Speaker 1: Joining us now is Gary Benoid. He has been working
Speaker 1: with the New American for nearly fifty years, just at
Speaker 1: the cusp of it. He is now the editor in
Speaker 1: chief of The New American, the publication of the John
Speaker 1: Birch Society. We're going to talk to him about his book.
Speaker 1: I really like the title of this, the John Birch Society,
Speaker 1: the Vanguard of the Americanist Cause. I think that's a
Speaker 1: great way to put it, and I think it's a
Speaker 1: good description of what they do. But we're going to
Speaker 1: begin by talking about the constitutional issues about declaring war
Speaker 1: since we're looking at this Iron war. Thank you for
Speaker 1: joining us, Gary, Oh.
Speaker 2: Thank you, so happy be on your program.
Speaker 1: David, Well, thank you. You know, we look at this,
Speaker 1: We've talked about so many different aspects. The number one
Speaker 1: issue for me personally is the moral issue. But of
Speaker 1: course there's practical issues involved with all of this. There's
Speaker 1: also legal issues, which we're going to talk about out.
Speaker 1: But the only thing they seem to be interested in
Speaker 1: is lethal issues. How many people can we kill? That's
Speaker 1: what we hear from feed Eggs all the time. He
Speaker 1: always wants to talk about lethality. Lethality, but he never
Speaker 1: talks about legality that is there. So let's talk a
Speaker 1: little bit about the Constitution and war, because we've had
Speaker 1: a slight pushback from the House and from the Senate
Speaker 1: on this, and of course, with the War Powers Act,
Speaker 1: the president was supposed to once they initiate acts of
Speaker 1: war against another country, they're supposed to notify Congress within
Speaker 1: forty eight hours. So they had Rubio go over and
Speaker 1: talk to the Gang of eight a term which I
Speaker 1: cannot find in the Constitution. Maybe you know it. Where
Speaker 1: it is in the Constitution, I can't find it. And
Speaker 1: so he talks to the leaders of the two different
Speaker 1: parties and a couple of other people and told them
Speaker 1: that we had been pushed into it by Israel and
Speaker 1: that was the end of it. You know, we don't
Speaker 1: have any more discussions. And there have been bills that
Speaker 1: have been brought up in both the House and the
Speaker 1: Senate to say that we want to have a declaration
Speaker 1: of war before we continue with this. Those have both
Speaker 1: been shut down. And now, according to the War Powers Act,
Speaker 1: if there's not a declaration of war within sixty days,
Speaker 1: the president would have to withdraw. But of course that's
Speaker 1: not the way that it has worked for the longest time,
Speaker 1: is it.
Speaker 2: No, it's not. And actually you mentioned, David that you
Speaker 2: could not find the Gang of Eight terminology in the Constitution.
Speaker 2: But I can't not only find that, I also cannot
Speaker 2: find the War Powers Act in the Constitution. That's right,
Speaker 2: and the War Powers Act, of course, that was something
Speaker 2: that was done during the Vietnam War era to try
Speaker 2: to change things in the future where the president can
Speaker 2: just not will nearly go to war and have that
Speaker 2: war continue and escalated as long as he wants. But
Speaker 2: even the War Powers Act, I would argue, is unconstitutional.
Speaker 2: I would go back to the provisions in the Constitution itself,
Speaker 2: and those provisions are very clearly assume me worded, and
Speaker 2: they assign or the provisions assigned in the Constitution. It's
Speaker 2: an Article one, section eight assign most war powers to Congress,
Speaker 2: not to the president, and specifically regarding the decision whether
Speaker 2: or not to go to war, that is specifically Congress.
Speaker 2: That is totally Congress. And the way it's word in
Speaker 2: the Constitution is the congressional power to declare war. And
Speaker 2: you know theyved the only reason they use the word
Speaker 2: declare as opposed to the word make is because the
Speaker 2: funding fathers did recognize, well, my goodness, what if the
Speaker 2: United States of America is subjected to a sudden attack
Speaker 2: and we have you know, the troops coming into America,
Speaker 2: and then the president would have to violate the Constitution
Speaker 2: in order to save the country from that sudden attack.
Speaker 2: That's the only reason why they made the word declare
Speaker 2: rather than the word make.
Speaker 1: That's right, and of course we need to be able
Speaker 1: to declare our causes for them declare what the end
Speaker 1: is the end goal? As many people said, if you
Speaker 1: don't have a declared ending to your war, it's never
Speaker 1: going to end, right, And so it just keeps going
Speaker 1: on on because we don't have it. We got these
Speaker 1: moving goalposts. And of course people get drawn into this
Speaker 1: with the tit and tit that happens with war always.
Speaker 1: But you're absolutely right. Even the War Powers Act, of course,
Speaker 1: is not there. I view that as kind of a
Speaker 1: desperate act from Congress saying and we really mean it now, exactly,
Speaker 1: don't really mean it now.
Speaker 2: This is you know, how all of a sudden, all
Speaker 2: these liberal democrats have discovered the Constitution. Yeah, on this
Speaker 2: specific thing, they are right. The president should not act
Speaker 2: as a king that's right. The president should not have
Speaker 2: the power of a king to just have a war
Speaker 2: wheneverbody wants to. But you know, I can't help thinking,
Speaker 2: in particular, when you look at history that if you
Speaker 2: head right now a Democrat president rather a Republican president,
Speaker 2: that all of a sudden the Democratic to be taking
Speaker 2: the opposite position.
Speaker 1: Oh, we know, they would absolutely would, yes. And of course,
Speaker 1: when you look at the Senate, it was only forty
Speaker 1: seven percent of the Senators, along partisan lines pretty much,
Speaker 1: that voted to stop this act of aggression, which is
Speaker 1: really what this war is. And in the House side
Speaker 1: it was slightly closer. It was forty nine percent saying
Speaker 1: we need to stop this and fifty one percent saying
Speaker 1: we don't care, do whatever you want. That is a
Speaker 1: sad situation.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: I look at this and I think back to Mark
Speaker 1: Levin and his you know, a lot of the people
Speaker 1: trying to put together a constitutional convention to change the Constitution,
Speaker 1: and I know that the John Bird Society has warned
Speaker 1: about the dangers of this significantly. And I look at
Speaker 1: it and I say, well, if we've got a bunch
Speaker 1: of people who are not interested in following the constitution,
Speaker 1: we've got. Why would we allow that gang of people
Speaker 1: to write a new constitution because they won't even follow
Speaker 1: the rules that they've got right now?
Speaker 2: Oh, I agree with you completely regarding that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we're in a bad situation right now, aren't we.
Speaker 2: Yes, of course it is true that the Funding Fathers
Speaker 2: put into the Constitution a provision for having an Article
Speaker 2: five convention. But I would say that today would be
Speaker 2: the worst possible time we could employ that, yes, because
Speaker 2: there's so much of a lack of understanding on the
Speaker 2: part of the people today. And you know, if you
Speaker 2: go back to the Funding Fathers, you did have people
Speaker 2: of wisdom, and they created the government large enough to
Speaker 2: protect our freedom, but not so large that the government
Speaker 2: become a destroyer of the freedom that was supposed to protect.
Speaker 2: And what would happen today if we opened up a
Speaker 2: new convention?
Speaker 1: I agree with that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And it wouldn't be just members of the John
Speaker 2: Bridges Society who would be there.
Speaker 1: It'd be the people who don't care what's in the
Speaker 1: constitution and are going to do whatever they want. And
Speaker 1: that'd be an incredibly dangerous thing. Speaking of which, one
Speaker 1: of the things I just recently talked about, we have
Speaker 1: some really scary moves being made in terms of artificial
Speaker 1: intelligence and sweeping aside the Tenth Amendment to allow the
Speaker 1: federal government to rush forward with this as really a
Speaker 1: surveillance and speech control tool. And this has been introduced
Speaker 1: by both the Congress as well as a White House.
Speaker 1: And we've got a new bill that has come out
Speaker 1: by Marshall Blackburn, who will probably be the next governor
Speaker 1: of Tennessee where I live, and she has utter contempt
Speaker 1: for what she calls a patchwork of regulations. That really
Speaker 1: is what the Tenth Amendment is about, having the ability
Speaker 1: for different states to have different regulations for various things.
Speaker 1: But we know how from a practical standpoint, how that works.
Speaker 1: They want to be able to pull everything together in
Speaker 1: Washington so they can control the supposed regulatory body. The
Speaker 1: regulatory capture that will result will allow them to do
Speaker 1: whatever they wish. So it is a move to stop
Speaker 1: all regulation and to federalize all artificial intelligence. It's a
Speaker 1: very dangerous move, I think that's happening.
Speaker 2: Well, I agree completely, it is very very dangerous. And
Speaker 2: of course, the founding fathers recognized the corrupt, corrupting influence
Speaker 2: of power, and so when they created the federal government,
Speaker 2: they did not want to put all the power of
Speaker 2: government into a single part. And so what they did
Speaker 2: was they defined a few powers that government could have
Speaker 2: on the national level, and then they took those few
Speaker 2: specified powers and they divided them among the three branches
Speaker 2: of government, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. And
Speaker 2: then they built in a brilliant system of checks and
Speaker 2: balances to try to prevent power from being consolidated, let's say,
Speaker 2: in the executive branch or into another branch, so the
Speaker 2: various branches could check themselves. But then they took all
Speaker 2: other powers of government, and of course this is where
Speaker 2: the Tenth Amendment comes in, all other powers, and they
Speaker 2: reserved them to the people and to the estates.
Speaker 1: That's right, that's right. And so this is it's almost
Speaker 1: it's like if you go back to the Lord of
Speaker 1: the Rings analogy, it's like they found this new ring
Speaker 1: of power which is incredibly powerful, This artificial intelligence, the
Speaker 1: ability to be able to go back and audit everybody
Speaker 1: or everything and very fine detail, and to collate all
Speaker 1: the information that they've been collecting on people for a
Speaker 1: very long time. I remember, over a decade ago talking
Speaker 1: about the massive amounts of information that they were saving.
Speaker 1: I had an interview with William Benny, who was global
Speaker 1: technical head of the NSA, and he was saying, Yeah,
Speaker 1: they're saving everything on everybody, and they're just waiting until
Speaker 1: they've got the computer power to go back and organize
Speaker 1: all this stuff and collate it. That's where we are
Speaker 1: right now. It's a very very dangerous thing. When I
Speaker 1: look at the powers that are being put into a
Speaker 1: police surveillance state, it truly is stunning to see what
Speaker 1: they're doing. And it is the ultimate consolidation of power,
Speaker 1: isn't it sure?
Speaker 2: And so much of it is being done in the
Speaker 2: name of what is often called consertism or call law
Speaker 2: and order. Yeah, obviously we believe that our rights should
Speaker 2: be protected. That's that's the purpose of a government, but
Speaker 2: we don't want to take it to the point where
Speaker 2: we have a police state. Because a government big enough
Speaker 2: to do everything that you'd wanted to do, protection everything else,
Speaker 2: is big enough to take away from you everything you have,
Speaker 2: and so deponding fathers imagine was that law enforcement that
Speaker 2: that would belong to the states and to local communities,
Speaker 2: and the idea, of course, if you have any pen
Speaker 2: and police departments, that those departments would be beholden to
Speaker 2: the communities that they protect and serve. But then you
Speaker 2: take those powers and you transfer them into the hands
Speaker 2: of the national government and create a national police state.
Speaker 2: What happens is then those police are beholden to the
Speaker 2: central government in Washington, and that's not what we want.
Speaker 2: But the thing is, conspirators for global control, they don't
Speaker 2: come right out and say, well, gee, we want to
Speaker 2: enslave you. We want to have complete and absolute power.
Speaker 2: So those they say things like, well, we need these
Speaker 2: powers in order to fight illegal immigration, or we need
Speaker 2: these person in order to fight crime, in in order
Speaker 2: to fight terrorism, and certainly we need to fight terrorism,
Speaker 2: we need to fight the criminal element and whatnot, but
Speaker 2: let's not use that as a pretext in order to
Speaker 2: consolidate all power into the hands of the government. Because
Speaker 2: of that happens. Then what happens is the government becomes
Speaker 2: a criminal government. We've seen that happen so many times.
Speaker 2: We've seen it happen with Nazi Germany. We've seen it
Speaker 2: happen with the Soviet Union and whatnot. And you know,
Speaker 2: a good lesson to remember in history is that the
Speaker 2: German people were beguiled into voting themselves into slavery. They
Speaker 2: voted the Hitler's National Socialist Power Party, which is all
Speaker 2: called also what is called the Nazi Party, into power,
Speaker 2: and they were told that that Hitler would make Germany
Speaker 2: great again and prosperous and whatnot. But of course he
Speaker 2: deliberate tyranny instead.
Speaker 1: I've had a lot of people get very angry with
Speaker 1: me because I say, yeah, it's h with the immigration stuff,
Speaker 1: but let's make sure that we're going to have a
Speaker 1: police force that is going to follow the law, that's
Speaker 1: not going to be a law under themselves with absolute immunity,
Speaker 1: I said, because then they become the most dangerous threat
Speaker 1: to us. And that's really the case. But a lot
Speaker 1: of people say, well, no, no, no, we want to
Speaker 1: have we have this particular problem that we perceive, and
Speaker 1: of course, always the solution that is given to you is,
Speaker 1: since they've got one giant hammer coming out of Washington,
Speaker 1: they perceive everything as a nail, and so we want
Speaker 1: to give carte blanc to the federal police force to
Speaker 1: do whatever they wish. I said, that is the most
Speaker 1: dangerous thing we could have, and when we look at it,
Speaker 1: we can put on the list in terms of excuses
Speaker 1: for getting rid of any protections against excessive use of force.
Speaker 1: We could put on there. What we saw during COVID,
Speaker 1: the public health issue, and I think we talk about conspiracies.
Speaker 1: I guess it's just the coincidence that all of the
Speaker 1: governments around the world are basically doing the same nonsensical
Speaker 1: stuff at the same time, right, exactly the same things.
Speaker 2: You know, But COVID, I would say, or specifically the
Speaker 2: COVID policies, those were a wake up call to a
Speaker 2: lot of people.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, they've.
Speaker 2: Build a lot of Americans because who could have imagined
Speaker 2: until then? Well, I guess a few of us could,
Speaker 2: But very few people could have imagined until the COVID policies,
Speaker 2: the lockdowns, the mandates were put in place that those
Speaker 2: things could happen in the United States of America. I mean,
Speaker 2: who could have imagined before two Yeah? Not even me.
Speaker 1: And I was very cynical about that. I was absolutely
Speaker 1: just shaking my heads, like why isn't anybody having a
Speaker 1: problem with this? I mean, they moved the Overton windows
Speaker 1: so far that they definishtrated the Bill of Rights.
Speaker 2: You know. The good news is though. I think that
Speaker 2: those policies were put in place again today, I think
Speaker 2: a lot more people would not go along with it,
Speaker 2: don't you.
Speaker 1: I hope not. But you know, there hasn't been any
Speaker 1: penalty paid by these people, And usually if they admit
Speaker 1: that they did something wrong, they said, well, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: we'll do it quicker next time, and we'll do it
Speaker 1: more thoroughly. That seems to be the comeback that we
Speaker 1: see from these commissions of Inquiry that are in different countries.
Speaker 1: They come back, if they'll admit any wrongdoing, they'll say, yeah,
Speaker 1: the problem is that we didn't do enough, and we
Speaker 1: didn't do it early enough, and we'll do better next time.
Speaker 1: That's not the message that I get from all that
Speaker 1: at all. Yeah. Absolutely, it had.
Speaker 2: A testable wanting to see how far they could go.
Speaker 1: Yeah, oh yeah, absolutely, and they moved that over to
Speaker 1: the window, didn't they Truly is amazing. Well, let's talk
Speaker 1: a little bit about your book and about the history
Speaker 1: of the John Birth Society, because I think it's a
Speaker 1: very fascinating history. I first heard of the John Birch
Speaker 1: Society as it was being attacked as this crank a
Speaker 1: conspiracy theorist group out there by William F. Buckley. I
Speaker 1: eventually figured out where William Bucket was coming from and
Speaker 1: eventually figured out what the John Bird Society was about.
Speaker 1: But that was when I was in college and I
Speaker 1: heard the other viewpoint talk a little bit about the
Speaker 1: founding of the John Birch Society and the resistance that
Speaker 1: you've had from mainstream media and life of different quarters,
Speaker 1: including conservative quarters.
Speaker 2: Okay, the John Society was founded in nineteen fifty eight,
Speaker 2: and of course at the time the country was viewed
Speaker 2: as very anti communists. You know, we believe in the
Speaker 2: constitution and whatnot. But in nineteen fifty eight, the founder
Speaker 2: of the JENERN Birch Society, Robert Welch, who was a businessman,
Speaker 2: but he was warning that communism really is a problem,
Speaker 2: not just externally but also internally, and so he founded
Speaker 2: this organization to stop communism and specifically what they called
Speaker 2: it a communist conspiracy. Of course, as time went on,
Speaker 2: and it didn't take a lot of time, but he
Speaker 2: connected the dots too to show that the people working
Speaker 2: for more government leading to world government in this country
Speaker 2: and elsewhere included not just communists, but included powerful elitists
Speaker 2: who wanted to basically bring about the same thing, and
Speaker 2: so he blew the whistle. He said that we would
Speaker 2: have more and more government in this country, leading the
Speaker 2: total government. He said the ADAD Nations was a world
Speaker 2: government trap. He said he would have inflation because we
Speaker 2: would destroy the currency over time by printing more and
Speaker 2: more on back dollars in order to finance the growing
Speaker 2: government deficits. And basically what he was saying back in
Speaker 2: nineteen fifty eight is exactly what we've seen happen over
Speaker 2: the years. But back at that time, people's scoff because
Speaker 2: they said it was ridiculous. You know, for example, what
Speaker 2: the ADAD Nations was portrayed at the time as Mankind's
Speaker 2: less best hope for peace. Can you imagine calling it
Speaker 2: a communist inspired organization? And I remember the way it
Speaker 2: was true, we were crazy to imagine a communist threat. Well,
Speaker 2: today look at all the young people who probably both well, yeah,
Speaker 2: I believe in communism, I believe in socialism. But Robert
Speaker 2: Welch blew the whistle, and he realized that in order
Speaker 2: to solve the problem, to expose this conspiracy, because it
Speaker 2: is a solution exposed in the conspiracy, you could not
Speaker 2: just do it through elections. You cannot just do it
Speaker 2: by running a good candidate, because ultimately the kind of
Speaker 2: government we have would be determined by the understanding of
Speaker 2: the American people themselves. The American people were run informed,
Speaker 2: they would make good decisions in the voting booth, and
Speaker 2: then politicians who would not abide by the people, insisting
Speaker 2: that they they abide by their oath of office, those
Speaker 2: politicians would get voted out of office by an informed electorate.
Speaker 2: And of course others would see where the political wins
Speaker 2: are going and that they would vote better when they
Speaker 2: got elected. So that was the solution that Rebel Welch advocated.
Speaker 2: And he realized too that no one person could save
Speaker 2: our freedoms it had been done, would have to be
Speaker 2: done by an informed electorate, it had to be done
Speaker 2: by the American people themselves, and so he created chapters
Speaker 2: throughout the country where people in their own congressional district,
Speaker 2: in their own communities could bring about this great awakening.
Speaker 2: And I honestly believe because I've been remember of the
Speaker 2: John burgus Ie since nineteen sixty eight, since I was
Speaker 2: a teenager. It came on the staff in nineteen seventy seven.
Speaker 2: But I believe that because of what the John Birch
Speaker 2: Society has done, specifically the members of the John Birch
Speaker 2: Society and their allies over so many years, that we
Speaker 2: would not have our freedoms today if it was not
Speaker 2: for what we've done. So I feel like we held back,
Speaker 2: you know, the forces that want to bring about world
Speaker 2: government and steal trainanism. We have bought time so that today,
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty six, we can still use our freedoms
Speaker 2: to save our freedoms. And that's why my book, by
Speaker 2: the way, is called the Vanguard of the Americans cause
Speaker 2: because we've really been in the forefront of this fight.
Speaker 1: I agree. Yeah, I remember the support your Local Sheriff thing,
Speaker 1: which became a meme and actually James Gardner with that title,
Speaker 1: and so that was and I kind of scratched my head.
Speaker 1: I thought, you know, what are they talking about. Eventually
Speaker 1: figured out the dangers of a centralized federal police force,
Speaker 1: militarized police force, which is what I think they're in
Speaker 1: the process of trying to create right now. And I
Speaker 1: think now more than ever, we need to revive that
Speaker 1: support your Local Sheriff thing and to have locally elected people.
Speaker 1: It's not perfect. We get bad sheriffs, many different cases
Speaker 1: like that, but again that is you've got a better
Speaker 1: chance of having a say so at the local election
Speaker 1: than you do at a federal election where we have
Speaker 1: basically no control whatsoever. It was interesting the back and forth,
Speaker 1: I think a George Soros and Elon musk As Elon
Speaker 1: must said, well, you know, George Soros has got this
Speaker 1: right when he gets these district attorneys in or the
Speaker 1: state attorneys general, that he gives them a good bit
Speaker 1: of money and they can actually swamp their opponent in
Speaker 1: terms of spending, and he goes he gets a lot
Speaker 1: more bang for his buck, and of course the voters
Speaker 1: do as well. The more local the election, the more
Speaker 1: bang for the buck you get in terms of either
Speaker 1: your vote or your contribution that you make. It gets very,
Speaker 1: very deluded and distant when you're talking about Washington, and
Speaker 1: that's one of the reasons why we need to stop
Speaker 1: looking to Washington for every single solution. To me, that
Speaker 1: is one of the biggest things that's changed in my lifetime.
Speaker 1: We used to joke about, well, don't make a federal
Speaker 1: case out of it. Everything is made a federal case
Speaker 1: out of today, including with conservatives, and we used to say,
Speaker 1: you know, it's a free country, isn't it. We don't
Speaker 1: say that anymore though, we don't nobody sees it as
Speaker 1: a free country because we have the federal government that
Speaker 1: is micromanaging every single aspect of our life, and that
Speaker 1: is the real danger.
Speaker 2: I think I agree completely, and of course a lot
Speaker 2: of people really don't understand what freedom is. You know,
Speaker 2: freedom is the ability to pull yourself up by the bootstraps.
Speaker 2: It's the ability where government is limited and it's are
Speaker 2: your way so that you can fulfill your dreams. So
Speaker 2: if you want to buy a home, you had the
Speaker 2: ability to do that because you have the ability to
Speaker 2: keep the fruits of your own labor. You had the
Speaker 2: ability to innovate, You had the ability to build a
Speaker 2: small business, which is increasingly being stifled today because of
Speaker 2: all the government regulations. Of course, of that place at
Speaker 2: the end of people we think of as capitalists or
Speaker 2: super capitalists, but they actually use, you know, the fact
Speaker 2: that you have all these regulations, and they use the
Speaker 2: power of government and government favoritism to favor them at
Speaker 2: the expense of the little guy, including the little business, right,
Speaker 2: So we have to go back to that. We have
Speaker 2: to get back to that wonderful system that caused America
Speaker 2: to become the greatest example of liberty in the history
Speaker 2: of the world.
Speaker 1: That's right. And you know, when we look at it,
Speaker 1: it's even at the local level. We see that a
Speaker 1: lot of the regulations for a save and something as
Speaker 1: simple as a restaurant, right, because it's on a few
Speaker 1: things that's left open to entrepreneurship in a sense. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's getting more and more difficult with the supply chain
Speaker 1: disruptions that we had in twenty twenty and the ones
Speaker 1: that are coming along now as well as inflation and
Speaker 1: with other regulations, that's even becoming almost impossible. But that
Speaker 1: was one of the few avenues that were left to people.
Speaker 1: And you would see that a lot of the regulations
Speaker 1: that were coming down the line for restaurants opening up
Speaker 1: were things that were not essential, that had absolutely nothing
Speaker 1: to do with health issues. They were there to stifle competition.
Speaker 1: And so that truly is what we see happening everywhere.
Speaker 1: And again going back to a lot of these regulations
Speaker 1: of artificial intelligence and even digital ID and the way
Speaker 1: that they are applying these things. We see the government
Speaker 1: coming after three D printer manufacturers, putting onerous regulations on
Speaker 1: them to essentially censor or spy on their users as
Speaker 1: a manufacturer, and if you don't do it, they're going
Speaker 1: to shut you down. We see the same thing happening
Speaker 1: now even with software, with operating systems, things like that.
Speaker 1: They're going to be coming after because they don't you know,
Speaker 1: anything that is open source or that is a new
Speaker 1: startup is going to be shut down by these onerous regulations.
Speaker 1: They're going to make it so difficult to get started
Speaker 1: that people aren't going to start. And a lot of
Speaker 1: small businesses have even signaled that they're going to have
Speaker 1: to shut down if these Internet regulations and these regulations
Speaker 1: that are designed to outlaw all privacy run through. Let's
Speaker 1: talk a little bit about where this real conspiracy of
Speaker 1: communism is coming from. I had somebody at an event
Speaker 1: that I was speaking at came up to me afterwards
Speaker 1: and he said, you know, they've they've taken over every
Speaker 1: one of the institutions. How the world did this ever happen?
Speaker 1: I said, well, you know, there was a plan. It
Speaker 1: was called marching through the institutions, Gramcy and others, and
Speaker 1: they have executed that plan pretty well, haven't they.
Speaker 2: You know, I think that was from Gramsey. Wasn't the
Speaker 2: use that Zach phrase march through the institutions? And of
Speaker 2: course he was a communist strategist, and the point that
Speaker 2: he made is that, at least for an advanced country
Speaker 2: such as the United States, that the old fashioned frontal
Speaker 2: assault is not going to work because the people will say, well, gee,
Speaker 2: I don't want to become a slave. You know, I
Speaker 2: believe in freedom, I believe in the you know, the
Speaker 2: great heritage that we have. And so how do they
Speaker 2: do it? They do it step by step. If you
Speaker 2: look at this country as to how it came about, well,
Speaker 2: I'll start it. I would say almost after we got
Speaker 2: the constitution, that patient gradualism. But let's pick a date
Speaker 2: where I think it became very obvious, and that was
Speaker 2: in nineteen thirteen. Because in nineteen thirteen, three huge things
Speaker 2: happened in this country that were hammer hammer blows to
Speaker 2: the republic. Yes, one of them was the establishment of
Speaker 2: a heavy progressive income tax, and that actually was a
Speaker 2: plank right out of the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx
Speaker 2: in eineteen forty eight, so you could say that we
Speaker 2: than the communist direction at least beginning in nineteen thirteen.
Speaker 1: So don't get angry at the IRS on April fifteenth.
Speaker 1: On April, sorry, don't get mad at the IRS as
Speaker 1: much as you get as mad at the communists who
Speaker 1: basically brought that to it to be the day the
Speaker 1: anti Communists day, April fifteenth.
Speaker 2: Yep, yeah, it is coming up up pretty fast. But
Speaker 2: we got the progressive income tax in nineteen thirteen. Again,
Speaker 2: that was one of ten steps in the Communist Manifesto
Speaker 2: that Carl Mark cited for communizing an advanced country. In particular,
Speaker 2: another step was the creation of a central bank. We
Speaker 2: got that in nineteen thirteen in the form of the
Speaker 2: Federal Reserve System. That is a central bank and controls
Speaker 2: money and credit in order to monetize federal debt. And
Speaker 2: you know, a lot of people think that when taxes
Speaker 2: are cut officially, such as Trump cutting taxes, well, j
Speaker 2: that means the government burden has been reduced. That's only
Speaker 2: true if the government also cuts its spinning. Because taxes
Speaker 2: and allows spinning to go up, you have a larger
Speaker 2: and larger deficit. That's how we got these trian dollar
Speaker 2: rep deficits that we've been experiencing recently, and when the
Speaker 2: government monetizes that, or excuse me, the Federal Reserve monetizes that.
Speaker 2: What the Federal Reserve is doing is they're pumping new
Speaker 2: money into the economy. And so all those new dollars,
Speaker 2: it's just like a monopoly game. All those new dollars
Speaker 2: the values the dollars that are already in the economy,
Speaker 2: and that causes prices to go up. So you could
Speaker 2: call that an inflation tax. But anyway, the Central Bank
Speaker 2: out of the communist manifesto, we got that in nineteen
Speaker 2: thirteen as well. So you can say in nineteen thirteen,
Speaker 2: out of these ten steps or ten planks, we got
Speaker 2: two of them. You could say is at that point
Speaker 2: the United States of America was already twenty percent communized.
Speaker 2: And the third thing I want to mention that happened
Speaker 2: in nineteen thirteen was the election of senators. And a
Speaker 2: lot of people think, well, gee, isn't that a good thing,
Speaker 2: because we don't we want the people to elect our senators.
Speaker 2: But what was overlooked was the fact that, well, g
Speaker 2: we're already doing that in the form of the people
Speaker 2: were electing to the House of Representatives, and the whole
Speaker 2: concept of the funding Fithers that having two houses composing Congress,
Speaker 2: both the House Representatives and the Senate, was that a
Speaker 2: bill cannot become law unless it was passed by both
Speaker 2: the House representative representatives representing the people and the Senate
Speaker 2: representing the states. But now the states do not have
Speaker 2: senators representing them in Congress, and so it makes it
Speaker 2: much easier to yoursserve power from the states and transfer
Speaker 2: that power into the hands of the federal government.
Speaker 1: That's right. Yeah, people don't understand that division of power
Speaker 1: that was there. That's what that representative wasn't taking away
Speaker 1: your representation, as you point out. And that's why people
Speaker 1: don't understand the tenth Amendment, because that was really about
Speaker 1: the power that's been delegated specifically by the people or
Speaker 1: by the states, and so they broke that. You're talking
Speaker 1: about the reducing taxes without reducing spending. That was one
Speaker 1: of my issues with the Tea Party. I thought they
Speaker 1: really didn't understand what they were talking about because they
Speaker 1: didn't have a priority. You know, they said the Tea
Speaker 1: Party was taxed enough already. But I'd say if you
Speaker 1: don't cut the spending, you should say we're indebted enough already. Fact,
Speaker 1: I've never talked about that side of it.
Speaker 2: So the obviously taxes should be cut, but over the
Speaker 2: long tournament, it's not going to help unless we lower
Speaker 2: taxes through less government. And of course they need that
Speaker 2: is to get government back to the constitution.
Speaker 1: That's right. The way I look at the John Burs
Speaker 1: Society is it's very important the educational aspect of this
Speaker 1: because another one of the planks of the Communist Party,
Speaker 1: I think was the compulsory government funded education, and that's
Speaker 1: really what has gotten us there to a large degree.
Speaker 1: And I think that it is very important that people
Speaker 1: understand what has really happened to get the perspective that
Speaker 1: the John Bird Society is out there as a counter
Speaker 1: to the government schools telling their one sided story of this.
Speaker 2: Right, And of course I would say that the government
Speaker 2: schools were designed in the beginning to become what they
Speaker 2: have become today. And because a lot of people would say, well, gee,
Speaker 2: we need to reform the government schools, well, the only
Speaker 2: way to reform it is to get rid of the
Speaker 2: government schools and to go back to private education. Yes,
Speaker 2: and that was the education that we had in this
Speaker 2: country prior to the advent of the government school system
Speaker 2: in the nineteenth century.
Speaker 1: That's right. Yeah, when you look at it, pretty much
Speaker 1: everybody was homeschooled, and maybe they'd have a little bit
Speaker 1: of private schooling. I have talked over and over again
Speaker 1: about the Wright brothers versus Langley, and how he was
Speaker 1: the establishment guy and he had all the credentials and
Speaker 1: he was out of the Smithsonian Jada had a couple
Speaker 1: of homeschool bicycle mechanics who beat him to the punch, right, And.
Speaker 2: So it's a really good illustration.
Speaker 1: It's something that always stuck with me after I saw it,
Speaker 1: and I think that's the key. You know, there was
Speaker 1: a tremendous amount of a very hypercentage of literacy at
Speaker 1: the time that America has created. And of course you
Speaker 1: have a book like Thomas Paine's Common Sense. Everybody is
Speaker 1: reading it and they're thinking about the political theories behind
Speaker 1: it and discussing that you.
Speaker 2: Too, and so for them it was common sense. But
Speaker 2: how many people would understand that book today?
Speaker 1: That's right. Yeah, maybe we should have a two hundred
Speaker 1: and fiftieth anniversary of that.
Speaker 2: Anyway, the solution of the government school problem is first
Speaker 2: of all, to get the federal Garment out of education,
Speaker 2: because the federal Garment does not have any constitutional authority
Speaker 2: to be involved. But even on the state level, my recommendation,
Speaker 2: and the recommendation of the John Birch Society, even at
Speaker 2: that level, would be for the states to get our
Speaker 2: education as well and allow it to be handled privately.
Speaker 2: I agree absolutely, that's what the churches too. Yes, uh,
Speaker 2: you know, isn't it wonderful to uh, you know, have
Speaker 2: a church school for example.
Speaker 1: Mm hmmm hm. And we have seen that, you know,
Speaker 1: private charity and the actions of churches and that type
Speaker 1: of thing. That was something that was so ingrained in
Speaker 1: American society, as Alexis Footpl talked about it.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: And yet that is basically withered and died. It isn't
Speaker 1: to say that it can't be restored, but there has
Speaker 1: to be a desire to do that. As it is
Speaker 1: right now, everybody just figures, well, I gave it the irs,
Speaker 1: and I don't really have to I don't have to
Speaker 1: worry about that.
Speaker 2: That's a really good point. They've already given through Uncle Sam.
Speaker 2: They gave Uncle Sam the money and Uncle Sam's taking
Speaker 2: care of it. But one problem with that Uncle Sam
Speaker 2: taking care of it is what we saw happened very
Speaker 2: recently in Minneapolis. Wouldn't you say that's right, because you
Speaker 2: know who's who's mining the store, so to speak, and
Speaker 2: so look at all the fraud and abuse. And that's
Speaker 2: an argument I think for the fact that you really
Speaker 2: cannot solve the problem of the social welfare system by
Speaker 2: making it efficient. I know, Mussolini, you know, the fascist
Speaker 2: Mussolini during World War Two, promised that he would make
Speaker 2: Italian socialism efficient, making run into trains run in time,
Speaker 2: and it doesn't work that way. So you know, obviously
Speaker 2: we're going to have all this waste as long as
Speaker 2: the garment's involved. So you got to get the garment
Speaker 2: out of it, and in particular the federal government, because
Speaker 2: the federal government is not going to have as much
Speaker 2: of an understanding of what is really needed on the
Speaker 2: local level is the people on the local level. It's
Speaker 2: that simple. So a state government providing welfare will be
Speaker 2: better than a national garment. A local community providing welfare
Speaker 2: would be better than the state government. But the ideal
Speaker 2: course will get back to a system where friends and
Speaker 2: neighbors were taking care of themselves.
Speaker 1: That's right, absolutely. Yeah, once you get those long lines,
Speaker 1: that is very easy to long lines of control. It's
Speaker 1: very easy to subvert that, as we saw with Minneapolis.
Speaker 1: That is one of the practical aspects of it. But
Speaker 1: the other aspect of it, I guess it has been lost,
Speaker 1: and I think it's part of the moral degradation of
Speaker 1: our society is that people. You know, so much of
Speaker 1: the charity was running through the churches, and it was
Speaker 1: based on religion and people. Once you practice that, you
Speaker 1: start to realize that it is better to give than
Speaker 1: to receive, you know, and there is a pleasure in
Speaker 1: helping other people that we completely miss out on. That's
Speaker 1: one of the worst aspects of the welfare state, I think,
Speaker 1: is breaking that connection. And that's one of the things
Speaker 1: that we see happening right now, especially with COVID. It
Speaker 1: seems to be the primary focus of the technocracy is
Speaker 1: to break that human human contact. Government does that a
Speaker 1: great deal, but the technology is focusing on that even
Speaker 1: more and is splitting us off from that. So we
Speaker 1: are disconnected. Yeah, we're disconnected or adamized or isolated as individuals,
Speaker 1: and that's a very dangerous thing, and it shuts off
Speaker 1: so many wonderful things from all.
Speaker 2: Of us, doesn't it.
Speaker 1: Let's talk a little bit about how we get back
Speaker 1: from this. When you have the John Birch Society, do
Speaker 1: they meet and local meetings on a regular basis or Okay,
Speaker 1: so tell us at about that. Okay, tell us a
Speaker 1: bit about that and how that's organized.
Speaker 2: Well, first of all, I would encourage people to go
Speaker 2: to JBS dot org JBS for the John Bird Society
Speaker 2: and find out more about it. But again, the whole
Speaker 2: idea is that we can't rely on a national mailling house.
Speaker 2: We can't rely on a particular politician to save our country.
Speaker 2: We've got to wake the town and tell the people
Speaker 2: and get them involved. And that happens better. It happens
Speaker 2: a lot better when you get synergy going. So when
Speaker 2: you have people actually meeting together and working together and
Speaker 2: people comparing no so to speak, you can get a
Speaker 2: lot more are done. Then people are working in a vacuum.
Speaker 2: And of course another part of the two is you
Speaker 2: can focus on certain projects. For example, a project of
Speaker 2: the General Birch Society going back today one basically and
Speaker 2: running right up to the present has been to get
Speaker 2: us out of the United Nations. Yes, recognizing that that
Speaker 2: was intended and still is intended, I believe to be
Speaker 2: the seat of an emergent, emerging new world order.
Speaker 1: I agree.
Speaker 2: People get together. They can do things like putting up
Speaker 2: a billboard in their community. They can do things like
Speaker 2: distributing literature house to house and whatnot. And you compare
Speaker 2: notes and you know it helps create the synergy.
Speaker 1: Well, I agree, yes, And you know, when we look
Speaker 1: at it again, the solutions are local, and so you
Speaker 1: need to make those connections locally. And when you talk
Speaker 1: about the UN, everybody's looking at all these attacks on
Speaker 1: the family and the attacks on children in terms of
Speaker 1: the transgender issues and things like that. That all flows
Speaker 1: from the UN, from the UN's Convention on the Rights
Speaker 1: of the Child. And the only country that hasn't bought
Speaker 1: into that formally is the United States. And I say
Speaker 1: formally because from a practical standpoint, our state and local
Speaker 1: and federal governments, as well as the judiciary, have all
Speaker 1: bought into the premises of the UN Convention on the
Speaker 1: Rights of the Child. If you say that a child
Speaker 1: has rights, that is in direct competition to the idea
Speaker 1: of parental rights. And that is a device, a scheme,
Speaker 1: a fiction that's created by the UN, propagated by the
Speaker 1: UN in order to break up families, in order to
Speaker 1: separate the good.
Speaker 2: But the whole idea on the part of the conspirators
Speaker 2: for global control, and whereas that concludes the people who
Speaker 2: operate the United Nations, is that they see themselves of
Speaker 2: the family. They see the government as the family right,
Speaker 2: they see the family the real family that actually, under
Speaker 2: God's plan is the fundamental unit of civilization. They see
Speaker 2: that as the competing loyalty to them. They want total
Speaker 2: loyalty to be devoted to the state.
Speaker 1: And that is a very hallmark of communism, isn't it.
Speaker 1: Of course, as Hillary is, that takes a village aspect
Speaker 1: of that, and so it really is important for us
Speaker 1: to organize at the local level. And the New American
Speaker 1: is the publication that you are editor in chief of,
Speaker 1: and that is the publication of the John Birch Society
Speaker 1: that gives you an overview of what is happening nationally
Speaker 1: and internationally. You're going to get the local information and
Speaker 1: that's the Kitender's the things that I can't really cover
Speaker 1: on a regular basis. That's why you need to have
Speaker 1: something like the John Birch Society, because that's going to
Speaker 1: give you a handle on what's happening in your local area.
Speaker 1: There's so many different local offices that nobody can really
Speaker 1: report on that. I mean, we can cover something bad
Speaker 1: that's happening at the state level from time to time,
Speaker 1: but what is happening right there in your community. A
Speaker 1: good example of this are the flock cameras that are
Speaker 1: springing up everywhere, and people don't really understand what that is.
Speaker 1: They understand how these things are flocking together into a
Speaker 1: massive informant network once people find out about it. We've
Speaker 1: had some communities that have said get those things out
Speaker 1: of here. But you have to have people informed at
Speaker 1: the local level, and so it's very important to have
Speaker 1: some kind of an organization like that, and the John
Speaker 1: Vers Society is there, has been there for quite some time.
Speaker 1: It's always great talking to people from the John Verd Society.
Speaker 1: I've interviewed Alex Newman on education issues and climate change
Speaker 1: issues many many times, and it's always great having people.
Speaker 1: Thank you for joining us, Gary and your book, and.
Speaker 2: I believe this is my first time in your program.
Speaker 1: Yes, it is. And let's talk a little bit about
Speaker 1: your book as well. The title is Vanguard of the
Speaker 1: Americanist cause they close look at the John Birch Society, And.
Speaker 2: Where's the best place for people to get there? Yeah?
Speaker 1: There you go, good? And where can people get that?
Speaker 1: Where's the best place?
Speaker 2: You can go to JBS dot org. And and there's
Speaker 2: a place there where can go to our book division
Speaker 2: and you'll you will find it there.
Speaker 1: That's great. Thank you so much, Gary Benoit, Thank you
Speaker 1: so much, the editor in chief of The New American,
Speaker 1: the New American dot com. Thank you the common man.
Speaker 1: They created common Core and dumbed down our children. They
Speaker 1: created common past track and control us. They're Commons project
Speaker 1: to make sure the commoners own nothing and the communist future.
Speaker 1: They see the common man as simple, not sophisticated ordinary.
Speaker 1: But each of us has worth and dignity created in
Speaker 1: the image of God. That is what we have in common.
Speaker 1: That is what they want to take away. The most
Speaker 1: powerful weapon is our isolation, deception, intimidation. They desire to
Speaker 1: know everything about us, while they hide everything from us.
Speaker 1: It's time to turn that around and expose what they
Speaker 1: want to hide. Please share the information and links you'll
Speaker 1: find at Thedavidnightshow dot com. Thank you for listening, thank
Speaker 1: you for sharing. If you can't support us financially, please
Speaker 1: keep us in your prayers. Ddavidnightshow dot com