Category: Enemies Domestic

Constitutional Rights vs. Ideological Rights

On 31 July 1982 I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign, and domestic. Today I am the Executive Director of the American Constitutional Rights Union (ACRU).

As a career military serviceman and combat veteran, I believe the oath that I took then has no statute of limitations.  As a Member of Congress, that oath was my guiding principle and light, as the Constitution is our rule of law.

The U.S. Constitution was established to restrain the powers of the federal government.  As a matter of fact, when you read Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution you will find the (18) enumerated duties of the legislative branch, the most powerful of our three branches of government.  Article II and Article III lay out the duties, qualifications, duties, responsibilities and scope of the executive and judicial branches.  Our founders intentionally described and limited the federal government.

Unfortunately, the left does not subscribe to these limitations.  Today there exists competing philosophies of governance — constitutional conservatism and progressive socialism. Leftists do not believe in the absolutism of the Constitution, our rule of law, and certainly not the ideal of constitutional rights. Leftists believe in the dangerous concept of ideological rights.

The left in America embraces an ideal that is the antithesis of our constitutional rights. They believe their ideology defines our rights.  They believe they can grant and take our rights away.

I find very disconcerting the repeated assertion by the current occupant of the oval office, Joe Biden, that no amendment to the Constitution is absolute.  His current focus is the Second Amendment, whose language is quite simple and forthright.  His line has been parroted by many progressive socialists, elected officials and media pundits.

The Second Amendment is part of our individual Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution. It is established in our founding documents, along the principle of natural rights theory, that our unalienable rights and all individual rights come to us from our Creator God, the Judeo-Christian God. They do not emanate from the government, and that is codified in our Declaration of Independence which Thomas Jefferson referred to as the “laws of nature and nature’s God”.

Here we have the President of these United States of America who took an oath to uphold the Constitution declaring our constitutional rights are not absolute.

The left tells us that we have a right to healthcare. We have a right to free college education. We have a right to change our gender.  None of these are enumerated rights, but they are ideological rights of the Left.

Once upon a time, during the Carter administration, the Left told us that every American had a right to own a home. They passed legislation called the Community Reinvestment Act which led to the subprime mortgage crisis and financial meltdown some 30 years later.  Just last week a Democrat Congressman from Rhode Island publicly stated that he deemed constitutional rights as bovine excrement. Yes, a US Congressman who is supposed to have taken an oath to the Constitution says constitutional rights are BS!

Now you can see why we need an organization called the American Constitutional Rights Union?

If no amendment to the Constitution is absolute, then I guess the left wants to make me a slave again? Recall, Democrats did not support the 13th and 14th Amendments. Today, this same group, who now embraces socialism and Marxism, is promoting economic enslavement.

If the left in America is able to define our rights based upon their ideological agenda and have it enforced by the rule of the mob…America faces dark days ahead. And if the Left is successful in disarming the American populace, their sponsored mob, Antifa, will leverage coercion, threats, intimidation, fear, and violence against anyone not in compliance.

If the progressive socialist left does not like our Constitution, they can go through the amendment process. Passing ideologically based laws, or issuing edicts, orders, mandates, and decrees, does not override our constitutional rights.

Recall, our respective States would not ratify our constitution until it had an individual Bill of Rights. The 10th Amendment clearly states, “All the powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the States and to the People.” If the 10th Amendment is not absolute, then the leftists in America become the repository of all power in America.

America is the longest running Constitutional Republic because of individual constitutional rights…not rights based upon progressive, socialist, statist, Marxist ideology.

Steadfast and Loyal.

Democrats Admit the True Purpose of J6 Hearings.

The Democrats’ partisan January 6th Committee hearings are going prime time this week, and Fox News is getting flak from the usual left-wing suspects.

“Fox News won’t air the January 6 hearings because they prefer their sedition made fresh on-site,” Hillary Clinton quipped on Twitter. I think she should hire a new joke writer.

“FOX won’t televise the hearings of the greatest Crime in Presidential history,” tweeted Rob Reiner. “Our Democracy is hanging by a thread.” Cry me a river, Meathead.

The fact is, there’s only one reason why any network will air the hearings of these pointless, blatantly partisan hearings—and it has nothing to do with the so-called insurrection. It has to do with helping the Democrats in the upcoming midterms.

This isn’t a guess. They’ve already admitted to this. “Jan. 6 Hearings Give Democrats a Chance to Recast Midterm Message,” reads the headline at the New York Times about the hearings—showing absolutely no shame that government resources are being used for blatantly partisan purposes.

“With their control of Congress hanging in the balance, Democrats plan to use made-for-television moments and a carefully choreographed rollout of revelations over the course of six hearings…to persuade voters that the coming midterm elections are a chance to hold Republicans accountable for it,” the report explained.

The article goes on to quote Democrat lawmakers and operatives all but admitting the purpose of the hearings is to distract voters from astronomical gas prices and historic inflation.

Continue reading “”

BLUF
But the big takeaway I think here is — they want to push Congress and social media to control us more because they know we are winning.

Former Obama Adviser Lets Cat out of the Bag on What Dems Want to Do to Control Us

Former White House Communications Director for the Obama administration Dan Pfeiffer appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Monday and what he said was revealing, threatening, and great–all at the same time.

Pfeiffer claimed that the people who listen to “right-wing media” were “more likely to believe conspiracy theories about vaccines, conspiracy theories about elections.

“That is the problem in this country is that we have a very well funded, very aggressive operation that is spreading these lies for profits and political gain, and it is incredibly dangerous.”

He put out what was the constant theme of the segment — attacking Facebook for purveying “news,” which Mika laughingly said was “not where you get news.” Because how dare you not listen to mainstream outlets like hers?

That was quietly hilarious, when you think about all the conspiracy theories that Democrats and MSNBC have pushed over the last few years, with Russia collusion, paid for and spread by the DNC, with the Clinton campaign top of the list. People on the left believe all kinds of crazy things about pee tapes and Ginni Thomas (Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife) trying to “overthrow” the government (big scoop: she did no such thing) because of the crazy pushed by liberal mainstream media. Meanwhile, while there’s a lot from the mainstream against conspiracy theories on the right, there’s not so much targeted at deflating the conspiracy theories that flourish on the left.

Continue reading “”

Observation O’ The Day

“It is vital that society reject these people. Not just ignore them, but aggressively reject them. If there is one problem in society today it’s too much tolerance for terrible destructive insanity.”

The Sovietization of American Life
Behind all our disasters there looms an ideology, a creed that ignores cause and effect in the real world—without a shred of concern for the damage done to those outside the nomenklatura.

One day historians will look back at the period beginning with the COVID lockdowns of spring 2020 through the midterm elections of 2022 to understand how America for over two years lost its collective mind and turned into something unrecognizable and antithetical to its founding principles.

“Sovietization” is perhaps the best diagnosis of the pathology. It refers to the subordination of policy, expression, popular culture, and even thought to ideological mandates. Ultimately such regimentation destroys a state since dogma wars with and defeats meritocracy, creativity, and freedom.

Continue reading “”

They’ve only cared about the Constitution when its powers were a benefit to what they wanted.

To confiscate guns, Democrats demoncraps are ready to destroy the courts and the Constitution

Most Democrats demoncraps in Congress do not care about institutions or the “commonsense” gun control proposals they profess to support. They want full-scale gun confiscation, and they don’t care how many norms and institutions they need to destroy to accomplish it.

Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-NY) laid out where the Democrap Party stands and why Republicans should not humor any Democratic “deal” on gun control. “If the filibuster obstructs us, we will abolish it,” Jones said. “If the Supreme Court objects, we will expand it, and we will not rest until we’ve taken weapons of war out of circulation in our communities.”

Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) put it more bluntly: “Spare me the bulls*** about constitutional rights.”

Does Jones or Cicilline know anything about these “weapons of war” they want to ban and confiscate? Of course not. Cicilline said that he couldn’t think of a “single incident” where “an assailant using an assault weapon” was stopped by someone with a gun, even though such an example happened just last week in West Virginia. More prominently, there was Stephen Willeford, the man who confronted a shooter at a church in Sutherland Springs. Grabien’s Tom Elliott has a list of self-defense stories, with 315 examples going back to Jan. 1, 2019.

Jones is embarrassingly uneducated as well. When asked, he said that “semiautomatic weapons would qualify as assault weapons.” He then said that handguns “would not qualify” as assault weapons, even though the vast majority of handguns are semiautomatic. “Semiautomatic” simply means the gun fires one bullet every time the trigger is pulled and that you don’t need to cock or load the gun after every shot. Jones is either lying about not wanting to ban handguns or, more likely, he has absolutely no idea what he’s talking about.

The same is true for President Joe Biden, who wants to ban 9 mm guns because “a 9 mm bullet blows the lung out of the body,” and “there is no rational basis for it in terms of self-protection.” Biden wants you to think that the most popular handgun caliber in the country is like a sci-fi weapon. The White House then walked back the idea that Biden supported a handgun ban. Either the White House is lying now, or Biden, who has been advocating gun control for years, still has not learned a single fact about what guns are or how they work.

Democrats constantly trip over themselves on gun control, repeating blatant falsehoods and calling for gun control policies that contradict their rhetoric. While they claim their policies are commonsense and moderate, their rhetoric indicates that the only way they can get what they want is through gun confiscation, whether they are openly pursuing it or not. As Cicilline and Jones helpfully illustrated, they will destroy the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution to do so.

THE Red-Headed libertarian™ Profile picture

The Second Amendment was inspired by British plans to disarm every American.

A part of you probably already knew this, but didn’t have the details.

I’m about to chill you to the bones And give you every piece of evidence you need moving forward. So buckle up.
It began In 1768, “the freeholders” led by John Hancock and James Otis, met in Boston at Faneuil Hall and passed several resolutions. Including “that the Subjects being Protestants, may have Arms for their Defense.”

The royal governor rejected this proposal.

So this petition was circulated under the pseudonym “A.B.C.” (Who was more than likely Sam Adams)Image
Shortly after Sam Adams’ petition was circulated, per the Boston Evening Post, (Oct. 3, 1768) British troops took over Faneuil Hall.

And per The New York Journal, (Feb. 2, 1769) they ordered colonists turn in their guns.Image

Continue reading “”

Rep. David Cicilline: ‘Spare Me the *BS* About Constitutional Rights’

Democrat Representative David Cicilline of Rhode Island said a bit of the anti-gun left’s quiet part out loud in a House hearing on Thursday when he went on a rant against the constitutionally protected rights of the American people.

Cicilline’s outburst came after concerns were raised that Democrat proposals for federal restrictions on firearms — such as red flag laws — would violate Americans’ right to keep and bear arms as well as infringe on their due process rights.

“You know who didn’t have due process?” Cicilline asked, growing heated. “You know who didn’t have their constitutional right to life respected? Kids at Parkland, and Sandy Hook, and Uvalde, and Buffalo, and the list goes on and on,” he said. “So spare me the bullsh*t about constitutional rights.”

When asked to yield, Cicilline snapped back, “no I will not yield, and I will not yield for my entire five minutes so don’t ask again.”

Brushing aside the obvious irony that Cicilline and his party continually attempt to deprive unborn children of their right to life — he’s repeatedly insisted that abortion is “constitutionally protected” and the Susan B. Anthony List notes that Cicilline “has consistently voted to eliminate or prevent protections for the unborn including to force taxpayers to pay for abortion domestically or internationally.”

So, of course, if Cicilline and Democrats are committed to depriving Americans of any rights before they’re born, it’s no issue for him to try trampling on the rights of Americans once they’re born.

While it would seem that running with the “Americans’ constitutional rights mean nothing to us” line wouldn’t be smart politics for the party already set to get shellacked in November’s midterms, the increasingly radical Democrat Party seemed to embrace what Cicilline said.

Dems and leftists on Twitter amplified and cheered Cicilline’s outburst while MSNBC host and NBC News contributor Katie Phang tweeted a video of the rant, saying “This is EXACTLY the kind of messaging Democrats need.” We’ll see how that kind of messaging works in the days ahead in Congress as Dems try to force additional firearm restrictions through the House and Senate — and in November when voters determine who will represent them and which party will control the legislative branch.

Because there are Enemies, Foreign and Domestic

As I posted back in March

Here’s the reason why we will retain our arms. Morons like this who either forgot, or never believed the oath of office they took. Now foresworn this one is.

As the former Commanding General of the Infantry Center at Fort Benning and Chief of Infantry, I know a bit about weapons. Let me state unequivocally — For all intents and purposes, the AR-15 and rifles like it are weapons of war. A thread:

Those opposed to assault weapon bans continue to play games with AR-15 semantics, pretending there’s some meaningful differences between it and the M4 carbine that the military carries. There really aren’t. 2/

The military began a transition from the M16 to the M4, an improved M16, some years ago. The AR-15 is essentially the civilian version of the M16. The M4 is really close to the M16, and the AR-15. 3/

So what’s the difference between the military’s M4 and the original AR-15? Barrel length and the ability to shoot three round bursts. M4s can shoot in three round bursts. AR-15s can only shoot single shot. 4/

But even now, you can buy AR-15s in variable barrel lengths with Weaver or Picatinny rails for better sights and aiming assists like lasers. Like the military, but w/o the bayonet. 5/

But our troops usually use single shot, not burst fire. You’re able to fire a much more accurate (deadly) shot, that way. Note: you can buy our Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight on Amazon. So troops usually select the same fire option available on AR-15. 6/

That is why the AR-15 is ACCURATELY CALLED a ‘weapon of war.’ It is a very deadly weapon with the same basic functionality that our troops use to kill the enemy. Don’t take the bait when anti-gun-safety folks argue about it. They know it’s true. Now you do too. 7/7

‘We Need Your Guidance’ — Joe Biden Meets with New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern on Gun Control and Online Extremism

President Joe Biden warmly welcomed New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to the White House on Tuesday, expressing his interest in her views on gun control and online censorship in her country.

“We need your guidance,” Biden said as he welcomed Ardern to the Oval Office. “And it’s a pleasure to see you in person.”

He praised the prime minister warmly for making progress on issues like climate change, combatting “violent extremism online,” and gun control.

“You understand that your leadership has taken a critical role on this global change, it really has,” he said.

Ardern has become a darling of the left after she pushed forward strict gun control laws in New Zealand, banning most semi-automatic rifles after the horrific Christchurch shooting in 2019. She also has repeatedly called for more tech censorship of online extremism, blaming the internet for radicalizing the shooter.

Biden appeared impressed.

“I want to work with you on that effort and I want to talk with you about what those conversations are like if you’re willing,” he said.

Biden expressed sadness that mass shootings continued happening in the United States, renewing calls for change.

“There’s an expression by an Irish poet that says too long a suffering makes a stone of the heart,” he said, claiming he had been to more “mass shooting aftermaths” than any president in American history.

Biden said he met with about 250 of the family members of the victims of the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, for about four hours on Sunday.

“Much of it is preventable, and the devastation is amazing,” he said.

Ardern said she was willing to work with Biden on issues of violence, noting that there was a need for global progress on the issue.

“If there is anything we can share that would be of any value, we are here to share it,” she said.
Biden told reporters he planned to meet with members of Congress on the issue of gun control.

“I will meet with the Congress on guns, I promise you,” he said.

I always have.

Take Gun Banners Rhetoric Seriously

In the wake of a tragic shooting like the one in Uvalde, Texas, one thing is certain to come” The hateful rhetoric from anti-Second Amendment extremists. It’s been the same old, predictably vicious lie that has come since Columbine (or sooner): Because Second Amendment supporters exercise our First Amendment rights to protect the right to keep and bear arms, we are now child-killing domestic terrorists (or worse).

The owner of the company who made the firearm the shooter used to commit the horrific deeds at Robb Elementary School had been labeled an enabler of the murder of children on social media over ads the company ran. That’s a lie, too.

That’s just the tip of the iceberg, of course. It could take a thousand columns to outline all those lies. But Second Amendment supporters need to take the level of rhetoric seriously.

Part of it is simply holding anti-Second Amendment extremists to their own standard. After all, some claimed that Sarah Palin incited Tucson with no more evidence than a symbol laid out on a congressional district in the 2010 midterm elections. That particular blood libel still persists in some quarters.

Crickets made more noise than those same people when someone who intended to carry out a mass shooting at a socially conservative think tank admitted in court that he used the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “hate map” to select his target. But the SPLC never faced any heat for that, certainly nothing near what Palin endured.

And don’t let yourself be gaslit by the likes of Nicolle Wallace, either. The idea that anti-second amendment extremists want to take away guns is not a “frothy delusion” when we actually have people extolling the injustices that England, Australia, and New Zealand inflicted on gun owners for crimes and acts of madness they did not commit.

But at the same time, this rhetoric needs to be taken seriously. These days, we have no idea what sort of permission slip is being signed in someone’s mind because of the words coming from a talking head, a Hollywood celebrity, or even from the White House itself.

Will it be a bank or credit card company CEO deciding to financially deplatform gun-rights groups, gun manufacturers, or FFLs? Will it be an employer who decides to fire someone because they are a member of the NRA? Or could it be something worse? This is a question that is out there these days.

Second Amendment supporters have a very tough row to hoe in beating back attacks on our freedoms. But we should also remember those who smeared us – and protect ourselves by defeating anti-Second Amendment extremists at the federal, state, and local level via the ballot box.

 

House Dems’ gun package to raise age limit for semi-automatic rifle purchases, ban ‘high capacity’ magazines

The House Judiciary Committee is set to hold an emergency meeting Thursday to pen an extensive gun control package.

Democrats are currently pushing a series of eight bills aimed at suppressing gun ownership, referred to collectively as the “Protecting Our Kids Act,” Fox News confirmed.

The bills contain proposals raising the minimum age for purchasing a semi-automatic weapon from 18 to 21, a ban on “high capacity magazines,” a registry for bump stocks, and more.

The House will vote on some form of the package when they return to session next week.

The House package is expected to go nowhere in the Senate and is seen as more of a show vote, as a bipartisan group of senators tries to agree on a bill that could pass the Senate.

Continue reading “”

Babbling Biden Blurts Out Dems’ Gun-Grabbing Endgame

Welcome to 2022.

Even the days that are supposed to be slow news days get a shot of newsiness in them. Yesterday should have been one of solemn remembrance for our military heroes who have died defending this great nation but President LOLEightyonemillion’s puppetmasters once again let him speak into a microphone.

Yeah, I don’t get the strategy either.

As is his wont, Biden wandered a bit off-script, perhaps revealing a bit more than what the cabal that runs his brain wanted him to. My Townhall colleague Leah Barkoukis covered the story:

President Biden raised eyebrows on Monday when he spoke about what he considers sensible restrictions on “high-caliber weapons” in the wake of the horrific mass shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, last week.

The president recalled visiting a trauma hospital in New York, where he explained doctors showed him X-rays of gunshot wounds that were caused by different firearms.

“They said a .22-caliber bullet will lodge in the lung, and we can probably get it out — may be able to get it and save the life,” Biden told reporters outside of the White House. “A 9mm bullet blows the lung out of the body.”

He went on to claim “there’s simply no rational basis for [high-caliber weapons] in terms of thinking about self-protection, hunting.”

So while most Democrats have targeted what they call “assault weapons” in the wake of the mass shooting, Biden appears to be setting his sights on handguns, too, which isn’t the first time he’s singled out one of the most popular firearms in America.

Ladies and gentlemen welcome to the slippery slope.

One of the main points of contention in the right/left gun argument (calling it a “debate” is ludicrous) has been over the definition of “assault weapons.” You see, the anti-Second Amendment people have never had one. OK, nobody really has because it’s a nebulous concept.

Perhaps I’m a bit off in saying that the gun-grabbers don’t have a definition for assault weapons. It’s more accurate to say that they’ve always been disingenuous about it. It’s a diversion tactic to make the less-informed think that they aren’t coming for all guns. They want to be coy and do things incrementally, unlike Canadian Prime Minister Justin Hitler-Trudeau.

Thanks to Old Joe’s complete lack of a filter, they have less of a smokescreen to hide behind now.

US mass shootings will continue until the majority can overrule the minority. Guns symbolize the power of a minority over the majority, and they’ve become the icons of a party that has become a cult seeking minority power
Rebecca Solnit

 

Again, it’s nice when they supply the means for positive identification.

This, right there in black and white, is what the Bill of Rights is all about. The protection of minority rights over the tyranny of a majority that the founders knew from the lessons of history were all too commonplace in a ‘democracy’ where the masses could be swayed (like this airhead) into advocating riding over the rights of the populace in the search for their version of Utopia that has always turned into Hell.

Preventing “The Tyranny of the Majority”

People often refer to the United States as a democracy, but technically speaking, that’s not true. It’s a republic.

Big deal, you say? If you care about your rights, it is. The Founding Fathers knew their history well, so they knew better than to establish the U.S. as a democracy.

In a democracy, of course, the majority rules. That’s all well and good for the majority, but what about the minority? Don’t they have rights that deserve respect?

Of course they do. Which is why a democracy won’t cut it. As the saying goes, a democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.

The Founders were determined to forestall the inherent dangers of what James Madison called “the tyranny of the majority.” So they constructed something more lasting: a republic. Something with checks and balances. A system of government carefully balanced to safeguard the rights of both the majority and the minority.

That led, most notably, to the bicameral structure of our legislative branch. We have a House of Representatives, where the number of members is greater for more populous states (which obviously favors those states), and the Senate, where every state from Rhode Island and Alaska to California and New York have exactly two representatives (which keeps less-populated states from being steamrolled).

Being a republic, we also don’t pick our president through a direct, majority-take-all vote. We have an Electoral College. And a lot of liberals don’t like that.

Their attacks on the College are nothing new, but the defeat of Hillary Clinton in 2016 renewed their fury. After all, as they never tire of pointing out, Mrs. Clinton captured more of the popular vote than Donald Trump did. They see the Electoral College as an impediment to their political victories, therefore it’s got to go.

The latest attack comes via new lawsuits filed in federal courts in four states (Massachusetts, California, South Carolina and Texas). “Under the winner-take-all system, U.S. citizens have been denied their constitutional right to an equal vote in presidential elections,” said David Boies, an attorney who represented former Vice President Al Gore in the 2000 election.

I doubt Mr. Boies and his fellow attorneys are really ignorant of why we have an Electoral College. But it’s important that the rest of us know.

Continue reading “”

Deceit as a strategy by the Editors at Scientific American

The Science Is Clear: Gun Control Saves Lives

“The science is abundantly clear: More guns do not stop crime. Guns kill more children each year than auto accidents. More children die by gunfire in a year than on-duty police officers and active military members. Guns are a public health crisis, just like COVID, and in this, we are failing our children, over and over again.”

They have to lie to justify their beliefs and agenda. You only need to click on their own reference to discover the lie. Guns kill more children than auto accidents? Only if you consider 24 year old people as “children”

 

“For much of the past few decades motor vehicle crashes were the most common cause of death from injury—the leading cause of death in general—among children, teenagers and young adults in the U.S. But now a new analysis shows that, in recent years, guns have overtaken automotive crashes as the leading cause of injury-related death among people ages one through 24.”

They are intentionally lying in an effort to deprive an entire nation of a specific enumerated right.

BLUF
This is a clear violation of the Logan Act, which criminalizes unauthorized American citizens from negotiating with foreign governments regarding disputes between the two countries. This is what Democrats accused Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn of violating when he was Trump’s incoming National Security Advisor. Flynn did nothing wrong, but Kerry or any other former-Obama official without authority to be negotiating with Iran absolutely did. In fact, some would call it treason.

Hey Look! Proof Former Obama Admin Officials Committed Treason Under Trump

It’s impossible to say that I’m shocked by the latest bombshell courtesy of the American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ).

According to a memo obtained by ACLJ via a FOIA lawsuit, several Obama administration officials held secret meetings with Iran during Trump’s presidency.

Continue reading “”

Rand Paul: ‘Elitists Want A One World Government; It’s Not A Conspiracy Theory’

Senator Rand Paul appeared on Fox News Thursday and discussed the ongoing World Economic Forum gathering in Davos Switzerland, remarking that it is not a conspiracy theory to suggest the organisation is seeking a one world government, rather it is “in their mission statement.”

Paul urged that “The real danger here that’s even more dangerous than all their phony caring about carbon footprint, the real danger is this; look how bad your government is in a country where you get to vote for these people.”

“This would be a government, a world government where you don’t get to vote on anybody. This is everybody’s worst nightmare,” Paul asserted, referring to the ‘penetration’ of the WEF, to quote its head Klaus Schwab, into national governments.

“The bureaucracy that we have trouble in our United States because we don’t get to vote on them, we vote indirectly,” Paul said, adding “Can you imagine the one-world bureaucracy of all these elitists and their private jets that would rule our country and we wouldn’t get to vote?”

The Senator continued, “So I’m dead set against this and they used to call people that talked about one-world government used to say it’s a conspiracy. We would always say no, it’s in their mission statement.”

“They say it at every meeting. That’s what they’re for,” Paul proclaimed, adding “lack of sovereignty means lack of freedom, it means lack of responsiveness and it’s completely antithetical to everything our country stands for.”