American Minute with Bill Federer: Women can Vote, History of Suffrage, followed by Manipulation; Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance!

0
94
American Minute with Bill Federer
Women can Vote: History of Suffrage, followed by Manipulation; Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance!
There are six thousands years of human beings writing down records.
In all this, it is revealed that the most common form of government has been a monarchy.
Kingdoms and empires kept growing bigger due to military advances, allowing kings to kill more people, and technological advancements, allowing kings to track more people.
By the time of America’s founding, the British Empire was the largest the world had ever seen.
At its zenith, it controlled 13 million square miles – almost a quarter of the Earth’s land, and nearly half billion people – one-fifth of the world’s population.
The Kings of England were, in a sense, globalists, wanting a one-world-government with themselves at the top.
In the British Empire, the most important “vote” was the King’s.
King James explained March 21, 1609:
“Kings are justly called gods …
they have power of raising and casting down: of life and of death … over all their subjects …
accountable to none but God only … and make of their subjects like men at the chess.”
Over time, there were efforts to limit the king through charters, bill of rights, and Houses of Parliament.
Americans did not like being ruled by the will of a one man, even one with limitations.
Americans separated from the British Empire in the Revolutionary War.
America’s founders set up a system where the citizens were in complete control the government.
The U.S. Constitution, at its most basic level, is simply a way to prevent a President from ruling through mandates and executive orders — prevent one person rule!
What the founders feared the most was a President weaponizing law enforcement and military to eliminate political enemies.
Patrick Henry warned June 5, 1788:
“My great objection to this Government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights, or of waging war against tyrants …
There is to be a great and mighty President, with very extensive powers — the powers of a King …
This Constitution … squints towards monarchy …
Your President may easily become King …
If your American Chief be a man of ambition and abilities, how easy is it for him to render himself absolute!
The army is in his hands … and it will be … with him to seize the first auspicious moment to accomplish his design …
The President … can prescribe the terms on which he shall reign master, so far that it will puzzle any American ever to get his neck from under the galling yoke …
… Where is the existing force to punish him?
Can he not, at the head of his army, beat down every opposition?
Away with your President! we shall have a King: the army will salute him Monarch …
What will then become of you and your rights?
Will not absolute despotism ensue? …
… My great objection to the Constitution … that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves.”
After America’s independence, other countries followed the example by rejecting their kings and replacing them with republics, where citizens rule through their elected representatives.
American’s pledge allegiance to the flag “and to the republic for which it stands.”
We are essentially pledging allegiance to us being in charge of ourselves.
In colonial America, voting was extended to landowners, and then those owning a certain amount of personal property.
Voting was mostly them deciding how much each would contribute to help defend and improve the colonies.
After the Revolution, voting was extended to men who did not own land, provided they helped pay taxes.
During the Civil War, Republican President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, free slaves.
This was soon followed by the Republican-controlled Congress pushing through the 15th Amendment assuring that all the men who had been freed from slavery had the right to vote.
After that, the momentum from the anti-slavery movement was channeled into:
  • the temperance movement to prohibit alcohol (18th Amendment); and
  • the women’s suffrage movement, to allow women to vote (19th Amendment).
In the late 1800s, women’s suffrage movements spread in many countries, including western countries:
  • Sweden,
  • Finland,
  • Norway,
  • Scotland,
  • Britain,
  • Iceland,
  • New Zealand,
  • Australia.
Britain’s women’s suffrage movement was portrayed in the popular 1964 movie Mary Poppins, where Mrs. Banks sang:
“We’re clearly soldiers in petticoats
And dauntless crusaders for woman’s votes
Though we adore men individually
We agree that as a group they’re rather stupid!
Cast off the shackles of yesterday!
Shoulder to shoulder into the fray!
Our daughters’ daughters will adore us
And they’ll sing in grateful chorus
‘Well done, Sister Suffragette!'”
The suffrage movement gained support, creating a push to amend the U.S. Constitution.
There are two ways to change the Constitution.
The first way is through the Amendment process, which preserves the will of the people.
There have been 27 Amendments added to the Constitution.
It is a labor intensive effort.
Amendments must:
  • first be passed by two-thirds of the Congressmen and Senators, who were elected by a majority of the people, (or, though it has never happened, two-thirds of the State legislatures calling for a Constitutional Convention);
  • then an Amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the states, again maintaining that it is the will of the majority of the people.
There is an easier way to change the Constitution — namely, have activist justices change the definition of existing words in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, thus broadening, expanding, or altering their meaning.
This is referred to as legislating from the bench.
This is an example of the will of a MINORITY (5 justices) being imposed on the MAJORITY (millions of citizens).
A minority controlling a majority is the classic definition of tyranny.
America’s founders never conceived of the notion that activist justices would legislate from the bench.
They insisted on the Amendment process as it insured the country would remain a “government of the people, by the people, for the people.”
Senator Robert La Follette of Wisconsin stated:
“The will of the people is the law of the land.”
The women’s suffrage movement grew after World War I.
It is an interesting thought that it was the will of the majority of MEN in America who voted to have WOMEN vote.
The 19th Amendment was ratified and declared a part of the U.S. Constitution on August 26, 1920:
“The right of citizens of the U.S. to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”
A leader in the women’s suffrage movement was Susan B. Anthony.
President Gerald Ford praised her, February 13, 1976:
“Susan B. Anthony … with other dedicated women … took the cause of women’s suffrage to State capitals across our growing Nation …
The irreversible change she wrought … led to the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment.”
Susan B. Anthony also fought to prohibit alcohol, stating in her address to the Daughters of Temperance, March 1, 1849:
“Ladies! There is no neutral position for us … If we sustain not this noble enterprise … then is our influence on the side of Intemperance.
… If we say we love the Cause and then sit down at our ease, surely does our action speak the lie.
And now permit me once more to beg of you to lend your aid to this great Cause, the Cause of God and all Mankind.”
Women’s suffrage leader Julia Ward Howe was the first woman member of the American Academy of Arts and Letters.
She wrote The Battle Hymn of the Republic, stating in the 3rd verse:
“I have read a fiery gospel
writ in burnished rows of steel;
‘As ye deal with my contemners,
so with you my grace shall deal;
LET THE HERO, BORN OF WOMAN,
crush the serpent with his heel,
Since God is marching on.”
Republican President Richard Nixon address the League of Women Voters on their 50th Anniversary, April 17, 1969:
“A year before the 19th Amendment was adopted the League of Women Voters was founded, and that organization, in the past 50 years, has played a major role in this Nation on a nonpartisan basis …
Since about 1947, a tremendously escalating role of women in politics in the United States …
I often say that men do the talking and women do the working in campaigns …”
Nixon continued:
“As we look at the past 50 years we wonder what could happen in the next 50 years …
… As I look around the world and as I find that India has a woman Prime Minister, Ceylon has a woman Prime Minister, Israel has a woman Prime Minister.”
To the Daughters of the American Revolution, President Calvin Coolidge remarked April 19, 1926:
“Who has not heard of Molly Pitcher, whose heroic services at the Battle of Monmouth helped the sorely tried army of George Washington!
We have been told of the unselfish devotion of the women who gave their own warm garments to fashion clothing for the suffering Continental Army during that bitter winter at Valley Forge.
The burdens of the war were not all borne by the men …”
Coolidge continued:
“Since 1880 there has been a marked increase in the tendency to remain away from the polls on the part of those entitled to vote …
Election day in the olden times was generally considered more or less sacred – one to be devoted to the discharge of the obligations of citizenship …
If the people fail to vote, a government will be developed which is not their government … Such a system of government is doomed to failure.”
The Greek philosopher Plato stated:
“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.”
After World War II, more nations recovering from war, and post-colonial countries, allowed women to vote:
  • France 1944
  • Italy 1946
  • Venezuela 1946
  • Japan 1947
  • Taiwan 1947
  • India 1947
  • Kenya 1963
Only later did some Islamic countries allow women the right to vote:
  • Iraq 1980
  • Qatar 1997
  • Bahrain 2002
  • Oman 2003
  • Kuwait 2005
A woman’s right to vote is still limited in varying degrees in Sharia practicing Islamic nations, such as Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Brunei, ISIS controlled areas of Iraq and Syria.
After President Biden surrendered Afghanistan to the Taliban, the status of women’s rights there is in question. A news outlet ran the headline:
“Afghanistan: Taliban Laugh When Asked If ‘Afghans Can Vote Women Politicians'”
As the voting electorate grew, and more people were involved in the voting process, more ingenious methods were invented to sway voters.
Increase in the number of people voting directly corresponded to an increase in the number of ways to manipulate voters, including:
  • media and internet ignoring, censoring, or publishing “fake news” about a candidate;
  • persuading more candidates to run to divide the opposing party’s voter base;
  • encouraging voters from one party to cross-over and vote in opposing party primaries;
  • “race-baiting” — stoking passions of racial differences to turn out a voter base;
  • “fear-mongering” — using community organizers, agitators, and agent provocateurs to foment riots and unrest;
  • Antifa, Black Lives Matters, KKK, Black Panther-type intimidation of voters at polling places;
  • getting more voters to become dependent on government entitlement handouts;
  • voting multiple times;
  • street money to pay people to vote using someone else’s name;
  • psychological projection, where a candidate who has committed crimes will publicly accuse their opponent of committing the exact crimes they are guilty. This puts their opponent on the defensive with negative headlines as the public subconsciously associates the innocent candidate with the crime. If the guilty candidate is ever exposed, by that time the water is muddied, the public does not know who is telling the truth, and the guilty candidate gets a pass;
  • “October Surprise” planned crises in the last week before the November elections leaving the attacked candidate no time to respond. Surprises range from political attacks ads, deceptive mailers, saved up “shocking revelations” about a candidate, and government agencies weaponized to launch “investigations,” ;
  • pre-planned “breaking news” stories to grab the headlines and disrupt the momentum of a winning candidate; or engineered financial distress, weather, or other “national emergencies” intended to alter the outcome of an election.
Voters can be swayed by public opinion molders.
Manipulation of public opinion occurs largely through the media, and increasingly through the internet:
  • Google and other search engine algorithims which alter search results to favor one candidate and malign another;
  • candidates Twitter accounts suspiciously suspended;
  • YouTube mislabeling conservative sites as “hate speech”;
  • Facebook “throttling” conservative posts to have fewer views, etc.
Being that many elections are often determined by close margins, if global Tech Giants can sway even a small percentage of “undecided” voters, they may potentially alter elections results.
Edward Bernays, nephew of Sigmund Freud, wrote a book in 1928 titled Propaganda.
Bernays explained:
“Today … the minority has discovered a powerful help in influencing the majority … To mold the mind of the masses … They find in propaganda a tool which is increasingly powerful … regimenting the public mind …
Manipulation of the … opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society …
Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism … constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”
The power of public opinion was observed by George Orwell, who wrote in “Politics vs. Literature: An Examination of Gulliver’s Travels” (Polemic: September/October 1946):
“In a society in which there is no law … the only arbiter of behavior is public opinion.
But public opinion, because of the tremendous urge to conformity in gregarious animals, is less tolerant than any system of law.”
Orwell called humans “gregarious,” meaning they seek acceptance of others.
He continued:
“When human beings are governed by ‘thou shalt not,’ the individual can practice a certain amount of eccentricity (freedom to deviate from the norm):
when they are supposedly governed by ‘love’ or ‘reason,’ he is under continuous pressure to make him behave and think in exactly the same way as everyone else.”
The pressure to behave as everyone else was confirmed by the Asch Conformity Experiments in the 1950s.
A room was filled with actors. Then one unsuspecting participant was invited in.
All were asked to compare the length of lines.
When the actors intentionally choose the wrong measurement, 30 percent of the unsuspecting participants changed their correct answers to the incorrect measurement in order to fit in with the group.
A similar experiment was conducted by German sociologist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, who wrote “The Spiral of Silence: Public Opinion – Our Social Skin.
In a controlled experiment, it was found that individuals denied their privately held values in order to conform to perceived publicly held values, thus avoiding “a negative social judgment.”
Chuck Colson commented on this adult version of peer pressure in his BreakPoint commentary, Nov. 2, 2011, “Breaking the Spiral of Silence”:
“Simply stated, out of a desire to avoid reprisal or isolation, people go along with what they think is the popular opinion – even if they object to that opinion personally.
Instead of voicing their objections, they remain silent.”
Classrooms and online social media have become communities where individuals feel pressured to conform to.
The Washington Post article “Mass surveillance silences minority opinions according to study,” by Karen Turner, March 28, 2016, revealed:
“A new study shows that knowledge of government surveillance causes people to self-censor their dissenting opinions online …
… The study, published in Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, studied the effects of subtle reminders of mass surveillance on its subjects …
Participants reacted by suppressing opinions that they perceived to be in the minority …
The ‘spiral of silence’ is a well-researched phenomenon in which people suppress unpopular opinions to fit in and avoid social isolation.”
Saul Alinsky explained how people would rather conform than face shame, humiliation, or ridicule:
“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
“Honor-Shame” cultures have have used this method of conformity though most of world history.
In monarchies, as well as in most Eastern and Middle-Eastern cultures, there is not the biblical concept of an absolute “right-and-wrong.”
Instead, “right” is what brings “honor” to an individual, family, brotherhood, or community; and “wrong” is what brings “shame.”
In some Middle-Eastern communities, parents will even kill their own daughter if she brings “shame” to the family.
Similar to the ESG system in America, China is implementing a “social credit” system.
This is used to shame, coerce, and restrict those who do not conform to the communist state.
The fear of public ridicule, shame, and humiliation was acknowledged by George Orwell in Nineteen Eighty-Four:
“Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation.”
It is interesting that the Bible continually calls believers to come out of the world system’s “fear of man”:
  • “The fear of man brings a snare, But he who trusts in the LORD will be exalted.” Proverbs 29:25
  • “You shall not fear man, for the judgment is God’s.” Deuteronomy 1:17
  • “Then Saul said to Samuel, ‘I have sinned; I have indeed transgressed the command of the LORD … because I feared the people and listened to their voice.'” I Samuel 15:24
  • “I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that have no more that they can do.” Luke 12:4
  • “In God have I put my trust: I will not be afraid what man can do unto me.” Psalm 56:11
In addition to silencing opposing viewpoints, there are many ways to manipulate the “counting” of votes.
Stalin is attributed with saying:
“Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.”
Would politicians stoop to voter fraud?
One only need ask, if a politician can justify an immoral agenda, such as killing an innocent unborn or newborn baby, could they justify using immoral means to get elected?
What is lying, cheating, slander, or voter fraud, in comparison to that?
Referencing Machiavelli, Saul Alinsky wrote:
“In war, the end justifies almost any means.”
As the restraining influence of moral virtue decreases in a country, voter fraud tactics increase, such as:
  • loosing ballots;
  • unsecured mail-in ballots;
  • delay in counting military ballots;
  • same-day registration fraud;
  • inaccurate ballot preparation;
  • allowing non-citizens to vote;
  • refusal to purge voter rolls of deceased voters or those who moved;
  • orchestrated computer glitches;
  • rigging of electronic voting machines; and
  • interference by those in power, as seen in allegations that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, itself, hacked into state election systems, which, as expected, they would deny and blame on foreign interference (Georgia, U.S. News, 12/18/16; Indiana, The Daily Caller, 2/21/17).
Cyber security expert John McAfee explained how hackers within government agencies who had the skills to hack through firewalls, would also have the skills to leave a “fake” trail by changing their language, markers, or location, as he said in an interview (RT, 12/30/16):
“If it looks like the Russians did it, then I can guarantee you it was not the Russians …
If I was the Chinese and I wanted to make it look like the Russians did it, I would use Russian language within the code, I would use Russian techniques of breaking into the organization.”
If, by chance, voter fraud was discovered, politicians promise to “investigate,” and in the course of the investigation, they may have the opportunity to destroy evidence which could convict them.
If public pressure mounts, excuses are made that the fraud was unintentional, unauthorized, or a result of ineptness.
A scapegoat is blamed, allowing the politicians to stay in office.
Senator Marco Rubio stated on FoxNews, 8/12/22 after President Biden’s FBI raided former President’s home:
“This is shocking … but in Latin America and many of the countries around the world, here’s what happens …
A group takes power. One of the first things is – they begin to persecute and go after their political opponents …
When the supporters of their political opponents begin to complain … they begin to target … and criminalize opposition …
The next thing you’re gonna see – because it’s the playbook – is going to be … that people who are … just conservatives … are going to begin to get labeled as potential insurrectionists and … harassed by law enforcement.”
Since the potential for corruption lies in each human heart, the remedy is for citizens to exercise eternal vigilance.
President Andrew Jackson, who took a bullet in a duel defending his wife’s honor, stated in his Farewell Address, March 4, 1837:
“But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty …
You must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing … therefore … be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government.”
Abolitionist Frederick Douglass wrote in The North Star newspaper, March 17, 1848:
“‘The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.’ It can only be maintained by a sacred regard for the rights of all men.”
Irish politician John Philpot Curran (1750-1817) wrote:
“The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance … which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence.”
Follow on:
William J. Federer video & audio
Schedule Bill Federer for informative interviews & captivating PowerPoint presentations: 314-502-8924 wjfederer@gmail.com
American Minute is a registered trademark of William J. Federer. Permission is granted to forward, reprint, or duplicate, with acknowledgment.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.