Liberty (Photo credit: Joel Olives)
One of the fundamental motives for people to buy gold is distrust of government.
For some, that distrust is based on conspiracy theories and a belief in government’s malice. For example, some see the federal government’s order for over 2 billion rounds of ammunition for “domestic consumption” (that’s 7 rounds for every living American) as evidence that the gov-co plans to intentionally collapse the economy, seize everyone’s bank accounts and institute martial law.
Others, however, distrust gov-co based on government’s incompetence. I.e., they don’t believe that gov-co is conspiring to collapse the economy, seize everyone’s bank accounts and institute martial law. Instead, they believe economic collapse, seized bank accounts and martial law will be the inevitable consequences of a government that’s simply too stupid to avoid such collapse.
But, no matter whether you distrust the government because it’s villainous or incompetent, one of the best “hedges” against “bad” government is gold.
As the ranks of the distrustful swell, so should the demand for gold. As demand increases, so should price.
Three recent surveys show the number of Americans who distrust government to be rapidly growing.
• World Net Daily reports in “Americans Fear Government More than Terror,” that:
“According to a pair of recent polls, for the first time since the 9/11 terrorist hijackings, Americans are more fearful their government will abuse constitutional liberties than fail to keep citizens safe.”
Even after the Boston Marathon bombing—which killed three and wounded nearly 300—the polls indicate that many Americans are no longer willing to surrender their liberties in order gain increased “security.”
Fox News polled a random national sample of 619 registered voters the day after the Boston bombing and found Americans responded very differently than after 9/11:
“For the first time since a similar question was asked in May 2001 [before the 9/11 attacks], more Americans answered ‘no’ to the question, ‘Would you be willing to give up some of your personal freedom in order to reduce the threat of terrorism?’
“In May 2001, before 9/11, 40 percent answered no (they would not surrender more freedoms) to 33 percent answering yes (they would surrender more freedoms).
“But after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the numbers flipped dramatically, to 71 percent agreeing to sacrifice personal freedom to reduce the threat of terrorism.”
[But] “Of those surveyed on April 16, 2013, 45 percent answered no to the question, compared to 43 percent answering yes
For conspiracy theorists who believe that 9/11 was orchestrated by our government rather than Muslim terrorists, these surveys are evidence that the “false flag” 9/11 attacks worked. I.e., the 9/11 attacks more than doubled the percentage of Americans willing to voluntarily surrender their liberty from 33% to 71%.
In retrospect, that doubling was shameful insofar as it reminds us of Benjamin Franklin’s warning that, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Regardless of whether 9/11 was perpetrated by Muslim radicals or government fascists, too many American agreed to surrender their liberties, and thereby helped dramatically expand America’s police state.
Fox News continued, reporting that after the first post-9/11 poll in A.D. 2001,
“. . . subsequent polls asking the same question in 2002, 2005 and 2006 found most Americans consistently willing to give up freedom in exchange for security. Yet the numbers declined from 71 percent following 9/11 to only 54 percent by May 2006.”
On one level, it’s bad news that any Americans would be willing to surrender their liberties for security.
But the good news is that after the initial shock of 9/11, Americans have grown increasingly unwilling to surrender their liberty for some alleged security. Prior to the 9/11 attack, only 33% were willing to trade liberty for security. After 9/11, 71% would welcome the police state to protect them from terrorists. Today, just 43% would opt for greater “security” (a police state).
The adverse effects of 9/11 have been almost completely erased from the public psyche. Laws like the Patriot Act (passed in A.D. 2001) could not be passed today. If the number of Americans rejecting the police state’s security and opting for liberty continues to grow, the Patriot Act might even be repealed in the next few years.
More, it’s interesting to note that while the 9/11 attacks doubled the number of people willing to surrender their liberties, the Boston Marathon bombing seemed have little or no effect. Having seen three large buildings fall and a hole punched in the Pentagon on 9/11, perhaps Americans are no longer impressed by a mere pressure cooker bomb in Boston.
Suppose that were true. Suppose it were true that government rather than Muslims, was the real culprit behind 9/11. Then it would follow that if some element the government wanted to once again inspire the public’s fear and willingness to surrender their freedoms, the government would have to orchestrate a terrorist event much greater than 9/11. In order to sufficiently impress and motivate Americans to surrender more freedoms, there’d probably have to be several significant “terrorist” attacks that took place simultaneously in several different American cities.
But even then, would the American people again surrender more freedoms?
• The Fox News poll analyzed the responses by political affiliation. Of today’s Democrats polled, 51% of would give up personal freedom to reduce the threat of terror, compared to 36% opposed. Among Democrats there’s a strong preference for security rather than liberty.
Of Republicans polled, 43% would agree to surrender freedoms in exchange for security while 47% would not. Thus, Republicans were more or less evenly divided on the issue of freedom vs. security.
However, of independents responding, only 29% were willing to sacrifice freedom, while 58% were opposed. Thus, the majority of independent voters favor of liberty and oppose the alleged “security” of an overt police state.
If independents are the “swing vote” in the A.D.2014 election, it may be that the party or candidates who are most opposed to a growing police state may win the independents’ votes.
• The Washington Post recently conducted a similar poll:
“‘Which worries you more,’ the Post asked, ‘that the government will not go far enough to investigate terrorism because of concerns about constitutional rights, or that it will go too far in compromising constitutional rights in order to investigate terrorism?’
“The poll found 48 percent of respondents worry the government will go too far, compared to 41 percent who worry it won’t go far enough.”
Again, we see evidence of America’s growing distaste for the police state. That growth could be a primary issue in next year’s elections.
• CNSNews.com reports (“Poll: 29% of Registered Voters Believe Armed Revolution Might Be Necessary in Next Few Years”) that,
“Twenty-nine percent of registered voters think that an armed revolution might be necessary in the next few years in order to protect liberties, according to a Public Mind poll by Fairleigh Dickinson University.”
What a mind-boggling result! 29% of registered American voters believe that a shooting revolution might soon be necessary to protect our freedoms from our own government!
Think of it! Almost one American in three believes that government has gone, or will soon go, too far to reduce our freedoms and may have to be stopped with gunfire. One in three!
“The poll, focused on both gun control and the possibility of a need for an armed revolution in the United States to protect liberty.
“The survey asked whether respondents agreed, disagreed, neither agreed nor disagreed or did not know or refused to respond to the statement: ‘In the next few years, an armed revolution might be necessary in order to protect our liberties.’”
29% agreed, 47% disagreed, 18% neither agreed nor disagreed, 5% said they were unsure, and 1% refused to answer. A majority of Americans apparently doubt that an armed revolution may soon be necessary. But a significant minority (one in three) believe that an armed revolution could be coming.
(I guarantee that most of the 29% who anticipate a shooting revolution are, or will soon be, in the market for gold. Why? Because that 29% must distrust government, and distrust of government is a primary motive for buying gold.)
This Public Mind poll also tracked results according to political party affiliation. Those who believed that a shooting revolution might soon take place were 18% of Democrats, 27% of Independents and 44% of Republicans.
More, the poll found that 62% of those who believe a revolution might be necessary reject additional gun control legislation compared to 38% of those who doubt that an armed revolt will take place.
“Dan Cassino, a professor of political science at Fairleigh Dickinson and analyst for the poll, says:
“‘The differences in views of gun legislation are really a function of differences in what people believe guns are for. If you truly believe an armed revolution is possible in the near future, you need weapons and you’re going to be wary about government efforts to take them away.”
Exactly. The purpose for the 2nd Amendment is implied in the “Preamble to the Bill of Rights” which explains the primary purpose for all ten Amendments comprising the Bill of Rights. That purpose was to prevent the “misconstruction or abuse” of the “powers” of the Constitution.
I have no “powers” under the Constitution. The only people who have “powers” under the Constitution are our federal politicians, appointed officials and employees.
Thus, the true purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not to protect the right go duck hunting, deer hunting or target shooting. The right to keep and bear arms is not even intended to protect us against robbers, rapists or other “private” assailants. It’s only intended to protect us against our own federal government.
That purpose undoubtedly sounds radical and perhaps even too fantastic to believe to most people. But if you Google “Preamble to the Bill of Rights” you’ll find that document, and if you read closely, you’ll see that the purpose for the Bill of Rights—including the 2nd Amendment—was to prevent “misconstruction or abuse” of the “powers” of the Constitution.
I doubt that many Americans understand the Founders’ express purpose for the Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment). And yet, here we see a Public Mind survey indicating that, 29% of Americans anticipate a shooting revolution may soon be required and therefore want to hang onto their firearms. I’m fascinated by that number. 29% of us seem to intuitively grasp the 2nd Amendment’s express purpose: fighting a corrupt and treasonous federal government.
• Those who distrust government can find some encouragement the three, previously-mentioned surveys.
Those of us who distrust government typically think of ourselves as being virtually alone in their anti-government sentiments. Those who distrust government tend to think of themselves as only a tiny minority. As such, we tend to keep our sentiments to ourselves because we’re too embarrassed to speak out and be thought of as some sort of “kook”.
But the three recent polls indicate that roughly one-third of all adult Americans also distrust and even fear the federal government. That distrust and fear is sufficient to cause one-third to believe a shooting revolution may soon be required to protect our liberties from our own government.
I’m not saying they’re right.
But I am saying that if one-third of Americans are so distrustful of government that they anticipate a shooting revolution, then there are nearly 100 million Americans who already believe that government has gone too far—and plans to go further—down the road into a police state and overt tyranny.
Thus, 100 million Americans are aware of, or at least sympathetic to, the principle expressed in the Declaration of Independence that “. . . when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
100 million.
We are not alone. The ideas, attitudes and concerns shared on this newsletter and hundreds more like it are not only proliferating but are far more common than most people imagine. Those of us who distrust the government and fear for our nation’s future are not the “lunatic fringe”. We are mainstream and growing stronger.
We are winning.
We are winning the war for the hearts and minds of the American people. The momentum is in our favor. The three polls cited tell us that the government is losing public confidence.
Those of you who distrust government needn’t be afraid to speak out on your concerns about liberties lost to the growing police state. Those of us who distrust government may not yet be in the majority, but we are far too numerous to be ignored or easily ridiculed.
The only thing that restricts our ability to stop the police state is our lack of awareness of the true potency and popularity of the principles we advocate and the true strength of the “movement” to once again limit government and restore Liberty. So long as we think of ourselves as a tiny minority, we’re going nowhere. But, once we begin to see that we are a major segment in society (and soon, a majority), we’ll start to act like it, stop apologizing for our seemingly small size, and begin to take control. Once we take control, we can begin right this government.
If the three polls previously presented are accurate, they imply that the A.D. 2014 election may turn on the issue of Liberty. If so, candidates opposed to the police state and even a third political party devoted to the restoration of Liberty could win in A.D. 2014.
(And somewhere down the line—maybe not so long from now—there might even be trials for treason.)