Lynching Free Speech: The Intolerant State of America

The temperature is rising all across the nation. The “winter of our discontent” has given way to an overheated, sweltering summer in which shouting matches are skating dangerously close to becoming physical altercations. What most Americans don’t realize however is that the government has been anticipating and preparing for civil unrest for years now, as evidenced by the build-up of guns and tanks and militarized police and military training drills and threat assessments and extremism reports and surveillance systems and private prisons. The government doesn’t care about who you voted for in the presidential election or whether you think the Civil War was fought over states’ rights versus slavery. It doesn’t care about your race or gender or religion or sexual orientation. When the police state cracks down, it will not discriminate.

*Follow us here at Newsbud Twitter

**Subscribe here at BFP-Newsbud YouTube Channel

***Free Newsletter Subscription at The Rutherford Institute

***Follow John W. Whitehead and The Rutherford Institute on Facebook

Watch Episode Preview

Watch Members Only Full Episode Here

***Subscribing Members must be logged in to see the full video

Featured Video MP3 Audio Clip

***Subscribing Members must be logged in to listen to the audio

Show Notes

Condoleezza Rice argues tearing down slave owners’ statues is ‘sanitizing’ history

When the Nazis Come Marching In

Confederate monuments, more than 700 across USA, aren't budging

Protests over Confederate statue shake Charlottesville, Virginia

The White-Supremacist Lineage of a Yale College

Federal officials grapple with how to display Confederate flag

Report: Military may have to quell domestic violence from economic collapse

Nat Hentoff, Living the Bill of Rights: How to Be an Authentic American

The Age of Intolerance

Been called a 'snowflake'? The 'it' new insult

Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451

Aldous Huxley, Brave New World

George Orwell, 1984

Lynching Free Speech: The Intolerant State of America

Battlefield America: The War on the American People

Rutherford Institute

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING and/or DONATING.


  1. Little confused by what I perceive to be kind of mixed messages (perhaps deliberately mixed, since the whole speech issue is pretty mixed up.)

    The freedom of citizens to speak against the rescinding of state-sponsored endorsement of racism and slavery as the emblems of the Confederacy represent is not in dispute as far as I am concerned, it’s just that I don’t support such endorsements and am happy for them to be removed from the public square. I would wholeheartedly endorse the removal of J Edgar Hoover’s name from a building housing law enforcement, say. Let’s rename it the Fred Hampton Memorial building, or some such?

  2. B. F. EARL says:

    Excellent–Now unarguable causes for the need to marry state and religion which have failed to be proven as they have in the past when human nature traded faith for tradition.

    • B. F. EARL says:

      I like the Massachusetts flag. The Pine Tree mocked the king who wanted for his navy only the tallest, straightest trees. The people who marked them also marked them for themselves. The next one I like is the PA battle flag that says “Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God.” The stars and bars was a confederate navy jack. The point here is that most people need something to justify the chip on their shoulders they want to use to pick a fight without any understanding of the principles the flags stood for. By confusing them with more choices, the less noisy they become and hopefully more profound in their thinking.

  3. David E Burden says:

    I recall an old saying to the effect that if we do not remember our history, we are doomed to repeat it. I believe it is prescient now.

    Pretty much all intelligent people understand this, therefore, I question the motives for wanting to bury, hide away, or destroy historical monuments that remind us of a tragic mistake in our history. Could it be that the people behind this intend to repeat the transgressions of the past, once they have faded from the memory of the public at large? Will it be stricken from history and text books as well?

    Throughout history, every time a society’s history has been changed or hidden from them, some form of despotism and/or tyrannical regime emerges and some time thereafter, reveals the true intent of the deception. And the people suffer and die for it. Usually by the millions.

    These Confederate monuments are a part of our history. As shameful as slavery was, (and is), do we dare risk hiding the fact of it’s onetime existence in this county? Or should we instead make certain that people remember that horrid time and thus also remember and vow to never let it happen again? It happened, you cannot undo it. Pretending it didn’t is a fool’s errand. Which is better, to learn from our mistakes, or hide them and risk them happening again some day? There are many more issues to remember about that period of history than just slavery. All are lessons to be remembered.

    The people who fought for the Confederacy were not evil people, they were not all slave owners nor even advocates of the practice. There were many Negroes that fought for the confederacy, just as there were numerous Negroes who owned slaves, even in the Northern States. Furthermore, there were many White People who were slaves in Northern States, as well as other races.
    Robert E. Lee was asked to command the Union Army by the Lincoln administration before the war because he was considered to be the finest general in the country, but decided instead to maintain his allegiance to is home state of Virginia. Every historical text concerning him is that of an honorable man. Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson was renowned as a pious man and deeply devoted to his family. Military historians consider Jackson to be one of the most gifted tactical commanders in U.S. history.
    Ulysses S. Grant was a well known drunkard, yet went on to become president. His presidency has often been criticized for tolerating corruption and for the economic depression in his second term. General William Tecumseh Sherman was responsible for the “Scorched Earth”, “Total War against the people of the South” policy, as well as later being responsible for the atrocities of the Indian Wars. His army purposely spread diseases to the tribes, killed off their food source, (the Bison), and put out bounties for the ears of all Indians. Not just warriors, but women and children as well were treated as vermin. What should we learn from these inconvenient facts about the characters of those who fought the “Civil War”?
    In those days, people considered their home state to be their sovereign, and few were loyal to the federal government. In fact, until after the Civil War, and Mr. Lincoln’s unconstitutional actions, (How many knew that the Supreme Court determined that he had violated the constitution? Should it matter that the decision came after his murder?), the states maintained control over the federal government, as mandated by the constitution. They entered the union of their own free will, and believed they had the right to succeed if they chose to. Many still maintain this believe, and the constitution is the basis for this belief.

    The Constitution for the united States of America, is a contract. More correctly, it is an interstate “Compact”. A compact is a contract drawn up between governments. When the “Lee Resolution” was passed on July 2, 1776, (also known as the “The Resolution for Independancy”, Named for Richard Henry Lee of Virginia who proposed it to Congress on June 7, 1776.), the original 13 “Colonies” declared themselves to be free and independent “States”, “NATION STATES”. {{Interestingly, Congress ordered that the draft “lie on the table”. For two days, Congress methodically edited Jefferson’s primary document, shortening it by a fourth, removing unnecessary wording, and improving sentence structure. They removed Jefferson’s assertion that Britain had forced slavery on the colonies in order to moderate the document, and appease persons in Britain who supported the Revolution.}} [Britain not only coveted the tobacco, cotton and other goods produced by slave labor, British shipping also relied on the income from the slave trade. That is why the crown encouraged slavery in the colonies.]
    Within the declaration, (in the ‘Conclusion’ clause), and with these words: ………..”the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do”…………, the former British “Colonies” became a Nation State. Each.
    That is why the Constitution is not just a contract, but an interstate compact. Basic contract law tells us that any party to a contract will have provisions allowing them to break the contract if the terms of the contract are violated, as well as other reasons. The states drew up the contract, creating the federal government. How then does the federal government presume to dictate anything to the states which are rightfully it’s master? How does that which is created become greater than it’s creator? This is folly, it is absurd, it should not have been allowed to happen then, and it should not be tolerated now.

    If we examine the conduct of the Confederate Army and it’s generals, as well as the conduct of the Union Army and it’s generals, we have a much clearer picture of who was indeed the aggressor, but also which side conducted themselves with more honor and compassion during the course of the conflict. The atrocities committed against the people of the Southern States, the burning of entire plantations, even nearly entire states, (the “Scorched Earth” policy), purposely starving citizens not involved in the conflict, etc. were unequal when compared to what happened within the Northern States. The North even confiscated Robert E. Lee’s home. To this day Arlington is the site of the “National Cemetery”. How many know that it was Lee’s homestead? In 1864, with the increasing number of battle fatalities outpacing the burial capacity of Washington, D.C., cemeteries, 200 acres of Arlington plantation were set aside as a cemetery. Upon the authority of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, Brig. Gen. Montgomery C. Meigs, “Quartermaster General of the U.S., (Union), Army”, appropriated the grounds June 15, 1864, for use as a military cemetery. His intention was to render the house uninhabitable should the Lee family ever attempt to return. Thankfully at least, that did not occur. In those days, it seems that his superiors understood the wisdom of preserving historical sites. Should we not practice the same wisdom?

    The flags, monuments, and other symbols of the Confederate States of America, do not represent only slavery. The “Civil War”, (I’ve never understood how that name was ever applied to such an uncivilized event.), was not fought solely over slavery. There were many issues involved, not the least of which was “States Rights”. On the contrary, those artifacts represent a lot of other things, including pride, determination, aversion to federal rule over the states, to name a few. Especially to the people who live in the Southern States. Imagine the outrage if other monuments and symbols, perhaps representing Liberal-Progressive ideals, were to be threatened with removal. For the record, I would oppose that foolishness as well.

    In my opinion, based on historical precedence, is that the removal of ANY monuments which commemorate our history, both those considered positive as well as negative , should remain where they were erected, lest we forget.

    Now, on to another matter. I believe the protests and marches are in accordance with the 1st Amendment, and as such I see no harm in them. On the occasions where they turn violent, and property is destroyed simply to make a political statement, and escalate into riots, they should be stopped as quickly as possible. With prosecutions to follow for the responsible parties. The problem, as John pointed out, is that the majority of these destructive, rage induced happenings, are being fomented by people in government and other self important wealthy persons, with the intent to divide the citizens by whatever means they can. In order to ease their intended control over us. John is quite correct in his assertion that the feds have been planning this for a long time. Kudos to you John. Good report and analysis.
    Ferguson, MO., & Boston, MA., were test runs. To see if the people would tolerate martial law. New Orleans, after Hurricane Katrina, was the initial test run into denying people’s rights and confiscating their means to resist the tyranny, (which was also determined to be unconstitutional), and I believe the current proposed federal intrusion in Chicago by AFT, (at Trump’s order), is another one about to happen. It could also escalate very easily, and we should maintain a watchful eye on that situation. This has been in the plans for decades, with gradual steps taken while most people are happily attending to their TV, sports, video games, and various other forms of intended distractions and entertainments. “Bread and Circuses” people, look it up if you don’t understand the concept.
    The Constitution makes no allowances for martial law. None what-so-ever. “Emergency Situations” are contrived, and often planned by petty potentates with nefarious intentions, to desensitize the population to the evermore and increasing steps into the “Police State”. The founders had just fought a war and were faced with the daunting task of forming a nation. They understood emergency situations quite well, yet made no allowance for martial law when drafting the supreme law of the land. What they did do, was add provisions in Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 of the constitution “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”. As well as “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”. Not the President. Congress. Trump requires the permission from congress to take any measures involving military matters of all types. The president is only “Commander In Chief” during times of war, legally declared by congress. Further, any money appropriated for raising an army is limited to a period of two years.
    This is why I constantly implore people to get themselves a copy and read their constitution. Is your favorite TV program more important than your liberty? Is watching your favorite team more important than your children and grandchildren’s future? How will they remember you some day in the future if John, me, and so many others who are trying to sound the alarm, are right? If they are living under tyranny and realize that you had the chance to prevent it, yet couldn’t be bothered to because it interfered with your entertainment, will they remember you fondly? Or will they curse and regret their own lineage?

    This is no joke folks. It is more serious than you can imagine. In this country, we are just starting to understand what living under despotism and tyranny are like. Study the regimes of Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, of King John the 1st. Learn what so many millions of people around the world have learned, the hard way. Then add in the technology of today. Do you like being watched constantly, spied on by the very people who are supposed to be your employees? Are you fond of being treated as a suspect for simply speaking your mind as is your right? Or is your entertainment more important to you?
    This is one of the few counties in the world, in fact the most capable of all, with the ability to stop the planned tyranny before it progresses too far. {{If it hasn’t already.}} The founders had studied history extensively, they knew what had happened in Rome and other historical despotic and tyrannical regimes. Not only that, they had just fought a war to throw off the shackles of tyranny. That is why they gave us the means to do likewise, by way of the Second Amendment to the constitution in “The Bill of Rights”. Should we not follow the example they gave us with their blood and treasure?
    I for one, intend to fight this in whatever way and whatever means I can. This being one way. I may be old and busted up physically, But my brain still works, and I can still hit my target. Who will join me? Who can we find to lead? My questions are not merely rhetorical, I ask them in all sincerity. I implore all who read this. Even if you choose to not answer publicly, at least take them into serious consideration.

    Thank you John, and Newsbud, for this important, thought provoking video.

    For the Republic,

    • blenderhead says:

      This was a very interesting read. Thanks for taking the time to write it.

    • Andreas Hedqvist says:

      I don’t think there is a conspiracy trying to erase history by removing statues, flags etc. I have come to view politicians as little more than professional liars who will serve any interest or movement that they can latch on to. If they sense a general tendency by a large enough group of voters for something (whatever) they will attempt to exploit it and that’s why we see so many crazy policy ideas these days. Most people today are overwhelmed by information of all sorts and they are confused to put it mildly. Confusion and uncertainty is the perfect soil to grow conflicts in which is what people like Soros are doing to engineer their preferred outcome.

      Politics is a mere reflection of society at large and the deterioration we see on the political and media scene right now is a result of economic problems. If people are doing well and are not worried then politics and government is a side show mostly for entertainment, it’s when the s hits the f that it takes center stage. Best way to prevent civil unrest – make sure people have jobs and can take of themselves. All wars, including the American Civil War, have come about as a result of economic hardship and tyranny not some altruistic ideal.

  4. blenderhead says:

    Great video. We are obliviously running head-first into the arms of the police state. It’s clearer now than ever, but many of the smartest people I know cannot see it.

  5. victor friese says:

    Um, frankly the monuments should have been desecrated, not removed. This opens the doors for historical revisionism amd forgetting.

  6. Free speech always sounds angry in the US.

    The nation was literally founded on war and has barely not been at war ever since – that has to affect the collective psyche. Maybe that’s why everyone seems malcontented.

Speak Your Mind