Skip to main content

January 6th, 2021

The events which transpired on January 6th, 2021, are erroneously regarded by many as an “attack” or the “downfall” of “democracy” or that of “American society”. However, this belies the truth about that day — a day when the lion’s share of protestors congregated peacefully at the United States Capitol to protest the injustices of a stolen election.

The fact of the matter is that the 2020 presidential election was indeed fraught with major issues. The election was compromised, plain and simple, not just by suspicious statistical anomalies but by documented instances of voter fraud (in such cases as Fulton County, Georgia) and the deliberate suppression of critical information — including the truth around the Hunter Biden laptop scandal — which (if released) would have no doubt altered the outcome of the election.

Ultimately, the January 6th protests at the Capitol Building are consistent with the very spirit of America’s forefathers and the patriots who have long maintained a tradition of bringing grievances directly to the doorstep of government. 

Indeed, it is in the absence of sufficient pushback from the governed that the state becomes powerful enough to insulate itself from public scrutiny. Apprehension and eternal vigilance toward government constitute the very qualities of Americans which have helped distinguish them from the rest of the world, and which have enabled Americans to assert and defend the truth along with their inalienable rights.

This contrasts with the mobs of the Left, who bring riots to the streets to disturb the lives of their fellow men who haven’t assumed a public trust through careers in government, who individually possess insufficient power to effect any meaningful change, and who seek simply to go about their days unmolested; and it is in this regard that the Leftist mobs are lacking not only coherent direction but an effective means to accomplish anything more than the progressive destruction and division they bring about within the communities to which their influence — ideological or physical — has spread. 

Of course, none of this keeps the Leftists from fancying themselves “progressive”, even as their influence never fails to bring violence, decadence, and dilapidation wherever they prevail. 

But, of course, as with their general view on things, the loss of life and the destruction of property that come as a consequence of their “mostly peaceful protests” are deemed mere costs of civilization, a righting of wrongs — perfectly in keeping with their attitudes on theft and looting, which they regard as “justice” or righteous “redistribution”. 

So, when the January 6th protestors brought their grievances to the doorstep of government, the Leftists within the establishment sounded all of the alarms, and they continue to do so — as they see it, they are members of the elite and thus untouchable. 

And so the Leftists have sounded the alarms ever since, making sure to send an unmistakable signal to the masses: “You who have grievances are not welcome on the doorsteps of government, and you who wish to make demands, with force if necessary, will be met swiftly with the heavy hand of ‘justice’.” 

As far as the Leftists in power see it, those patriotic Americans who remain should consider themselves fortunate enough that they can still visit the Jefferson Memorial, and that the men of the Revolution haven’t been altogether erased from American history books. 

As those Leftists in power see it, they (the Leftists) are the source of all things good and righteous, and to the extent that they are met with “eternal vigilance” in the flesh, they will sound the alarms to rally their henchmen to do their bidding in the streets — to make life miserable enough for the decent and the disciplined that they will have every reason to steer clear of meaningful political expression; one of the clever means by which thoughtful opposition is silenced and conformity is assured in a state which fancies itself “progressive”. 

Author’s Note

Not only were the United States (in the plural) declared and made independent through resistance, protest, and rebellion, but the Founding generation openly defended political demonstrations, resistance, and — when necessary — rebellion as essential safeguards of liberty, including after independence. 

Thomas Jefferson penned just such remarks in 1787: “What country can preserve its liberties, if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” 

In response to Shays’s Rebellion, Jefferson likewise argued that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants,” viewing popular uprisings as natural and even healthy checks on government power. He also endorsed the Revolutionary maxim “Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God,” reflecting his belief that resistance rested on moral as well as political grounds. 

James Madison echoed this sentiment in his own writings. In Federalist No. 49, he affirmed that “the people are the only legitimate fountain of power.” In Federalist No. 40, he argued that abuses of authority are most often traceable to those who govern, not to the people themselves. 

In Federalist No. 51, Madison warned that when factions are able to unite and oppress others, the result is a form of tyranny indistinguishable from anarchy — hence the need for both constitutional safeguards and continued popular vigilance. 

Samuel Adams was even more explicit. In The Rights of the Colonists (1772), he grounded American rights in natural law and Christian moral duty, urging citizens to study both the rights of mankind and the principles of just government. Later, he famously declared, “If ye love wealth better than liberty… crouch down and lick the hands which feed you,” making clear that submission to usurpation was incompatible with a state of liberty and incongruent with the kind of citizenship necessary within a republic. 

George Mason, the principal author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, repeatedly warned that peoples who surrender their liberties risk falling into permanent subjugation. He insisted that no such institution of ‘just government’ can be preserved except through adherence to justice, moderation, and virtue, and through frequent recurrence to fundamental principles — thereby affirming the people’s right to resist governments that abandon those foundations. 

John Adams likewise justified resistance. In 1765, he wrote that “resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and my life, but of my property… is an indisputable right of nature.” Throughout his writings, Adams maintained that the American Revolution arose from long-standing resistance to unconstitutional and arbitrary power, not from momentary passion. 

Even the more order-minded and imperialistic of the Founders agreed on the principle. Alexander Hamilton argued in Federalist No. 28 that when rulers betray their trust, the people retain an original right of self-defense that supersedes all positive forms of government. 

John Jay, in Federalist No. 2, grounded American legitimacy in a people conscious of their shared identity, common rights, and collective responsibility to defend them. 

Benjamin Franklin famously warned that “those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” 

George Washington, while deeply concerned about disorder and division, nevertheless affirmed that governments exist to secure the inalienable rights of the people, and that they lose their legitimacy when they become destructive of those ends. 

Crucially, these statements were made after independence, not merely during the Revolution. 

The Founders understood protest, resistance, and even rebellion as ongoing political realities in a free society, not one-time exceptions. While they did not celebrate chaos or constant revolt, they rejected the idea that obedience and order were higher values than liberty and resistance to tyranny. 

The modern claim that the Founders opposed popular resistance is not merely mistaken — it is fundamentally ahistorical and misunderstanding the attitudes and ideas which distinguished the rugged American from the rest of the world; the "rugged American" whose personal courage is perhaps best captured by the memories and legacies of the American West, as one John Wayne is said to have so eloquently put it: "The West — the very words go straight to that place of the heart where Americans feel the spirit of pride in their western heritage — the triumph of personal courage over any obstacle, whether nature or man."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Deal with Tariffs

Over the course of President Trump’s two terms, there has been much talk around the matter of tariffs — taxes on imported goods. However, much of the talk seems to miss the point. After all, for those of us who seek the truth, it’s not really a question of whether tariffs are ‘good’ but whether they are preferable to other kinds of taxes — assuming, of course, that taxes are the rule, as certain as the eventuality of death. First, let’s establish the theory: beyond the generic purpose of revenue generation for the state, the institution of tariffs ordinarily serves to  reduce (or discourage) imports by making them artificially more expensive, while encouraging domestic production by making domestic products more appealing on a relative price basis. In the realm of foreign affairs, tariffs are instituted or threatened in the course of international trade negotiations in order to signal dissatisfaction with existing trade barriers and to push for more favorable trade terms; or in ord...

Summarizing the “Separation of Church and State”

There is much confusion surrounding the concept of the “separation of church and state”; much of it likely born out of the steep secular decline in religious affiliation across recent generations, with particular emphasis among atheists and anti-deists.  While many have hastened to leverage this language (“separation of church and state”) in order to condemn or censure religious values — particularly those which are Christian — where they have carried influence in public life (i.e. prayer in schools, teachers covering lessons from the Bible, government representatives appealing to God, coinage bearing the words “In God We Trust”), the truth is that this “separation” was never expected to completely eliminate religious practice or religious sentiment from all matter of public life. In fact, religion was so deeply enmeshed in American life during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that the French magistrate and prison reformer Gustave de Beaumont, during his nine-month tour of A...

Rethinking “Forgiveness”

Forgiveness is often hailed as the ultimate moral virtue — a cleansing of the soul, a sign of spiritual maturity, and the first step toward healing fractured relationships. But in modern discourse, particularly in religious and pop-psychological circles, “forgiveness” has extended beyond the sensible, beyond etiquette, and beyond justice and useful application. The concept of “forgiveness” has been stretched far outside of the realms of that which is easy to “forgive”, that which is merely inconvenient or annoying, or relatively innocuous or insignificant, where “forgiveness” is merely part of tolerating people’s human shortcomings, their mistakes and  their accidents , or extending ‘mercy’ to those who’ve disrespected or “trespassed against us” (and have since offered sincere apologies and the necessary restitution). This reimagined kind of “forgiveness” has taken on a dangerously idealized form ignorant to or dismissive of the laws and limits of human nature and the potential imp...

Their Lives, Their Fortunes, and Their Sacred Honor

A  recent YouTube post by the political organization PragerU betrays the truth about the American Revolution. It goes as follows: “Britain spent a fortune defending the colonies in the French & Indian War. America’s response? Boycotts, protests, rebellion. Ingratitude that sparked a revolution.” This description of history is not just a reductive reframing of the issues; it is a crude and provocative statement insulting the intelligence of Americans who remember their history and disrespecting the men who staked everything in their noblest of causes during the American Revolution.  One commenter in the comments section even sided with PragerU, taking to task any who dares criticize the post: “Are you incapable of creating scenarios from the opposite side?” Unfortunately for this commenter, true history isn’t about “creating scenarios”; it’s about understanding what actually happened — the totality of the circumstances. So, let us do just that: let’s get straight to the fac...

Cullen Roche's Not So "Pragmatic Capitalism"

In his riveting new work Pragmatic Capitalism , Cullen Roche, founder of Orcam Financial Group, a San Diego-based financial firm, sets out to correct the mainstream schools of economic thought, focusing on  Keynesians, Monetarists, and Austrians alike. This new macroeconomic perspective claims to reveal What Every Investor Needs to Know About Money and Finance . Indeed, Roche introduces the layman to various elementary principles of economics and financial markets, revealing in early chapters the failed state of the average hedge fund and mutual fund operators  —  who are better car salesmen than financial pundits, Roche writes  —   who have fallen victim to the groupthink phenomenon, responsible for their nearly perfect positive correlation to the major indexes; and thus, accounting for tax, inflation, and service adjustments, holistically wiping out any value added by their professed market insight.  Roche also references popular stu...

Fischer: Tortured in the Pasadena Jailhouse (featuring the Morals of Chess by Benjamin Franklin)

Buy your copy today of  Fischer: Tortured in the Pasadena Jailhouse (featuring the Morals of Chess by Benjamin Franklin) , available at  Amazon  and Barnes & Noble . The name Bobby Fischer reigns supreme in the world of chess, yet there was a time when it hogged headlines, struck fear into the eyes of the competition, and was on the lips of folks all across the globe. More than the face of the centuries-old game, there was a time when Bobby Fischer was synonymous with the cause and spirit of America, that his moves on the chessboard sought more than checkmate but to pit the strength of “raw-boned American individualism” against “the Soviet megalithic system” which had come to dominate the game of chess at the same time it dominated Cold War politics. Fischer’s triumph over the USSR's Boris Spassky in the ’72 World Chess Championship would ultimately be celebrated as a symbolic and diplomatic victory for the U.S., but, as time would tell, it would not mean the American...

The ‘Values’ Problem in the NFL

Every year, there is talk across the major sports leagues about which players are due for contract extensions and huge paydays. The chatter is seemingly endless, and it often seems to cast a shadow over the sports themselves — talking heads arguing and debating, insisting that so-and-so is going to ‘reset the market’ or so-and-so is demanding the ‘market rate’ for his position.  This is where the conversation goes awry, economically speaking.  The truth is that players  are not commodities: they are neither fungible nor interchangeable. Each player brings a distinct skill set, and each team operates within a unique scheme, meaning that each player’s value is situational rather than universal. There is, thus, no ‘market rate’ for any player or position; contracts exist in relation to each team’s particular situation, and every dollar spent on one player (in a salary-cap league) directly reduces the resources available for others — where ‘overspending’ in any case necessari...

The People's Banner: Why the “Thin Blue Line” Flag Betrays the Spirit of the Stars and Stripes

The American flag — proudly known as the Stars and Stripes — is more than a banner of colors stitched together. It is a living symbol of rebellion, unity, and the sovereignty of the people. It was never originally the flag of a government, but of a movement; not a mark of officialdom, but of revolution.  Having evolved from the Continental Union Flag, its stripes — with their roots in the "rebellious stripes" of the Sons of Liberty — represent resistance to abusive power, a stand against imperial overreach, and a declaration that legitimate authority flows from the consent of the governed. In this light, the proliferation of the “Thin Blue Line” version of the American flag is not merely a modification of a unique American symbol; it is a mutilation of the flag’s fabric and its meaning. It transforms a people’s flag into a government’s flag, in direct contradiction to its foundational ethos. The Stars and Stripes emerged during the crucible of the American Revolution. Designe...

Death By Cop

A  recent post from a popular YouTube channel has provided more evidence of that which is blatantly obvious in modern America, at least to those who are willing to face the truth: the fact that cops, as with the governments they serve, are the enemy to goodness, justice, and American liberty.  This latest post is from The Civil Rights Lawyer, a channel (by a practicing civil rights lawyer) documenting police misconduct and civil rights violations since the year 2020. This time, it is a case of an elderly man, a former pastor suffering from dementia, murdered at the hands of “ the very people who were supposed to protect and care for him”: “Officers were dispatched to a business to assist an elderly customer who appeared to be suffering from dementia. At the scene, officers found him extremely confused. He told them the year was 1948 and that the president was George Washington. So they call his daughter to come pick him up. So how did things go so terribly wrong that day, tha...

“Stolen Land”

The claim that America was built on “stolen land” is not only a politically-loaded oversimplification, but a deliberately narrow framing that keeps America — and America alone — under perpetual moral scrutiny. It collapses fundamentally different actors, motives, and historical processes into a single accusation, thereby obscuring more than it explains. At a macro political level, land claims have  always  been in flux. Long before European contact, tribes across North America routinely warred over territory, resources, hunting grounds, and waterways. Claims were seasonal, contingent, and often overlapping, shaped by migration patterns, environmental conditions, and intertribal treaties that themselves shifted over time.  Had Europeans never settled in America, this dynamic would have continued to dominate; it was the prevailing condition of the continent. From this perspective, “ownership” has never been an abstract moral constant but a function of enforceability under a...