Original Argument: The Lost Chapters. Translated by Joshua Charles

Number 22

Other Defects of the Present Confederation (continued)

Alexander Hamilton

New York Packet

Friday, December 14, 1787

In addition to the defects of the existing federal system that I discussed in my last paper, there are others which are just as important, and that also make this current system of ours incapable of administering the affairs of the Union.

All parties agree that the lack of a power to regulate commerce is one of these defects.[1] The usefulness of such a power has already been discussed in earlier papers (Nos. 11-13), and for this reason, as well as the universal agreement on this subject, not much else needs to be said.  Even the most casual observer will see that that whether it is trade or finance, nothing else clearly demands Federal oversight more than commerce.

The lack of this power has already kept us from signing treaties with foreign powers that would have been beneficial, and has also caused friction between the states.  No nation that is familiar with our current political system would be unwise enough to make any binding agreements with the United States because those agreements would concede important privileges to us, as any agreements on behalf of the Union could be broken at any time by one of the states.

Also, they have found that they are able to enjoy every advantage our markets provide them without granting us anything in return, except when it may be convenient for them.  It is therefore not surprising that when Mr. Jenkins introduced a bill to the House of Commons (Great Britain) that would regulate all the temporary interaction between our two countries. He introduced it by declaring that previous bills had been able to achieve all the goals of British commerce, and that it would be wise to continue this policy until it became clearer whether or not the American government would become more stable.

Several states have tried to influence the actions of Great Britain in this regard by enacting their own bans, restrictions, and exclusions.  But the lack of coordination, which itself comes from a lack of a general authority, not to mention the different views of the states, has thwarted every similar attempt, and will continue to do so as long as the obstacles which prevent us from implementing a uniform commercial policy remain the same.

Contrary to the spirit of the Union, the meddlesome and un-neighborly regulations of some states have sometimes given other nations good reason to be offended and complain about us.  I fear that if examples like this are not restrained by a national authority, they will not only happen more often but will become more widespread until they become very serious sources of animosity and conflict, which may even obstruct the commerce between different parts of the Confederacy itself.

“The commerce of the German empire is in continual trammels, from the multiplicity of the duties which the several princes and states exact upon the merchandises passing through their territories; by means of which the fine streams and navigable rivers with which Germany is so happily watered, are rendered almost useless.”[2]

Though the genius of the American people may never permit this to happen, we can reasonably expect that conflicts between the regulations of each state will gradually cause the citizens of each to be regarded and treated by the others as no better than foreigners or aliens.

Under the Articles of Confederation, the power of raising armies amounts to not much more than the congress being able to require from the states certain quotas of men.  As the Revolutionary war showed, this system has been found to be full of obstacles to a strong and effective system of defense.  The states began to compete with each other in a sort of auction for men.  In order to provide the quotas required of them, they outbid each other until their bounties became so large that they could no longer support them.  Those who were more willing to serve began to procrastinate and stopped sending their men into battles as often because they continued to hope that the bounties would become even larger.

What resulted was a slow stream of very few men during our most desperate emergencies, short enlistments (to our great loss), and continuous fluctuations in the number of troops, which proved disastrous for their discipline and also constantly put the public safety in danger of the crisis of a disbanded army.  This also forced us to occasionally use harsh methods to recruit and keep men in the army, which were only put up with because of the People’s enthusiasm for liberty.

This method of recruiting troops is just as unfriendly to the economy and our national vitality as it is to an equal sharing of the burdens of war.  The states near the front lines, in the interests of self-preservation, made the necessary effort to supply their quotas of men (which was often more than they could truly afford), while the states at a greater distance were just as negligent in their efforts as the others were diligent in theirs.  The immediate pressures that were felt from all of this was not eased by the hope that some of the negligent states would come clean (as was the case with financial contributions).  The states which did not pay their fair share of money could at least be charged with that, but it wasn’t possible to keep track of all the shortages of men.  There is really no reason to regret this however, since there is a very small chance that delinquent states will ever be able to provide compensation for their financial failures anyway.  The system of quotas and requisitions, whether it regards money or men, is in every way a stupid system for the Union, and one which results in inequality and injustice amongst the states.

Giving each state the exact same voting power is another horrible part of the Confederation.  Every idea of fair representation condemns this principle that gives Rhode Island the same voting power as Massachusetts, or Connecticut the same as New York, and gives Delaware just as much influence over national debates as Pennsylvania, or Virginia, or North Carolina.  Its very nature contradicts the fundamental principle of republican government, which requires that the majority should prevail.

Arguments that sound good but that lack substance could be made in support of the idea that sovereigns are equal, and that a majority of the votes of the states will be a majority of Confederated America.  But this sort of logical game will never replace what fairness and common sense tell us is correct.  Under this principle, it would be possible for a majority of the states to only include a minority of the People (New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Georgia, South Carolina, and Maryland are a majority of the states, but they are not even a third of the total population of the United States).  Two thirds of the People of America will not be persuaded by fancy arguments or fancier speech to allow their interests to be governed at will by the other third.  The larger states would sooner or later revolt against the idea of having to live under the laws which came out of the smaller states.  If they were to give up their rightful political importance in this country, it would not only require giving up the love of power, but also even the love of equality.  It is neither rational to expect the first, or moral to require the second.  Considering how much the smaller states rely on the Union for their protection and welfare, they would be wise to drop this claim to equal voting power which, if not given up, would prove fatal to the existence of the Union.

It could be argued that since under the Articles of Confederation nine states (two thirds of the states), not seven, are required to agree on the most important decisions, then those nine states will always include a majority of the citizens of the Union.  But this doesn’t even address the unfairness of an equal vote between states that are completely different sizes and have very unequal populations.  Nor is it even accurate to say this: by simply adding New York and Connecticut to our previous list and bringing it to a total of nine states, we still don’t have a majority of the People.  Besides, there are very important matters which can be decided by a bare majority, while there are others about which doubts have been raised which, if we say that seven votes are enough to make a decision about them, would end up affecting some of our most important interests.  It should also be pointed out that while it is likely that the number of states will increase, there is currently nothing in the Articles of Confederation which will provide for a proportional rise in the ratio of votes required to pass resolutions.

But this is not all: what at first may seem like a cure is in fact a poison.  To give a minority the power to override a majority (which is always the case when more than a majority is required to make a decision) essentially subjects the views of the greater number to those of the lesser.  Because some states’ representatives have not even been present, congress, like the Polish Diet, has been frequently brought to a complete halt because of a single VETO.  Delaware and Rhode Island, which represent a full 1/60 of the population of the Union, have been able to bring congress to a complete standstill several times.  This is one of those things which sound good in theory, but whose actual result is quite the opposite.  The idea that the important decisions of any public body should be unanimous was originally coined because of a desire for greater security.  But what has actually happened has resulted in  the embarrassment of the administration, the destruction of the energy of government, and the replacement of the regular debates of a respectable majority with the capricious desires of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junta.[3] It is during national emergencies when the goodness or badness, weakness or strength of a government becomes extremely important because of the necessity for action.

The public business must, in some way or another, go forward.  If a stubborn minority can control the opinion of the majority, then the majority will be forced, in order to move public business forward, to conform to the views of the minority, and thus the views of the smaller will ultimately overrule the views of the larger.  This causes tedious delays, constant negotiation and intrigue, and as such will disgracefully compromise the public good.  And yet, in such a system, it is fortunate that a compromise can even be made in the first place, since coming to any sort of agreement will not even occur on other occasions, which would put the functions of government on hold, or even fatally stop them.  In this system, it is often impractical to obtain the necessary number of votes, and so the government is constantly very busy doing nothing.  Its situation will always be one of weakness, or even borderline anarchy.

It is not difficult to see how the rule of the minority would help facilitate foreign intrusions into our country, as well as a greater amount of domestic factions than the rule of the majority would, despite the fact that the opposite is the common assumption. The biggest source of the mistake behind this assumption would be, and has been, not enough attention being paid to those problems which would result from the work of government being obstructed during certain critical periods.  When the agreement of a large number is required by the constitution to do anything at the national level, then we can at least rest peacefully knowing that at least nothing inappropriate will likely be done.  But we forget how much good could be prevented, and how much bad could result from keeping the government in this straitjacket, and from doing what is necessary.

Suppose, for example, that we were in an alliance with one foreign nation in a war against another, and let’s say that our situation demanded peace, while the interests or ambition of our ally leaned towards continuing the war, a situation which would justify us in seeking a separate peace treaty.  In this situation, this ally of ours would find it much easier to tie up the hands of our government, which requires two thirds of the vote instead of a simple majority to negotiate peace, by their scheming and bribes.  In the first case, he would have to corrupt a smaller portion of our government, and in the second, a much larger portion.  Based on the same principle, it would be even easier for a foreign nation we were actually at war with to confuse our congress and make a mockery of our war effort.  Similar things would happen economically as well.  A nation with whom we had a treaty of commerce could very easily prevent us from negotiating a similar treaty with one of their competitors, even though such a treaty would be beneficial to us.

These evils that I have described are by no means simply imaginary.  Despite the many advantages, one of the weaknesses of a republic is that it is too easy for a foreign power to corrupt.  A hereditary monarch, though he may often sacrifice his subjects for the sake of his own ambition, has such a great personal interest in the government and the external glory of his nation that it would be very difficult for a foreign power to offer him anything which would make him willing to commit treason against his own state.  There have been very few examples of this type of royal prostitution, though there have been many examples of all sorts of other kinds.

In republics, people who are elevated above the rest of the community to prestigious and powerful positions by the votes of their fellow citizens, may find that it is worth it (unless they are exceptionally virtuous) to take a bribe which seems to outweigh their obligations and duty to the public.  Hence the reason why history provides us with so many mortifying examples of foreign corruption taking place in republics!  I have already discussed how this has led to the downfall of many of the ancient confederacies (Nos. 18).  It is a well-known fact that some of the representatives of the United Provinces (United Netherlands) have been bought off by the representatives of the neighboring kingdoms.  If my memory serves me correctly, the Earl of Chesterfield (Great Britain) wrote in a letter to his court that his success in some important negotiations with the United Netherlands was because he was able to obtain a Major’s commission (military rank) for one of their representatives.  And in Sweden, the rival parties were both alternately bought by France and England in such a shameless and notorious manner that it aroused universal disgust throughout that nation, and was also the main reason behind how the most limited monarch in Europe became in a single day, without any uproar, violence, or opposition, one of the most absolute and uncontrolled monarchs in Europe.

I have yet to mention the defect which tops off all of the defects of the Confederacy: the lack of a judiciary power.[4] Laws are worthless words on paper without courts to interpret and define their true meaning and function.  If the treaties of the United States are to have any force at all, they must be considered part of the law of the land.[5] Their true significance, as far as individuals are concerned, must, like all other laws, be determined by the judiciary.  To make sure that these determinations remain uniform, there ought to be a body which has the last word on all of them, a SUPREME COURT, which should be given the same degree of authority as that which negotiates the treaties in the first place.[6] Both of these ingredients are absolutely necessary.  If each state has its own supreme court, a court which would have the last word for that individual state, then there may be as many legal determinations as there are courts.  There is an infinite amount of diverse opinions among men, as we see when not only different courts, but judges on even the same courts disagree with each other.  To avoid the confusion that would come from multiple courts making contradictory decisions on multiple laws, all nations have found it necessary to establish one Supreme Court that is above all the others and which has the final say on all judicial determinations, so that the rules of civil justice remain uniform throughout the land.

This is even more important in a situation like ours, where the laws of the whole are in danger of being overridden by the laws of the parts.  If each state’s court is allowed to make its own final decisions, other than the contradictions which are sure to come up between the states, it is likely that each court’s decision will be strongly affected by local views, prejudices, and laws.  As far as such interference is concerned, it is more likely that the provisions of the local laws will be preferred more than the national laws, simply because of the greater respect that men in public office give to the authority to which they owe their existence.  The treaties of the United States can currently be broken by thirteen difference legislatures, as well as by all the different courts which act under the authority of those legislatures.  The good faith, reputation, and peace of the entire Union are thus always at the mercy of all the prejudices, passions, and interests of each of the states.  Is it possible for foreign nations to respect or trust such a government?  Is it even possible that the People of America will continue to trust their honor, happiness, and safety to such an unstable foundation?

In this overview of the Confederation, I have only focused on its most obvious defects, and temporarily ignored the many imperfections that can be found in the details, imperfections which render all the powers given to the Confederacy dead on arrival.  It must be obvious at this point to all wise and unbiased men that this system is so radically flawed and unsound that it must not merely be amended, but must have its main features and characteristics completely changed.

The very organization of congress is utterly incapable of exercising the powers which are necessary for the Union to have.  A single legislature may be the proper receptacle of those small, extremely restricted powers which the current federal government has, but it would be contrary to good government to entrust it with those additional powers which even the more moderate and rational opponents of the Constitution agree the United States should have.  If the proposed Plan is not accepted, but the Union is still able to survive the schemes of men who wish to profit from its dissolution, then we should probably give the congress, as it is currently structured, several supplementary powers.  Either the machine will completely fall apart because of how weak it is, or it will have its force and energy gradually increased in the future (as necessary) until it finally has gathered unto itself, and in a single body (congress) all the important rights and powers of sovereignty, leaving to our posterity one of the most hideous forms of government ever imagined by man.  Thus, we would actually create the very tyranny which the opponents of the Constitution wish to avoid!

The fact that the existing federal system was never ratified by the PEOPLE has contributed more than just a little bit to its infirmity.  Resting on no better foundation than the consent of the legislatures of the states, many frequent and detailed questions about the validity of its powers have been raised, and have even (in some cases) given birth to the dangerous idea of a right to legislative repeal.  Since the Confederacy owes its existence to the law of a state, it has been argued that the same power which established this central government (the individual states) could also repeal the law which it itself passed.[7] No matter how profane it is to say that a party which has made an agreement has a right to break that agreement, this doctrine has found some respectable supporters.  The mere fact that this has even come up should prove to us the necessity of providing our national government with a stronger foundation than the one which simply relies on authority delegated from some other authority.  The fabric of American empire should rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE.[8] The streams of National power should flow directly from this pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority.

Publius


[1]United States Constitution: Article I, Section 8, clause 3

[2]“Encyclopedia, article ‘Empire’” [sic]

[3]Junto: “A self-appointed committee, especially one with political aims.”

[4]United States Constitution: Article III, Section 1

[5]United States Constitution: Article VI, clause 2

[6]The description of the Judicial Branch under the Constitution is contained in Article III, while the description of Congress and the President (“… [the] same authority as that which negotiates the treaties in the first place”) is mostly found in Article I and Article II, with several miscellaneous powers of Congress existing throughout the Constitution.

[7]Nullification Doctrine: This is the doctrine, or principle which said that the states were individually capable of declaring Federal laws unconstitutional, and therefore had the right to repeal them (for that state).  It was also very closely related to the idea of secession, which was the idea that the states had the right to leave the Union.  Historically, there seems to be at least a tacit acknowledgement of this doctrine’s legitimacy by both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.  Jefferson wrote in the Kentucky Resolutions (1798):

“…that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non fœderis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless, this commonwealth, from motives of regard and respect for its co-States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it…”

Madison wrote in the Virginia Resolutions (1799), which are typically paired with the Kentucky Resolutions:

“The resolutions, having taken this view of the Federal compact, proceed to infer that, in cases of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the States, who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound to interpose to arrest the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them. ...The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the States, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority of the Constitution, that it rests on this solid foundation. The States, then, being parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal above their authority to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and, consequently, as parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.”

[8]United States Constitution: Preamble

Modern eugenics: Will Christians fight this deadly movement?

Photo by Olga Kononenko on Unsplash

Last month, without much fanfare, a new research paper disclosed that 94 percent of Belgian physicians support the killing of new-born babies after birth if they are diagnosed with a disability.

A shocking revelation indeed that did not receive the attention it demanded. Consider this along with parents who believe that if their unborn babies are pre-diagnosed with a disability, they would choose to abort their child. Upwards of 70 percent of mothers whose children are given a prenatal disability diagnosis, such as Down Syndrome, abort to avoid the possibility of being burdened with caring for a disabled child.

This disdain for the disabled hits close to home for me. In 1997, my family received a letter from Michael Schiavo, the husband of my sister, Terri Schiavo, informing us that he intended to petition a court to withdraw Terri's feeding tube.

For those who do not remember, in 1990, at the age of 26, Terri experienced a still-unexplained collapse while at home with Michael, who subsequently became her legal guardian. Terri required only love and care, food and water via feeding tube since she had difficulty swallowing as a result of her brain injury. Nonetheless, Michael's petition was successful, and Terri's life was intentionally ended in 2005 by depriving her of food and water, causing her to die from dehydration and starvation. It took almost two excruciating weeks.

Prior to my sister's predicament, the biases that existed towards persons with disabilities had been invisible to me. Since then, I have come to learn the dark history of deadly discrimination towards persons with disabilities.

Indeed, some 20 years prior to Germany's T4 eugenics movement, where upwards of 200,000 German citizens were targeted and killed because of their physical or mental disability, the United States was experiencing its own eugenics movement.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas documented some of this history in his concurring opinion in Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc., Justice Thomas describes how eugenics became part of the academic curriculum being taught in upwards of 400 American universities and colleges.

It was not solely race that was the target of the U.S. eugenics movement. Eugenicists also targeted the institutionalized due to incurable illness, the physically and cognitively disabled, the elderly, and those with medical dependency.

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down Roe v. Wade, which wiped out pro-life laws in nearly every state and opened the floodgates to abortion throughout the entirety of pregnancy. Since then, 60 million children have been killed. Abortion as we know it today has become a vehicle for a modern-day eugenics program.

Since the Catholic Church was established, the Truth of Christ was the greatest shield against these types of attacks on the human person and the best weapon in the fight for equality and justice. Tragically, however, for several decades, the Church has been infiltrated by modernist clergy, creating disorder and confusion among the laity, perverting the teachings of the Church and pushing a reckless supposed “social justice" agenda.

My family witnessed this firsthand during Terri's case. Church teaching is clear: it is our moral obligation to provide care for the cognitively disabled like Terri. However, Bishop Robert Lynch, who was the bishop of the Diocese of St. Petersburg, Florida, during Terri's case, offered no support and was derelict in his duties during the fight for Terri's life.

Bishop Lynch had an obligation to use his position to protect Terri from the people trying to kill her and to uphold Church teaching. Indeed, it was not only the silence of Bishop Lynch but that of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), which also remained silent despite my family's pleas for help, that contributed to Terri being needlessly starved and dehydrated to death.

My family's experience, sadly, has turned out to be more of the rule than the exception. Consider what happened to Michael Hickson. Hickson was a 36-year-old, brain-injured person admitted to a Texas hospital after contracting COVID-19. Incredibly—and against the wishes of Michael's wife—the hospital decided not to treat Michael because they arbitrarily decided that his “quality of life" was “unacceptably low" due to his pre-existing disability. Michael died within a week once the decision not to treat him was imposed upon him despite the efforts of his wife to obtain basic care for her husband.

During my sister's case and our advocacy work with patients and their families, it would have been helpful to have a unified voice coming from our clergy consistently supporting the lives of our medically vulnerable. We desperately need to see faithful Catholic pastoral witness that confounds the expectations of the elite by pointing to Jesus Christ and the moral law.

A Church that appears more concerned with baptizing the latest social and political movements is a Church that may appear to be “relevant," but one that may also find itself swallowed up by the preoccupations of our time.

As Catholics, we know all too well the reluctance of priests to preach on issues of abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and other pro-life issues. We have heard that the Church cannot risk becoming too political.

At the same time, some within the Church are now openly supporting Black Lives Matter, an organization that openly declares itself hostile to the family, to moral norms as taught by the Church, and whose founders embrace the deadly ideology of Marxism.

For example, Bishop Mark J. Seitz of El Paso, Texas, knelt in prayer with a cardboard sign asserting his support for this ideology.

Recently, during an online liturgy of the mass, Fr. Kenneth Boller at The Church of St. Francis Xavier in New York, led the congregation with what appears to sound like questions affirming the BLM agenda. Moreover, while reading these questions, pictures of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery, assumed victims of racial injustice, were placed on the altar of St. Francis Xavier Church, a place typically reserved for Saints of the Catholic Church.

Contrast these two stories with what happened in the Diocese of Lafayette, Indiana, where Rev. Theodore Rothrock of St. Elizabeth Seton Church fell victim to the ire of Bishop Timothy Doherty. Fr. Rothrock used strong language in his weekly church bulletin criticizing the Black Lives Matter movement and its organizers. Consequently, Bishop Doherty suspended Fr. Rothrock from public ministry.

In 1972, Pope Pius VI said, “The smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God." It seems that too many of our clergy today are enjoying the smell.

I encourage all who are concerned about the human right to life and about Christ-centered reforms in our culture and our Church to raise your voices for pastoral leadership in every area of our shared lives as Christian people.

Bobby Schindler is a Senior Fellow with Americans United for Life, Associate Scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, and President of the Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network.

America's end? How the left is paving the way for revolution

Photo by Koshu Kunii on Unsplash

What if I were to tell you that we're all being set up for a Civil War? I know, I know... You're not supposed to say things like that, but it's ABSOLUTELY true. The left is grooming us for revolution, and they're not even trying to hide it anymore. They're being so blatant. It almost makes you wonder: is this by mistake or by design?

I want to show you what's been happening just in the past 2 weeks. I started to notice a trend about a week ago. Axios ran this article on September 1st.

A top Democrat data and analytics firm, Hawkfish, said in an interview on HBO that it was “highly likely" that President Trump will appear to have won in a landslide on election night, but will actually ultimately LOSE after all the mail in votes are counted. They said:

We are sounding an alarm and saying that this is a very real possibility, that the data is going to show on election night an incredible victory for Donald Trump... When every legitimate vote is tallied and we get to that final day, which will be some day after Election Day, it will in fact show that what happened on election night was exactly that, a mirage.

It's no surprise what's going on here... We've known from the start why the left wants to fundamentally alter how Americans vote. If they were ACTUALLY concerned about people not being able to go to the polls, they'd tell everyone to vote absentee. But that's not what they did. They proposed mailing out ballots IN MASS. That would give them WEEKS after election night to pull off a little magic trick. My question now is, what happens during those weeks when the left furiously begins jimmying up the votes? What happens in the streets, AND from the left side of Washington D.C.?

I then saw this Politico story hit, one week later, on September 7th.

Chuck Schumer and Bernie Sanders have teamed up to WARGAME what they'd do if Trump “refuses to leave office." Sanders referenced the “red mirage" that Axios and Hawkfish warned about — that Trump would have appeared to have won on election night, but weeks later would have lost after all the mail in ballots are tallied.

These are not the actions of a party that expects to win LEGITIMATELY. They see the writing on the wall. And it's no surprise who Hawkfish works for: both the DNC and multiple Joe Biden Super PACs.

I'm going to come back to this later, but a week after Sanders and Schumer began voicing their concerns that Trump might now step down if he lost, the Daily Beast reported that Democrats were secretly planning for violence after election day.

One day later, on September 9th, the New York Times ran an INSANE story about what might happen on election day. Everything that might make the election delegitimized, including the Russians (of course), false flags, disinformation, extending the vote, pollers getting Coronavirus, and... uncounted mail-in votes.

It kind of feels like we're being prepped for something doesn't it? Like we're being GROOMED for something on election night. We all need to be familiar with these two words: Color Revolution. If you live in Eastern Europe you know exactly what I'm talking about. They always occur after a contested election. Street activists come out in force the night of or the day after the election. Violence ensues. Government buildings are occupied, eventually — if successful — culminating in a successful revolution. We've seen it successful in both Georgia and Ukraine, and it was ATTEMPTED in Russia in 2011.

Ukraine and Russia... What did those two revolutions have in common? The Obama Administration, the Obama State Department, organizations like USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy, and allied outside agitators like George Soros. The SAME people and strategy behind Eastern European style Color Revolution are planning the EXACT SAME THING for mainstreet U.S.A.

You know, it really is amazing how everything I've been talking about over the past year is all connected. I showed you what Obama and Biden were up to in Ukraine. Civil Society 2.0 and their tech camps were all about inciting revolution throughout the world. I showed you how U.S. funds were funneled into Ukraine to support street activists. They used people like George Soros to topple governments with leftist mobs, and then rewrite constitutions.

I showed you how Black Lives Matter has had a financial relationship with George Soros since 2015. BLM met IN SECRET with Soros' organization, Democracy Alliance. I'll discuss this later.

Project Veritas outed Soros for funding Refuse Fascism, an organization created by 60's era leftist radicals, which supports ANTIFA.

Now put that in perspective. Remember when I exposed the global plot to destroy Capitalism called The Great Reset? Remember Soros' speech at the World Economic Forum?

The stock market, already celebrating Trump's military success, is breaking out to reach new heights. If all this had happened closer to the elections, it would have assured his reelection. His problem is that the elections are still 10 months away and in a revolutionary situation, that is a lifetime.

Why do you think Democrats STILL say that Stacey Abrams won the Georgia governor's election? Who is she? She doesn't matter IN THE SLIGHTEST — unless it was NEVER about her. They wanted to plant the seeds of what they're doing RIGHT NOW — that an election could be stolen — and burn that into our brains.

Why did Democrats refuse to condemn the violent riots? Why are they starting to push Russian election interference again?

What was up with that ridiculous conspiracy theory about the Post Office rigging the election?

Why did Hillary Clinton say this a few weeks ago?

ALL of the same people are connected and they are ALL involved. Their goal… is Color Revolution. THIS IS WHAT THEY DO BEST! They've done it before and they're attempting to do it again. They're not even really trying to hide it. They're talking about it IN THE OPEN. The question you might have is why? And the answer is… they can't let it look like a conspiracy. We're being softened up and desensitized to what's about to happen IN JUST 2 MONTHS. They want to remove the elected president of the United States, and they want US to believe that it was all HIS fault.

It really is kind of brilliant. It's INSANE, but brilliant. The entire plan hinges on two things. First, they're relying on us being stupid. Everything falls apart if we understand and recognize what they're really doing. And second, they're counting on us not connecting what they did in places like Ukraine to what's going on here at home.

I'm pulling back the curtain on ALL OF IT. Who's behind it, and how are they pulling it off. The process has already begun.

I'm not saying the CIA was involved, but...

The Intelligence Community teaches a little formula for pulling off a successful coup in a foreign country.

It's called “The Three M's." Before the CIA would even attempt to assist in a foreign coup, they would first ensure they had control of the media, the military, and a whole lot of money.

I'm not saying the CIA was involved, but you saw this play out to a T in the recent coup attempt in Turkey. The coup was driven by a large faction in the military.

Soldiers then seized newspaper outlets and even took over CNN.

Coup sympathizers were flush with cash.

That drove Erdogan to begin seizing banks.

It's simple but effective.

Now this is how violent coups go down in FOREIGN countries. All of this is what's needed for radical actors to pull off a successful revolution and upend the country.

Also we have the media. Just like in the CIA's “Three M's," you have to control the flow of information. The left has already DOMINATED this step. They have everyone — MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post — ALL OF THEM. Independent outlets like Blaze Media are basically all that's left. We've got Fox, but for how long? Roger Ailes is gone. Rupert Murdoch is 89 years old, and his family isn't too conservative.

I would also group Hollywood here. Some people don't watch the news, but pretty much EVERYONE watches TV and movies. If you can't indoctrinate through the news, you go straight at them via culture. Democrats have infiltrated and dominated Hollywood for a long time. The bias is painfully obvious. You can't even watch an awards show anymore. Events like the Oscars and Emmys are the left's version of an extravagant liberal tent revival.

Control the flow of information and culture and you direct the narrative, but you have to ensure you indoctrinate the young and vulnerable — that's why you also need education. Progressives have been infiltrating colleges and universities since the turn of the century.

A new study published by the National Association of Scholars found that the ratio of Democrat professors to Republican is 12.7 to 1! They're indoctrinating young adults who then go out into the workforce — many of whom become school board officials, union heads and teachers. I just spent two weeks exposing Marxism, Black Lives Matter and critical race theory, all being taught in K through 12 schools. They're backed up by powerful unions like the National Education Association — THE LARGEST UNION IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY!

Next is GOVERNMENT. Democrats already control the House and the radical wing within the party are rapidly pushing it further to the left. They lack the Senate and Executive, but elements of the liberal Deep State are picking up the slack.

The State Department was using a Soros-linked media tracking tool to monitor conservatives and Trump allies. And all this is not to mention what the DoJ, FBI and CIA were doing to Trump.

I also have the military.

Multiple former high level military brass have come out publicly against Trump. Ok ok, so that's FORMER military, but remember Lt. Col. Vindman?

We now know that it was he, NOT THE WHISTLEBLOWER, that started the entire impeachment fiasco. This was an attempted coup... FROM WITHIN THE MILITARY!

Next is money. For Socialists to get everything they want, they need an unlimited supply of money. Well, not to worry. The Coronavirus is giving them EVERYTHING they could have ever dreamed of. As I showed you in my specials on both Event 201 (the Coronavirus wargame), and The Great Reset, this virus is providing them the tools to turn capitalism into a form of National Socialism. Have you seen what the Fed is doing? After all is said and done, the Coronavirus response is projected to exceed $10 TRILLION. People are starting to say it out in the open now.

The Fed is moving towards Modern Monetary Theory. It's the belief that governments with sovereign currencies can “print" or “coin" money to support full employment or essentially any government program they want. It goes against every SANE economic model from the history of time. Debt? Means nothing. Inflation? Means nothing. And we're the science deniers?

Modern Monetary Theory is how they plan on creating the ultimate centrally controlled authoritarian welfare state. Now you know why they CONTINUE to say we need to lock everything back down.

Next, they need control over the local police. This is part of the reason for why Black Lives Matter exists. BLM hits the streets, and the mainstream media perpetuates the lies that all police are racist. Democrat lawmakers then have the leverage to push for things like defunding, and even disbanding, entire police departments.

And if that strategy fails, George Soros — while simultaneously funding Black Lives Matter — is ALSO quietly buying up District Attorneys all over the country. They're undermining police and completely overhauling the U.S. Justice System.

But none of this is even doable without a strong Bottom Up street movement. They need people causing chaos. They NEED protests. They NEED riots. This is why almost ZERO Democrats have condemned the rioting. They won't speak out on Antifa and they sure as heck won't condemn BLM. It's why the media refuses to do the same. It's how the Wisconsin rioting can be called “mostly peaceful" despite Kenosha being burnt to the ground.

Along with the media and Hollywood, they also need Social Media. Do I even need to go through this one? Google, Facebook, Twitter. When was the last time a prominent member on the left was censored for ANYTHING? When was the last time they were shadow banned or kicked off a platform?

Some are doing it blatantly out in the open.

Like Twitter doing their own “ fact checks." Well, with their own liberal bias of course.

Others, like Google, are doing it quietly. As I exposed with Robert Epstein, Google is trying to manipulate your vote, and the way YOU THINK, without you ever knowing it happened.

Think about all of this. The left controls every single step to pull off a successful revolution. And the final point: Compliance. Infiltrate every point on this board, and gain full public compliance, and you've successfully stolen a country. Just look at how easily Americans were willing to comply in the shadow of Covid. How easily the Bill of Rights was willing to be shredded over a virus with a 99% recovery rate.

They've got LITERALLY EVERYTHING, and I think the election defeat of Hillary Clinton escalated their plan for revolution. It went into overdrive in 2017, and it culminates THIS NOVEMBER. It's a multi-step process, and we're seeing it go down week by week, day by day. The closer we get to November, the closer THEY get to pulling off their plan.

As I mentioned earlier, Color Revolution is what they do. It's what they're good at. They LITERALLY WROTE THE BOOK ON IT.

Something happened and it changed the entire game.

Ok. I've shown you how the Intelligence Community pulls off coups, and I've shown you what is needed for a successful revolution to take place — eerily similar. But I don't think the left even thought they needed to do anything drastic. After 8 years of Obama and a shoe-in victory predicted for Hillary Clinton, they assumed all was proceeding as planned. They had everything they needed. But something happened and it changed the entire game: Donald Trump won and blew everything up.

The left has been using the word “revolution" a lot lately, and we had better start taking them at their word here. It's no longer hyperbole. Listen to this from John Kerry while attending a panel for the Alliance of Democracies.

Kerry was addressing a question about the American system, IN GENERAL, and threw in that line about not having access to vote.

If you begin to deny people the capacity of your democracy to work, even the Founding Fathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, we have an inherent right to challenge that.

Wow. But for Kerry, all is not lost. He is “encouraged" by something.

What encourages me is this incredible spontaneous reaction to the killing of George Floyd by those police officers has unleashed a torrent of awareness, that people see this unfairness now and it is, I think, becoming a voting issue.

I wonder if the rioting, looting, fires, and deaths are part of what he describes as “encouraging" and the “torrent of awareness"?

You see, I think John Kerry knows EXACTLY what he's doing here. He's seen all of this before. In fact, he was a part of it during the Obama Administration in 2013 and 2014, but it wasn't here, it was in Russia and Ukraine.

This is a photo of John Kerry strolling through Red Square in Moscow back in 2013. It was an interesting time in Eastern Europe. Color Revolutions were breaking out all over. When this photo was taken, Russia itself was in the tail end of their own, called the Snow Revolution.

It kicked off after a disputed election — this is going to sound very familiar in a couple months — by online bloggers who were suddenly very savvy on organizing massive protests using Facebook and social media. Sounds like we've heard this before. Oh yeah. Civil Society 2.0 and Tech Camps.

See if this also sounds familiar.

Russia immediately banned USAID and kicked out the George Soros Foundation.

I'm definitely not saying anything positive regarding Russia, but after knowing what we now know about what the Obama State Department was doing with Soros in Ukraine, I can understand why Putin was so pissed off.

Let's go back to that photo of John Kerry in Moscow.

The man to Kerry's right is Ambassador Michael McFaul. He was a Stanford academic that became the first non-career diplomat to ever ascend to that post. McFaul took office right as the Snow Revolution was kicking off. Let's just say the Russians were highly suspicious.

After arriving in Moscow, McFaul gave an interview to a Russian outlet explaining how he was different from other Russian diplomats. Here's a translated quote from the interview:

Most of the specialists on Russia are diplomats, specialists in security, arms control. Or Russian culture. I'm neither. I can't quote Pushkin by heart. I'M AN EXPERT ON DEMOCRACY, ANTI-DICTATORIAL MOVEMENTS, REVOLUTIONS.

Kind of an odd thing for a newly minted Ambassador to say once arriving in the country.

And similar to how the State Department in Ukraine was supporting the street activists, McFaul was holding meetings with protest organizers in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow. In fact, he met with opposition leaders BEFORE he ever met with Putin. But I'm sure he was on Russia's radar long before he arrived as the new ambassador. In 2005, McFaul wrote an academic paper on what was needed for a successful Color Revolution.

He called it the “Seven Pillars."

In order for a Color Revolution to break out, McFaul identified these specific things that must be present. This is the Obama Administration guide to ejecting an elected leader, and toppling a country.

  1. A semi-autocratic rather than fully autocratic regime.
  2. An unpopular incumbent.
  3. A united and organized opposition.
  4. An ability to quickly drive home the point that voting results were falsified.
  5. Enough independent media to inform citizens about the falsified vote.
  6. A political opposition capable of mobilizing tens of thousands or more demonstrators to protest electoral fraud.
  7. Divisions among the regimes' coercive forces (Military/Police).

All of these “pillars" were present in Georgia in 2003. The government was toppled. They were present again in Ukraine in 2014. The government came down. They thought they were present in Russia in 2013, but it failed. And now, they think they have the components ready for here. Now.

All of the pillars are accounted for.

This one is all about ACTION.

Everything I've outlined represents what's needed for a revolution to begin. All points have been met. I think the plan was to do this gradually over time, but — as I said earlier — Trump came along and escalated the timeline.

Now I want to discuss the Obama Administration's Color Revolution plan. It differs a bit from mine. Mine shows the conditions required, but this one shows how you actually START one. This one is all about ACTION. So let's go through the steps.

1. A semi-autocratic rather than fully autocratic regime:

How many times have you heard it? "Trump is literally Hitler!" It's a meme at this point. There are books on it, and there are DAILY news articles about it.

At first it doesn't make sense. How can you even BEGIN to make the comparison? Would Hitler have moved the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem? Would Hitler have ever been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for helping to broker peace between Israel and Arabs?

It's so ridiculous. In fact, everything they accuse Donald Trump of being is what THEY would be if given power. Joe Biden called for a national mask mandate. Donald Trump didn't do it. Why? Because HE DOESN'T HAVE THE POWER TO DO IT! An authoritarian would have just done it anyway. Many have called for Trump to send in the troops to quell the riots. Donald Trump has refused. Why? Because it's first a city matter and then THE STATE. The federal government is THE LAST RESORT. Would an authoritarian act like this?

So why are they doing this? They NEED to portray an image to the American people that Trump is a despot. It's the very first step in the process, and it literally started on DAY ONE.

The media began comparing Trump to Hitler the DAY OF THE INAUGURATION. But being an autocrat isn't enough. For the plan to work, STEP TWO, he had to remain an unpopular candidate for the entire term.

2. An unpopular incumbent.

Remember this?

This was 10 months into Trump's presidency. Talk about not aging well. Look at how produced this segment is. Everything from the colors of the set, to Olberman's suit. These videos were designed to engage as many people as possible, to KEEP them engaged and to have them coming back for more.

#THERESISTANCE! It started on day one and spread like wildfire. It's all over the place. The resistance hit Trump for EVERYTHING he did. He was constantly under attack BY DESIGN, but it was always void of facts. That didn't matter. it rarely does. They needed a divided base, and look around. They got it. Keith Olberman KNEW that the Russia collusion narrative was full of crap. That's why he abruptly ended The Resistance videos prematurely before a verdict came out.

Remember when Trump ended DACA back in 2017 and the waves of protests that followed? The left was quick to capitalize on this by doing what they do best — pissing people off and getting them out in the streets. But they never provided the context for what Trump was ACTUALLY doing. Look at that headline:

"Trump Ends DACA, Calls On Congress To Act"

The story wasn't “Trump ends DACA." The REAL story was that Trump gave the power Obama STOLE from Congress back TO THEM! Who's the authoritarian in this? The one that seized power or the one that gave it back?

They never give context because that's not what was needed. They needed the APPEARANCE that Trump was unpopular. Kind of puts organizations like The Lincoln Project and Never Trumpers in a whole new light doesn't it? What drives their hate of Donald Trump? Is it irrational? Or is it just part of a “7 Pillar" plan?

3. A united and organized opposition.

Had anyone ever really heard of Antifa before Trump became the GOP nominee in 2016? Antifa was small-time, but now they're all over the place. This is Tee Stern, an organizer with Refuse Fascism:

Earlier, she admitted that they had been given funding from George Soros. This organization SUPPORTS Antifa. Now we see in this video that the ultimate goal — I'm using her words here — is to get thousands and millions into the streets to force elected officials to step down. Keep in mind, all of this was BEFORE George Floyd.

And we can't forget Black Lives Matter — the MARXIST organization (something the media will never say). They had all but died out after 2015. We barely ever heard from them, but after George Floyd — like Antifa — they're all over the place. And what are they even protesting anymore? It's not about George Floyd. They protest cops when people try to KILL COPS, like what happened in Lancaster.

All of this is the set up or preamble. They're organizing and building the network for something much larger in November. Professional organizing groups are being brought in to help.

Journalist Stacey Lennox over at PJ Media recently identified this group: the Momentum Community.

They're veterans of Occupy Wallstreet that have trained street activists all over the country.

Their website lists the Marxist groups they train, including Working Families, Black Lives Matter and the Sunrise Movement. The Sunrise Movement has been helping to push the Green New Deal.

Where does Momentum Community get their inspiration? Check this out from their website:

Momentum synthesizes the lessons of various 20th century movements, including the COLOR REVOLUTIONS of Eastern Europe and the ARAB SPRING in North Africa.

4. An ability to quickly drive home the point that voting results were falsified.

This is where the preparation turns to action. This is what's planned for election night. This is also why Democrats radically pushed for mass mail-in voting. It's why the U.S. Postal Service conspiracy was born.

The entire reason for that Axios article I showed you earlier was meant to perpetuate it.

It's the reason why Bernie Sanders and Chuck Schumer made it public that they're making plans in case Donald Trump doesn't step down. They want to give the Bottom Up street thugs the green light, and to let them know that they have support from THE TOP. It's all signaling.

5. Enough independent media to inform citizens about the falsified vote.

Number 5 is easy. Just about every mainstream news outlet except for Fox is all in bed with the left.

That article from the New York Times that I showed you earlier, not only shows you how ridiculous they are, but that they are playing RIGHT ALONG with the Obama Administration's “7 Pillars." They've all been prepping, and will be ready to UNLEASH on election night.

6. A political opposition capable of mobilizing tens of thousands or more demonstrators to protest electoral fraud

Antifa and BLM were prepped, organized, and even put through a trial run over the past few months. What happened then will be NOTHING compared to what happens on election night if the left declares electoral fraud. You wanna know why the left refused to call BLM a Marxist organization, and why they REFUSED to condemn the rioting and violence? Because they're preparing to set them loose! They're being mobilized.

The Daily Beast recently reported that the left has been secretly planning for violence after election day. They've been wargaming what might happen with over 50 organizations, including people like John Podesta and even Bill Kristol. I told you earlier. #Resistance and never Trumpers are together. And who organized this meeting? Something called Fight Back Table.

It's an initiative put on by Democracy Alliance. AKA... George Soros. I mean of course it would be him. He's been there organizing and funding Color Revolutions for the past two decades. There's no way he'd sit this one out.

One source told the Daily Beast what Fight Back Table's mission was all about:

Occupy sh*t, hold space, and shut things down, not just on Election Day but for weeks.

The wargame centered around this document from the “Transition Integrity project."

It includes multiple scenarios for how they'll deal with various outcomes of the election. If you think using the words “revolution" and “civil war" is hyperbolic, read the following quote — and I have to quote the entire thing because it's INSANE:

Team Biden encouraged Western states, particularly California but also Oregon and Washington, and collectively known as "Cascadia," to secede from the Union unless structural reforms were made. In exchange for Trump getting the presidency, Republicans would need to agree to abolish the Electoral College, give Puerto Rico and D.C. statehood, and divide California into five states for better Senate representation.

They're not playing around. This is what they're actively planning to do.

Finally, number 7...

7. Divisions among the regimes' coercive forces.

By “coercive forces," they mean military and law enforcement. This is why the police are being undermined, defunded, and disbanded. It's why Soros has been buying up District Attorneys. It's why rioters are being set free and not prosecuted.

But perhaps the hardest and most important piece to this pillar is the military. In every scenario — the Intelligence Community's, mine, and the 7 Pillars — the military is key. They HAVE to create a division between Donald Trump and the military.

I showed you earlier how multiple high ranking members of the military publicly rebuked the president. How many more ACTIVE members of the military agree with this? We already know that officers like Lt. Col. Vindman are there. How many more? Remember this story?

The Atlantic made the ridiculous claim that Trump called veterans who died in war “losers and suckers."

But when the people that were actually there were questioned, including John Bolton, they said it never happened.

Now at first, I just assumed this was the media being the media, but then I saw this tweet, just two days later, from author of the “7 Pillars" Michael McFaul:

He has lost the military. How can he continue to serve as our Commander in Chief?

Was this more than just some random tweet? Was this the signal that the Seventh Pillar is now set?

These are not the actions from a party that believes they will win. They're pulling out all the stops, and I hope — AND PRAY — that the president is ready.

On the radio program this week, Glenn Beck and Pat Gray discussed a series of recent polls that suggest presidential nominee Joe Biden's expected lead may be slipping with traditionally Democratic voters.

A new poll conducted by the Jewish Electorate Institute shows that two-thirds of Jewish voters still plan to vote for the Biden-Harris ticket in November. However, President Donald Trump's support within the Jewish community is also the highest among any Republican candidate in recent history.

In more bad news for Biden, a CNN poll (yes, CNN) released last month showed growing support for President Trump among black voters in swing states. Meanwhile, his support among Latino voters remains at roughly 33%.

"I don't think it's going to go the way the Democrats hope that it will," Glenn said of the election. "If you look at the groups that the Democrats have carefully fostered ... that's falling apart. If Donald Trump can grow that by 5%, and hurt the Democrats by 5% ... that alone could swing the election."

Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

We're being set up for a civil war. The Left is grooming us for an Eastern European-style revolution this election, and they're not even trying to hide it any more. The playbook for Mainstreet USA is the exact same that has been used in places like Ukraine, initiated by the same people in order to completely upend the American system.

On his Wednesday night special this week, Glenn Beck takes us through a tale of three chalkboards that will connect the dots: the Obama admin in Ukraine, the State Department's relationship with George Soros, Black Lives Matter and Antifa riots, the Great Reset, public school indoctrination, mail-in voting. It all points to something dangerous happening in November if we don't act now.

Watch the full video below:


The only way to watch the extended episode of tonight's show is on BlazeTV. Start your free trial and get $20 off a one-year subscription with code BANTHIS.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multiplatform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream