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