Of course, Graham did not make a formal endorsement for the 2016 presidential race; to do so would violate the terms of the 501 (c)(3) tax exempt status that his government chartered corporation, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, employs to rake in donations.

Further, some who were at the Graham rally on Wednesday reported a rainbow in the cloudless blue sky after Graham spoke (see the aforementioned online article)! Maybe a meaningless coincidence, or maybe it was part of the things Christians were warned of in 2nd Thessalonians 2:9?

So my readers, do you really believe anything? For most of you, the answer is probably not.

~Remember the Founders and the 14 Words~

Copyright © 2016 by Joseph Charles Putnam of Orange County, Indiana. All rights reserved.

Thoughts on Banks and the Federal Reserve

Federal Reserve Notes are not dollars, and are a violation of the United States Constitution. This may seem to be an extreme statement to those who have not been in the patriot movement for a while, but it is all documented and easily provable.

I covered the concept of real money (precious metal coins) versus fiat/paper money on this blog on July 10, 2016 with the post entitled What is Money? I recommend my new readers check out that post in my archives. As I will assume that my readers know what true money is, this post will only cover banking. I shall here focus on concepts, not the minutiae of banking history in the U.S.

Paper money and the “legal tender” laws that accompany it are a legal fraud. When someone must be forced to take something as payment, then you have valueless “money”. America has had several horrible experiences with paper money, and yet we as a nation have not learned.

The different colonies issued paper money before and during the Revolution, and it all inflated. Likewise, the Continental Congress issued paper money during the American Revolution, and it inflated so wildly that the term “not worth a continental” came in to being. The Continental Congress even chartered a bank called the Bank of North America.

The U.S. Constitution, written in 1789, specifically stated that Congress held the power “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin” (Article 1 Section 8 Clause 5). In consonance to this, the U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section 10 stated that no state shall do any of a list of things, including the following: “coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in payment of Debts”. It is perfectly clear that only gold and silver coins were to be money in the U.S.A. There were no American government issued paper “dollars” from 1789 until Abraham Lincoln’s War of Northern Aggression.

An individual, business corporation, or private bank may issue script, that is to say, private paper money. This script is not legal tender and no one may be forced to take it for anything.

Banks in the early days of the American republic issued “bank bills”, private paper “money” which could also be called “bills of credit”, “bank notes”,  and “script”. People were not forced to receive this as payment for goods or services and the government did not have to accept this private paper money for payment of taxes. Bank notes redeemable into real money (gold and silver coin) set the stage for the irredeemable (valueless) paper money of today –such as FRNs.

Now on to banks. A bank is a government chartered corporation whose purpose is to make money by issuing interest bearing loans (usury). A bank is a for profit business. Banks as we know them may have arisen out of the goldsmiths of the Middle Ages, who would secure wealthy people’s gold in their safes. A bank is no different from a store; it has overhead expenses and payroll to meet. Banks only pay a small interest to depositors so that they will have money to lend out at a higher rate of interest. In a sense, a bank is a legal racket.

Here is where the subject becomes twisted. If a national government charters a national bank, then that bank has more prestige in the eyes of citizens, may have branches outside of the state where it is based, and may receive special favors from the government (such as holding government assets that they may use as assets to make loans backed by, and by the government taking their script for payment instead of gold and silver coin).

The Constitution does not forbid the states from chartering banks, but the states are forbidden from making the bank script/paper “money” a legal tender. Whether or not the U.S. Constitution grants the national government the authority to charter a national bank is debatable. The power is not expressly given to the U.S. Congress, but some argue that is included under the necessary and proper clause. (As a Jeffersonian “strict constructionist” I hold that the congress does not have the power to charter a bank). Regardless of whether or not the Congress has the power, it is debatable as to whether or not it is wise to use it.

Let me further clarify the issue of banks and fractional reserve banking to my readers. By being paid a small rate of interest on their deposits, people desirous of gain (usury) deposit their money in banks. Banks then lend out this money at a higher rate of interest than they pay to their depositors, so that the bank makes money. However, the fractional reserve system takes this farther.

Fractional reserve banking cannot exist without the bank notes/bills known as paper money. The concept of fractional reserve banking is that the government that charters the bank legally requires the bank to only keep a certain specified percentage of its assets on hand for redemption of its notes. This allows them to issue loans than they have money to redeem. This means that they create money out of thin air, money that they demand repayment of with interest. What an immoral fraud!

By classifying not only deposits, but also the money required to be repaid by loans as an “asset”, these banks loan out much more money than they ever had. Obviously if more people attempt to withdraw their savings than the bank has reserves to pay out, then the bank is insolvent and must close its doors, or be bailed out by the government that chartered it. By “bailed out by the government”, it should be clear to my readers that it is really being bailed out by taxpayer money. Thus, everyone loses money instead of just those who played the deposit and loan finance game with the insolvent bank. If too many people default on their loans simultaneously, then the bank loses enough revenue that it cannot pay interest on its deposits and likewise becomes insolvent.

When you see a system where many more bank bills/bank notes/paper “money” and loans are issued than reserves can make good, you have a system destined to eventually collapse. When banks do this, they create a situation that requires more money for redemption than actually exists. When payment of interest on loans requires more money than there was in the first place, where does this money come from? Likewise, how does one pay back money that was created out of thin air by fractional reserve banking schemes? When there are more debts than there are assets, then they can only be paid off by creating more fake money and issuing more loans to bring in more fake money.

When all money is created by and backed by debt, then the theoretical repayment of all debts would cancel out all money. When assets repay the loans at the bank, the “money” ceases to exist. Paper money and fractional reserve banking only exist because of ignorance and greed. When this greed runs wild long enough, banks eventually become insolvent when people cannot pay their loans or take out new ones. Then the charade is over.

The current national banking system of our federal government came about with the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913. As superbly documented in Eustace Mullin’s Secrets of the Federal Reserve and G. Edward Griffin’s work The Creature from Jekyll Island, the Federal Reserve Act was a plan set in place by the Rothschild financial dynasty and their fellow Jewish bankers. They also employed gentile front men, such as senator Nelson Aldrich, the Rockefellers, and J.P Morgan, but Rothschild ran the operation.

The conspiracy to create the Federal Reserve was laid out at the elite Jekyll Island resort, hence the catchy title of Griffin’s book on the subject. The Jewish Rothschild banking dynasty -with their Jewish lieutenants Paul Warburg and Kuhn, Loeb, and Company and the help of gentile “assets” such as Morgan and Rockefeller, managed to get a central banking act passed that created a central bank known as the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is a corporation chartered by Congress, and the president appoints its director; however, it is privately owned and operated for private profit. Yes my readers, the Federal Reserve is not federal and does not have reserves of gold or silver to redeem it worthless FRNs. The Federal Reserve enjoys the business of the U.S. Treasury, and its Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) were unconstitutionally declared to be legal tender for all debts public and private. FRNs are redeemable in nothing but other paper FRNs.

The Federal Reserve “monetizes” debt and facilitates federal government spending by “buying” the federal government’s bonds and paying for them with newly printed FRNs. These FRNs, created out of thin air, are backed by the promised repayment of the debt they were created by! The government spends these valueless FRNs at it pleases, often selling new bonds to the Federal Reserve to receive new FRNs to pay off the old bonds! What a clever little racket. How devious, how twisted, how Pharisaical!

As FRNs are actually valueless, they are only accepted as payment because of federal law. They are “money” by force, not by consent. If the U.S. federal government were conquered by another country, suffered internal collapse, or decided to institute a new monetary system –then FRNs would be valueless, worth no more than toilet paper. However, in any of the aforementioned three scenarios, silver and gold coins will still have value and be useful to those who have them.

As the Federal Reserve prints more valueless, debt backed, paper money, merchants and the public realize that there is a greater amount of paper to purchase the same quantity of goods. Thus, prices rise to compensate for the devaluing of the FRNs, often mistakenly perceived to be the devaluing of the dollar. Technically, prices do not rise; it is the paper money that devalues. Charging higher and higher prices for goods because of devalued paper currency is a losing game. At some point there will be hyperinflation, just as there was in Germany in the 1920s. Playing the paper money game in pursuit of illusory wealth, or even just the bare sustenance of life, cannot go on forever.

On a connected note, just as Jesus Christ rebuked the Jewish moneychangers while he was on earth, the problem remains. The rebellious tribe has pursued their favorite vocations of banking and commerce around the globe. There is a reason that the great English Magna Charta of 1215 had two provisions against Jewish money lenders. Financial trickery and enslavement, along with other evils such as subversion of the morals and culture of their host countries, are why Jews have been kicked out of many countries of Europe over the last 2,000 years. There is a reason why Rothschild has influenced -if not covertly ran- the money system of the U.S. federal government since they were foolish enough to charter a national bank. Jews also founded the banking firms Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers. There is a reason that the last three directors of the Federal Reserve System –Alan Greenspan, Benjamin Shalom Bernanke, and Janet Yellen- are Jews. The current assistant director of the Federal Reserve, Stanley Fischer, is not only a Jew, but a citizen of Israel and the former director of the central bank of Israel (and a member of the CFR and Bilderberg). When one studies the higher echelons of finance, one learns that it is as Kosher as a synagogue.

One cannot patch a severed artery with a band aid; at some point Americans are going to have to right their monetary system and return to the U.S. Constitution approved silver dollar. Otherwise, they will be slaves to the government and its banking system, slaves who depend on government approved, debt backed script to purchase their daily bread.

As I near the end of this essay, I trust that my readers have a much better understanding of money and banks than they received from public school history books and the media.

When one realizes what money is, what it is for, and how governments and banks manipulate it when given the chance -one’s entire worldview can change. People only play the paper money and fractional reserve banking game for two reasons: greed and fear.

Hard money morphed into redeemable paper which morphed into irredeemable (valueless) paper. Why did people allow this to occur? The answer is, at least in part, the following quote. I shall close with this quote from a letter a state senator named Condy Raguet wrote to an Englishman back in 1821, which is quoted in the second section of Ron Paul and Louis Lehrman’s book The Case for Gold:

“You state in your letter that you find it difficult to comprehend, why persons who had a right to demand coin from the Banks in payment of their notes, so long forebore to exercise it. This no doubt appears paradoxical to one who resides in a country where an act of parliament was necessary to protect a bank, but the difficulty is easily solved. The whole of our population are either stockholders of banks or in debt to them. It is not the interest of the first to press the banks and the rest are afraid. This is the whole secret. An independent man who was neither a stockholder or debtor, who would have ventured to compel the banks to do justice, would have been persecuted as an enemy of society…”

~Remember the Founders and the 14 Words~

Copyright © 2016 by Joseph Charles Putnam of Orange County, Indiana. All Rights reserved.

When Was the U.S.a Officially Founded?


Yesterday I was walking through a little vendor mall (glorified indoor flea market with booths operated by multiple people) and found a neat little piece of American Bicentennial memorabilia. I found a 2×3 foot flag emblazoned with the words “American Revolution Bicentennial 1776-1976” and with a stylized red, white and blue star emblem. I bought it, as I pick up an inexpensive piece of such themed from time to time.


This little flag got me to thinking. When was the U.S.A. officially founded? When was our bicentennial? This is not the easy question that it seems to be.

The thirteen colonies were in a state of armed rebellion after the “shot heard round the world” at Lexington on April 19, 1775. The Continental army was formed in 1775.

The Declaration of Independence was adopted on July 2, 1776, and subsequently officially printed on parchment and signed by John Hancock on July 4, 1776. This was the unanimous declaration of all 13 states, although several states had declared their independence earlier than the joint declaration. This is why we celebrate the 4th of July.

In a July 3 letter to his wife Abigail, John Adams stated the following: “The Second day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forevermore”. (Modern Americans are two days late. I covered this in my July 4th blog post).

But the Declaration of Independence did not a country make. We were still 13 separate and fully sovereign nations in free and mutual association with each other while fighting a common foe –the British government. The Continental Congress had no power to tax any state, or pass laws valid in the territory of a state. We were not formally and legally united.

To formally unite us, the Articles of Confederation was written in 1777.  However the Articles were not ratified until 1781 –when the eight year Revolutionary War was ¾ over! We had no general/national/federal government for most of the war.

Then in 1783 the Treaty of Paris was signed. In this treaty, Great Britain formally acknowledged our independence and the United States legal ownership of the 13 colonies and the Northwest Territory. We were free legally and practically in 1776, but not officially in the eyes of our former masters until 1783.

The Articles of Confederation were generally considered to be a weak and somewhat flawed document. This was solved by the Constitutional Convention in 1787. It was there that this convention, presided over by George Washington himself, wrote our current Constitution. However, the Constitution was not ratified by the required 9 states (Article VII) until 1788, and did not go into effect until 1789. The final 13th state, Rhode Island, did not ratify until 1790.

To top this off, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, usually known as the Bill of Rights, were not ratified into effect until December 15, 1791. Now the Constitution was complete as envisioned by Federalist supporters and Anti-Federalist skeptics.

In 1976 there was a great deal of interest in and celebration of the Bicentennial. There were celebrations everywhere. The government issued memorabilia such as coin sized commerative medallions, and even changed the back of the quarter, half dollar, and dollar coins for 1976. Private companies made a huge amount of Bicentennial collectables.

Which brings us back to the question I began with. When was the U.S.A. officially founded?

It would seem to me that the best option would be 1781, when the Articles of Confederation formally and legally united the 13 colonies into a political union with the formal name of United States. As much as I love the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War, perhaps as much as I love the Constitution itself, the correct answer to my question would seem to be 1781.

It would appear that we celebrated our Bicentennial not only in the wrong year, but in the wrong decade. That is a tad embarrassing.

~Remember the Founders and the 14 Words~

Copyright © 2016 by Joseph Charles Putnam of Orange County, Indiana. All rights reserved.

The Houston Nazi Who Wasn’t and the Stupidest Conversation I have heard in Months


As I was posting my last column two mornings ago, there was a breaking story on a mass shooting in Houston, Texas. A lawyer named Nathan DaSai apparently decided to shoot at innocent people on the street where he lived. It appears that he wounded six with gunfire, and three with shattered glass (from gunfire). Thankfully, no one was killed by DaSai. Thankfully, police shot and killed DaSai before he could kill any passing motorists.

DaSai is apparently of Indian (India) descent, and his father’s first name is Prakash. The articles I read do not mention him having a family, or a criminal record. No mention has been made of what, if any, religion DaSai practiced. Reports indicate that DaSai may have been having financial difficulty with his law practice, although he was driving a Porsche.

DaSai allegedly had a .45 caliber pistol, a .45 caliber Thompson type carbine, and over 2,000 rounds of ammo with him at this incident. Some news stories I read indicated that he had a “Tommy gun” or a submachine gun. That is unlikely. Actual Thompson submachineguns are heavily regulated under the NFA 34 and very expensive. Likely, DaSai had a semi-auto civilian legal version of the Thompson made by Auto-Ordinance (a division of Khar Arms).

The news headlines are freaking out that DaSai wore some Nazi symbols and/or a uniform during the shooting. I have no idea why DaSai wore Nazi symbols, assuming that he did. First, what is a Nazi? Is the term Nazi confined to the (1) exact version of National Socialism employed by the Third Reich, (2) the Americanized version of George Lincoln Rockwell that was basically an anti-Semitic and slightly authoritarian version of the Founders, (3) a group of skinheads in London going Paki bashing, or (4) young white guys in America forming a faction of the Alt-Right and posting 14/88 type memes? By any of these four definitions, Nathan DaSai is absolutely not a Nazi.

This recent senseless shooting in Houston by this Indian DaSai is just the latest assault on white America. Add him to the list I started in my Chelsea and Charlotte essay on Monday.

Now on to the stupidest conversation I have personally witnessed in a long while, perhaps months. I was sitting in an exclusive internet café recently (McDonald’s!) a few tables away from the participants.

There was an old white guy there, perhaps around 60. He had his little brown son with him playing video games, presumably online. Not sure if he miscegenated with a much younger woman, or adopted the boy. He was a Trump supporter. He then struck up a conversation with a black man that he called by first name. He asked the black guy if he were going to watch the first presidential debate that night. It went downhill from there…

The white guy told the black guy a joke against illegal immigrants which referenced Trump’s planned border wall. They began to debate Trump, with the black man comparing Trump to Hitler and Fidel Castro. Then the old white guy stated that a woman cannot be president because she is not able to lead an army. The black man, who was well spoken for a black, retorted that they could and referenced several former female heads of state –including Golda Meir of Israel. The white guy (accurately) claimed that women are not emotionally made to be frontline combat troops, to which the black guy admitted that they were emotionally different in that they were more compassionate and that women should be allowed to do whatever they wanted to. As he left, the black man proclaimed that the world was messed up because men had been running it. Seriously.

Why would a white guy with a brown son tell an anti-immigrant joke to a black man –presumably expecting a good reaction? And where did this black man imbibe all the anti-American, feminist, social justice warrior (SJW) garbage?

I sometimes marvel at the general ignorance of the electorate. Most Americans, including most conservatives, do not really care about the Bill of Rights –if it gets in the way of their personal legal desires or that ill-defined phrase “national security”.

I also marvel at the illogic of most conservatives. Most modern conservatives do not seem capable of forming a truly principled and coherent argument backed up by American history and the Founder’s political thought. But they know about professional sports, Hollywood, the Rapture, and the Most Holy Number 6 Million!

~Remember the Founders and the 14 Words~

Copyright © 2016 by Joseph Charles Putnam of Orange County, Indiana. All rights reserved.

Chelsea and Charlotte (the places, not ladies)


In the last ten days, the U.S.A. has seen multiple terrorist bombings, a mass stabbing at a Minnesota mall, a mass shooting at a Burlington, Washington mall, and rioting in Charlotte, North Carolina after a black man was shot and killed by police. All off these events have on common thread. Let us look at them one by one, and see if we can find the connection.

On Saturday September 18 a Somali born man stabbed ten people at a mall in Michigan. He reportedly referenced allah -before being shot and killed by an off duty police officer.

Also on September 18, some form of homemade bomb went off near a New Jersey roadway where a Marine Corps 5k charity marathon was set to run. The race had been delayed, so the bomb went off before the race and no one was killed.

Then on the evening of the 18th, a powerful homemade bomb went off in the Chelsea neighborhood of New York City. It was likely detonated inside a dumpster. Twenty nine people were injured, but thankfully none were killed. Other unexploded bombs were found, at least one being a pressure cooker device. I am unsure why a pressure cooker, a common item among rural folk who can their own garden produce in glass masons jars/“cans”, is desirable to use as a container for an explosive device.

After a gun battle, one Ahmad Rahami was taken into custody. Rahami is 28 years old, was born in Afghanistan, and is a U.S. citizen who lives in NYC. Rahami is (officially) the one behind the bombings in NYC and at the New Jersey marathon. Rahami was shot about 10 times, but is expected to live. (I would be ashamed to be a member of a unit that could non-fatally shoot a guy ten times. Back to the practice range boys).

Senator Lindsey Graham –a Republican, former army officer, and Bilderberg 2016 attendee- has stated that he desires the Chelsea bombing suspect to be held as an enemy combatant –without Constitutional rights. I discussed this concept in my essay “Police State, U.S.A.” in my recent book As America Fades. Basically, there are three reasonable legal options here regarding terrorists. Let me explain.

Option one is that a terrorist is a type of criminal. A criminal –including a mass murder- is entitled to counsel and a jury trial in a civilian court to ascertain one’s guilt.

Option two is that a terrorist is a soldier on jihad. When captured, a soldier is a legal prisoner of war (POW). A POW is entitled to food and health care, and is not to be tried for his actions.

Option three is that a terrorist is a war criminal. A soldier can be tried for crimes against the laws of war –such as rape or murder of non-combatant civilians. But if it is illegal to bomb a city and injure or kill a few dozen people –than it is very illegal to bomb a city from 10,000 feet up and kill thousands of unarmed civilian non-combatants in their homes –like the U.S. government did at Dresden, Hiroshima, etc. The U.S. government celebrates their bomber pilots, not tries them.

As such, the George W. Bush administration came up with the term “enemy combatant” and the concept of torture and indefinite detention. No trial in a court with Constitutional rights, no POW status, and no ramifications for America’s bomber pilots. How convenient for the state –and dangerous to the people’s liberties. I hold that terrorism is a crime.

Then on Tuesday September 20, police in Charlotte, North Carolina shot and killed a black man, 43 year old Keith Lamont Scott. Scott was allegedly shot by a black police officer, though there were several white officers present. Officially, police were preparing to serve a warrant, and noticed Scott (not the subject of the warrant) in his car –allegedly with a marijuana joint and a pistol.

After being approached by police Scott exited his vehicle and was walking backwards when he was shot and killed. The police video does not clearly show Scott holding a pistol –let alone pointing it at anyone. The police have released a picture of a Colt Mustang .380 that Scott was allegedly carrying. Even mainstream media admit that in the police dash cam video it is not clear that Scot was holding a pistol.

Scott’s family claim he had a traumatic brain injury from a motorcycle accident, and was waiting for his son to get off from school. They have also stated that he was reading a book.

This could have went down multiple ways. Scenario one is the official story, that Scott exited the car with a weapon in his hands and was shot by police. Scenario two is that police overreacted and shot an unarmed black man who was threatening no one and then framed him.

I know that the media tried to portray violent thug Trayvon Martin as a good boy who didnu’ nuffin’; for this reason I am cautious about commenting on the Scott shooting. This being said, I am unsure that Scott posed a reasonable imminent threat to police officers.

Regardless of who done what, the blacks in Charlotte are outraged at the shooting of Scott. Somehow, to blacks and much of the media, the shooting of a black man by a black police officer in a town with a black (actually more like mulatto) police chief is considered obvious evidence of white racism. Seriously. Did I miss something here?

The blacks rioted on Tuesday and Wednesday night. Highway traffic was blocked, cars had objects throw at them, semi tucks were looted and their contents set ablaze, and a WalMart was attacked. There were multiple arrests. One protester was shot and killed –by another protester. It got so out of hand that Charlotte was placed on a curfew, and the governor of N.C. called in National Guard troops.

Contrast the reaction to this black man getting shot with that of the government ambush and shooting of Robert “LaVoy” Finicum in Oregon last January. Finicum was a white cowboy who was involved in the peaceful but illegal occupation of the Malheur refuge in Oregon. Finicum was shot and killed (murdered) by government agents –and he fell in the snow near a roadblock –when he was clearly NOT holding a weapon. The media treated him like a criminal or terrorist, and yet white people did not riot.

To further the ramifications of this Charlotte shooting, Donald Trump has recently came out and stated that he approves of “stop and frisk” police operations. Stop and frisk means that cops randomly stop people and frisk them presumably for drugs or weapons- with no warrant. This is totally unconstitutional. People cannot be randomly detained and searched for no reason. People need to go read the 4th Amendment.

Then on Saturday September 24, a young Turkish born man walked into a Macy’s store in a mall and shot and killed five people. Initial reports indicate he may have used a .22 rifle –a weapon optimized for shooting squirrels.

The common thread that connects all of these crimes over the last ten days is that they were carried out by non-Europeans –several of whom were likely of the Muslim religion. This is not white Christians shooting, stabbing, or blowing up each other; this is an attack on our people by a foreign element.

As this was going on, last week, the Smithsonian opened the new ($540 million dollar) National Museum of African American History and Culture. You can go there and see remnants of slavery, Emmett Till’s coffin, and exhibits on the Black Panthers and MLK. President Obama was at the grand opening.

Meanwhile in New Orleans, Louisiana there was a movement to –illegally and forcefully- remove a statue of Andrew Jackson –the hero of the 1814 Battle of New Orleans. As Jackson was a slave owner and removed the Cherokee people to the west, he is apparently a pariah in modern America. Dr. David Duke, a Louisiana resident, volunteered to stand between the monument and the “protestors” to stop the black mobs if the police would not protect the statue, but the police stepped in and arrested some of the anti-Jackson protestors.

Let us face reality. Non-whites hate the America of the Founders. Many white liberals hate the America of the Founders. The powerful Jews in politics, economics and the media hate the America of the Founders. Both legally, culturally, and now even physically –white Americans are under attack in the country their ancestors built.

~Remember the Founders and the 14 Words~

Copyright © 2016 by Joseph Charles Putnam of Orange County, Indiana. All rights reserved.

The United Nations and Globalization

This week Barack Obama spoke before the UN General assembly in New York City, and extolled globalism. I decided to tweak this essay that I wrote quite a while back but never published, and turn it into a blog post.

In this essay I intend to give a relatively brief history of the United Nations and their aims at consolidating political power to set the stage for a one world socialist government. This essay is the result of reading several JBS books and UN documents totaling well over 600 pages and doing some internet research.

The push for the creation of the United Nations (UN) began years before its establishment. In 1942 there was a Declaration of United Nations issued by several countries-including the U.S.A.-concerning cooperation of governments against the Third Reich. There was also a preliminary meeting in August of 1944 by a group of men at the luxurious Dumbarton Oaks estate in the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington, D.C. These men were working to create a newer version of the failed WWI era League of Nations.

Then in 1945, there was a meeting held in San Francisco at which the charter of the United Nations was written. This meeting was presided over by Alger Hiss, an American, CFR member, and spy for the Soviet Union. On October 24, 1945, the treaty/charter of the UN was ratified by the five permanent members of the Security Council and came into effect.

The General Assembly is the parliament of the UN and the Secretariat is the executive arm. However, it appears to me that the Security Council is the center of power at the UN. The Security Council concerns itself with warfare, sanctions against nations, and “peacekeeping” operations. The Security Council’s five permanent members are the U.S.A., UK, France, Soviet Union (now Russia), and China (originally Chiang Kai-Shek’s nationalist China {Taiwan}-but after 1971 replaced by the communist Peoples Republic of China).

Not only was the UN’s founding conference chaired by a communist, the most important body (Security Council) of the UN has historically been loaded by socialists and communists. The United Nations has always been pro-communist.

William F. Jasper’s 2001 book The United Nations Exposed quotes G. Edward Griffin as follows:

“In 1950 the State Department issued a document entitled Postwar Foreign Policy Preparation, 1939-45… This and similar official records reveal that the following were key government figures in UN planning within the U.S. State Department and Treasury Department: Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, Virginius Frank Coe, Dean Acheson, Noel Field, Lawrence Duggan, Henry Julian Wadleigh, John Carter Vincent, David Weintraub, Nathan Gregory Silvermaster, Harold Glasser, Victor Perlo, Irving Kaplan, Solomon Adler, Abraham George Silverman, William L. Ullman, and William H. Taylor. With the single exception of Dean Acheson, all of these men have since been identified in sworn testimony as secret Communist agents!

What the excellent Griffin quote above left out was that at least 3-and possibly seven or more- of those seventeen men were Jews. The John Birch Society has published some very good material concerning the CFR, UN, and communism; however they stay far away from open criticism of International Jewry. (Griffin does have the guts to briefly acknowledge that Rothschild and other principal international bankers are Jewish in his book The Creature From Jekyll Island; whether his mention of this is to the credit of his honesty or patriotism, or just an example of something that he would have lost all credibility if he had not admitted, I will leave my readers to judge).

The UN has many agencies and programs, some of the more benevolent sounding ones are: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), World Health Organization, and United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). These organizations were created with nice, humanitarian sounding goals to lull the populace of the Western world into accepting the UN. In a free country, it is not the job of the government-or a supranational governmental organization such as the UN- to legislate, oversee or fund the health, education, nutrition, scientific research, or cultural activities of the citizens.

The UN has established so many agencies and programs that I cannot possibly cover them all in this essay. The United Nations Exposed by William F. Jasper is a 354 page work that goes into detail on many of the UNs activities. I shall only cover a few of the most destructive of the UNs activities in this essay.

Agenda 21 was a product of the UN’s Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Agenda 21 concerns itself with sustainable development, environmentalism, combating poverty, etc. Agenda 21 would like to have the UN and the governments of the world taking jurisdiction over the management and use of the entire land and ocean area of the earth. To put it simply, Agenda 21 is zoning on steroids.

Perhaps the most pressing current threat to American citizens from the UN is global arms control. This arms control affects both states and individuals. The UN began a drive for international weapons controls with the 1961 U.S. State Department document entitled Freedom From War: The United States Program For General And Complete Disarmament In A Peaceful World (Department of State Publication 7277). The Freedom From War document called for a gradual, three stage plan for the disarmament of every nation on earth and the simultaneous progressive strengthening of the UN by the creation of a U.N. Peace Force! In the third stage of this plan, it states that (formerly independent) nations would “retain only those forces, non-nuclear armaments, and establishments required for the purpose of maintaining internal order; they would also support and provide agreed manpower for a U.N. Peace Force ”. The U.N Peace Force would be “equipped with agreed types and quantities of armaments”. Note that the states may not own nuclear weapons, but the UN is subject to no such prohibition!

Here we have a proposed one world army under the command of the UN with types and quantities of weaponry that would make it basically impossible for any (formerly) sovereign nation to challenge them, much less a citizenry fighting for their freedom!

Another part of phase three of this plan was that “The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used  by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes”.  Now we see that civilian ownership of firearms would no longer exist under this plan! The Freedom From War document is nothing more than the deranged fantasy of a would be global tyrant. Regrettably, the Freedom from War proposal was not the last UN gun control attempt.

The push for internationally directed gun control has accelerated in the last two decades; it is perilously near its goal. The International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) is a non-governmental organization (NGO) that is recognized by the UN and has played an important role in the destruction of the firearms ownership rights of citizens of America and other countries. Rebecca Peters of IANSA was involved in the institution of the extremely strict gun control in Australia. (People who follow the pathetically mainstream National Rifle Association (NRA) will perhaps remember that Peters formally debated NRA official Wayne LaPierre at King’s College in Great Britain several years ago).

Another powerful woman working with the UN to establish international gun control is Cora Weiss. Cora Weiss is a member of the CFR, a 1960’s anti-war activist, official at The Hague Appeal for Peace, Marxist sympathizer, daughter of noted communist Samuel Rubin, husband of New York lawyer Peter Weiss, and a Jew by birth. Both Peter and Cora Weiss have been affiliated with the Institute For Policy Studies (IPS), a Washington, D.C. based progressive think tank which had possible ties to the Soviet KGB. Cora Weiss has also been involved in gun control activities in the United States. Traitors like Cora Weiss are the people wishing to disarm American citizens.

In 2013, there was a UN conference held in New York City which produced the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT); the ATT was approved by the UN General Assembly in April of 2013. The ATT was signed by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry (Cohen), but it has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate and is not legally binding.

The ATT talks about the illicit trade in conventional arms, but how do they define illicit? The ATT regulates the international trade in weapons-including firearms and ammunition-and declares that individual states are duty bound to “establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list…”.

The ATT acknowledges no right of citizens to own firearms; the Preamble declares: “Mindful of the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities, where such trade, ownership and use are permitted or protected by law…” There is no UN acknowledged right of a citizen to own or use a firearm for personal defense or defense against a tyrannical government.

The UN ATT only acknowledges the right OR privilege of citizens owning CERTAIN types of firearms for recreational purposes. Article 5 (2) of the ATT demands that: “Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list, in order to implement the provisions of this treaty”. Article 5 (3) states that: “Each State Party is encouraged to apply the provisions of this Treaty to the broadest range of conventional arms”. Article 12 (2) states that: “Each State Party is encouraged to maintain records of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) that are transferred to its territory as the final destination…” Article 12 (3) states that “Each State Party is encouraged to include in those records: the quantity, value, model/type…”  The ATT is the foundation for internationally coordinated control of civilian small arms and ammunition.

The UN has already been involved in door to door arms confiscations outside of the USA. In the pictures section of Steve Bonta’s book Inside The United Nations you can see a color photograph of US troops, in combat gear and under UN authority, doing a door to door search for weapons in Kosovo-with black uniformed, blue helmeted UN police officials overseeing the operation!

It is also worth noting that the Korean War (1950-53) was fought under UN authority! American President Harry Truman called the Korean War a “police action” and not a war. American, British, and South Korean troops fought together under UN command against the communist North Koreans and their Chinese allies. Truman prosecuted this war without the Constitutionally mandated Declaration of War; Truman was fighting under United Nations authority!

The UN’s ATT went into effect for those who had ratified it on December 24, 2014. The ATT is law in some countries around the world as you read this. The United States has signed it, but it cannot be law until the U.S. Senate ratifies it. Our Senate could betray us, or Barak Obama –or a future president Clinton- could issue some (unconstitutional) Executive Orders to implement provisions of the ATT without Congress. If Obama were to make that move, it could easily set off a chain reaction that would lead to violent resistance- in short, to the second Revolution.

The UN’s 1948 “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” is a weak and pathetic document compared to the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights or the earlier Virginia Declaration of Rights. The legal/trial protections of the UN Declaration are far inferior to the U.S. Bill of Rights. For example, UN Article 9 states: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile”. This is a huge difference from the U.S. Bill of Rights’ 4th Amendment, which reads: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”. How does the UN define arbitrary? Why is there no UN protection against unreasonable searches or general warrants?

The UN also does not guarantee a trial by a jury of one’s peers, or other Common Law rights held by Americans. Obviously there is no 2nd Amendment or right to bear arms in the UN Declaration!

In 1959 the UN General Assembly passed the “Declaration Of The Rights Of The Child”. This Declaration has ten articles, some containing multiple rights. This Declaration creates new rights, such as in its article 4. Article 4 states that: “The child shall enjoy the benefits of social security. He shall be entitled to grow and develop in health; to this end, special care and protection shall be provided both to him and to his mother, including adequate pre-natal and post-natal care. The child shall have the right to adequate nutrition, housing, recreation and medical services”.

While the Bible and American cultural tradition place the responsibility of providing and caring for a child on the child’s parents-and specifically the child’s father-the UN declaration declares entitlements that are to be fulfilled by government. Who shall pay for this food/nutrition, housing, and medical care if the family is not able to? Government will. This article is pure socialism.

Please note that Americans have the God given and Constitutionally secured right to life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness. Recognizing the natural, inborn right to pursue goods or services is dramatically different from proclaiming an entitlement to goods or services; this is the difference between the U. S. Bill of Rights and the UN Declaration; this is the difference between freedom and slavery.

Switching away from the UN, in 2002 the International Criminal Court (ICC) came into existence. The ICC is headquartered at The Hague, Netherlands. The ICC was created by the Rome Statute, a treaty that was ratified into law in 2002. The ICC is not a formal part of the UN, however it is designed to work in synthesis with the UN. The ICC claims jurisdiction over four broad areas of crimes: “war crimes”, “genocide”, “crimes against humanity”, and the “crime of aggression”; these crimes can be defined very broadly.

The ICC claims the jurisdiction to try American citizens for supposed crimes committed on American soil in a world court! This is no different than when the British declared their (supposed) authority to try American colonists for “crimes” committed in America in a British court in Great Britain; that was a part of the “long train of abuses and usurpations” that led to the American Revolution!

It was also during 1944 that the Bretton Woods conference was held. The conference was officially called the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference and was held in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. The top American representative at this conference was none other than Jewish communist Harry Dexter White. The British were represented by well-known socialist economist and homosexual John Maynard Keynes. The Bretton Woods conference created the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

To be blunt, the World Bank exists to take money from self-sufficient countries and give it to Third World countries in the form of “loans” that will never be repaid; the World Bank is international socialism. An international currency known as the “bancor” was talked about at this conference, but the world was not yet ready for such open globalization.

There is also the European Union model to consider. In post-WWII Europe there was a drive for international unity; this is a very unwise concept when one considers the ethnic, cultural, religious, and legal theory differences of the different nations, not to mention the history of war between many of them during the last five centuries.

The European Coal and Steel Community (1952) led to the European Economic Community (1957). The European Economic Community was commonly called the Common Market. In 1993, the European Union (EU) became a legal reality. The Treaty of Lisbon became law in 2009 and further strengthened the powers of the European Union.

The EU came into being gradually, not in one agreement. One could say that the EU is an example of Fabian principles applied to international organizations.

I, and many American patriots, believe that the Unites States of America is likely being slowly led down the road to a planned EU style union of the countries of North America. In 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) came into legal effect. There also was the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) that was founded in 2005 by the USA, Canada, and Mexico. The SPP concerned itself with a variety of issues including trade, border security, and pandemic planning. There is talk among patriots of potential government plans to build a NAFTA Superhighway running from Mexico to Canada; the failed Trans Texas Corridor highway plan was most likely a part of this system.

I would recommend everyone read the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Declaration of the Rights of the Child, Arms Trade Treaty, and the 1961 U.S. State Department document Freedom from War to understand the treacherous UN through their own documents. The anti-UN books The United Nations Exposed by William F. Jasper, Inside The United Nations by Steve Bonta, and Global Gun Grab by William Norman Grigg are worth reading if one desires a more in depth knowledge of UN history and crimes than this brief essay has given you.

You might also find it enlightening to look up the documentary film Katanga The Untold Story that was produced in the 1960s. It is the story, narrated be a U.S. Congressman, of how the UN backed (with military aid) the communist government of the Congo in it’s violent, rape filled war of subjugation of the peaceful, free market, province of Katanga that had seceded from the Congo in order to preserve their pro-Christian, pro-Western democratically elected government.

The 20th century saw a powerful drive for global government. In addition to the global organizations covered in this chapter, the Cold War threat of nuclear destruction was used to frighten people into desiring world peace at any cost. All globalization is achieved at the expense of national sovereignty and human liberties. Globalization destroys the culture and the principles of free government cherished by Americans. All globalization must be opposed by freemen.

~Remember the Founders and the 14 Words~

Copyright © 2016 by Joseph Charles Putnam of Orange County, Indiana. All rights reserved.


The Statue of Liberty versus the Statute of Liberty, Expanded Edition


(Note: This is an expanded version of the 12th essay of my March 2016 book Putnam Liberty Notes)

This essay may seem a tad edgy to some. I am going to point out the difference between the Statue of Liberty that stands in New York harbor, and the Statute of Liberty (the U.S. Constitution).

The Statue of Liberty was given to America by France in the second half of the 19th century. The Founders were long dead when the Statue was dedicated in 1886. The Statue depicts a woman with a torch, possibly the Roman goddess Libertas. The Statue and Ellis Island are the symbols of immigration to the U.S.A. All of my ancestors immigrated before Ellis Island was made a federal immigrant processing center, and before the erection of the Statue. As such, I have no emotional connection to the Statue. The poem on the Statue that begs the world to send her (America) the “tired”, “poor”, “huddled masses”, “homeless”, and “wretched refuse” was written by a Jewess named Emma Lazarus.

The Statute of Liberty is the United States Constitution. The Statute was given us by our own countrymen. After years of warfare, America was victorious over Britain. We established a free republic, a government bound by laws –not a democracy. The legal embodiment of this was the U.S. Constitution, written in 1787 and ratified in 1789.

The U.S. Constitution (and the Bill of Rights appended to it in 1791) established a system of checks and balances between the three branches of government, set up representative democracy as a guard against mob rule, and secured the rights of the citizens. The Constitution also allocated the power to control immigration to the federal/national/central government.

Article 1 Section 8 Paragraph 4 of the Constitution provides that Congress has the power to: “Establish a uniform rule of Naturalization”.

Congress did establish this uniform rule in 1790 with a single paragraph law; this law was revised and expanded in 1795. In both acts, citizenship was limited to those who were a “free white person”. They also used the 1792 militia act to ensure that only free white males were to serve in the state militias.

As further proof of the Founder’s viewpoint, in his 1776 pamphlet Common Sense, Thomas Paine stated the following: “Europe, and not England, is the parent country of America”.

America was founded by European peoples, primarily Protestant Europeans from the British Isles and Western Europe. Whether one views this as good, bad, or neither here nor there –it is reality. (I view it as quite good).

Americans have the legal and moral right to restrict entry of foreigners into our country. Just as a man has the right to control who is allowed into his home, the national family may control who is allowed entry into our national home, our territory. The principle is the same.

Without amending the Constitution we could, temporarily or permanently, open our borders to every human on earth –without regard to race, religion, health issues or criminal background. On the other end of the scale, we could forever close our borders to all immigrants. Both options would be legal; the first would also be an act of national suicide.

Illegal immigration, primarily of Spanish speaking Mexicans and Central Americans crossing our southern border, has been a problem in the U.S.A. for several decades. The last two years have seen this issue come to the national forefront, in large part because of the wave of “children” immigrants in 2014, the Alt-Right’s internet activities, and the Trump campaign.

Many of these immigrants do not desire to assimilate, and some public schools now have classes for students who do not speak English! As a patriot suspicious of governmental authority, I do not support public schools or driver’s licenses for anyone –much less for immigrants who will not even speak our language!

My readers, have you not heard of “Aztlan” and the Reconquista? America has a major problem on its hands. Mexicans are not just looking for a good paying job when they cross the border to the U.S. The U.S.A. is, right now, losing control of the American Southwest.

Moving on to the events in Europe in the last year and a half, it is just as dark over there. The U.S. and Israeli approved and funded wars in the Middle East, and especially the attempt to oust Bashar Assad (the democratic leader of a secular state) have created great turmoil and a large number of refugees.

As the secular regime of Assad slowly crumbles, the Islamic fundamentalist rebels –many of whom want Sharia law- are taking over large parts of Syria and Iraq. This was no doubt planned, as it also likely was when Libya was toppled.

The European Union is pressing its member states to admit large numbers of (usually Islamic) ethnic Middle Easterners to their country. This is madness! As of late December 2015, at least 1 million “migrants” had entered Europe from the Middle East and west Asia. Let that sink in, One Million.

These Middle Easterners cannot assimilate, even if they and we both desired for them to do so. Genetics determine mental capabilities, physical attributes, and emotional makeup. Back when people lived on farms, they knew that there are differences in breeds of animals, even ones that can cross breed (such as the many breeds of dogs). But modern sensitive Americans have forgotten this.

The “proposition nation/civic nationalism” garbage is a lie, and always has been. The proposition nation fantasy is that if we all speak the same language, agree to the same political/government ideas (aka the proposition), and work together to make money –then all will be well. Wrong. The proposition nation fantasy ignores three important things: (1) genetic differences, (2) that nations originally signified a people group, not a geographical area under one government and (3) that counties have usually been based around an ethnic group/nation.

I tried to swallow my white racial consciousness and believe the proposition nation lie back when I was reading libertarian material and attending a church with an interracial couple, but two years ago I could stomach it no more and I embraced White Nationalism. This is why I wrote my ten page essay “Multiculturalism: Death of the American People” as the 28th essay of my recent little book As America Fades.

Europe has a right to remain European, just as China has right to remain Chinese and Russia has a right to remain Russian. Changing the ethnic makeup of Europe will inevitably change its culture until it is no longer Europe. The land will still be there, but the people, culture, and republican governmental traditions will be gone –perhaps forever. This also applies to the U.S.A.

Americans need to consider the 14 Words. The oft quoted 14 Words are the following: “We must secure the existence of our people, and a future for white children”.

The 14 Words do not speak of hate, slavery, genocide, or repression of any sort; they only proclaim our right to exist! The most basic right of a person, or group or people, is the right to exist. For those racially conscious, it is obvious that I slyly referenced the 14 Words in my July 4th blog post this year, showing that the Founders incorporated White Nationalist elements into the Declaration of Independence.

I am reminded of Charles Martel, which means “Charles the Hammer”. Europe was under siege from Islamic invaders in the 8th century. Not only had Islamic princes conquered much of the Middle East and west Asia, Spain had fallen to the Muslims!

The Frankish (Germanic) prince Charles Martel gathered an army to resist them. At the Battle of Poitiers in France in 732, Martel, outnumbered by perhaps 3 to 1, stopped the Muslim advance; Martel’s infantry repulsed the Islamic cavalry, inflicting massive casualties on them.

Many consider Martel’s victory the turning point in the attempted Islamic conquest of Europe. Had “The Hammer” not stopped these Muslims, they might have succeeded in conquering much of Europe –destroying much of Christianity, classical civilization, and the genetic code of our ancestors.

Europe once fought to stop the forces of invading Islamic armies. Now she opens her doors to Islamic refugees –who will accomplish the same goal given enough time.

If Europe and America do not want to allow immigrants to change their countries forever, if Europe and America have the will to survive, we are going to have to say NO. We need to remember the Founders and the 14 Words.

The Statue of Liberty and the Statute of Liberty: there is no comparison between the two.

Copyright © 2016 by Joseph Charles Putnam of Orange County, Indiana. All rights reserved.