The election is over. The result: Insiders 1, Americans 0.

But the battle for freedom continues.

One of the chief tasks facing our members will be combating the discouragement of basically good citizens, especially activists, with Obama as president-elect.

The reality is that no matter who would have won, we would still have work to do, since there is little difference between where either gentleman would take the nation.

As an example of this reality, one of the little known facts about McCain is that he was in serious negotiations with top Democrats just before the campaign four years ago. He actually considered switching parties. Senators Daschle and Kerry spent a good deal of time in the process and would not have done so unless they felt McCain was seriously leaning their way.

Victory by either candidate would have presented problems for American liberty. It is rather like comparing two hit-men for the Insiders. One uses a .45 Obama, and the other a .22 McCain with a silencer.

When the .45 is the weapon of choice, everyone hears it immediately, notices its results, and calls 911. When the .22 with a silencer is employed, those who notice it are very few until it is used over a period of time with a lot of damage being done.

The .45 will awaken and rally the neighborhood. The silent .22 won’t even get them out of bed until their alarm clock goes off.

Our purpose here is not to encourage or discourage partisan politics, but to dwell on a couple of facts:

1. Partisan politics is only a general reflection of the strength of the Americanist movement working to combat Insider control.
2. There exists a vast number of citizens who either reject the major candidates or who don’t vote at all.

It may not be completely obvious, but we have made a great deal of headway this past year. Most people look at elections; we look at the growth of the forces united to turn this country around. There have been many plusses in recent months.

Elections are certainly a barometer measuring the state of mind and heart of the electorate, but the results can be very misleading, especially when the candidates do not discuss the real issues. This election, the issue was "change." That is what they voted for.

However, there are people who do not vote for a wide variety of reasons. Not the least of which is that they do not see how they can change the outcome, and/or they have no one they can really support. Rather, they have not heard of anyone they can support.

One does not have to look much further than the numbers voting versus the number of citizens and compare them. There is usually a wide disparity between those eligible to vote and those who do cast a ballot. In some non-presidential elections, only 2–4 percent of the population will elect a candidate.

Even when there is a high voter turnout, such as this last election, many are voting for the lesser of two evils rather than someone they can really support. This occurs especially because of the primary and caucus processes. At this level, the political party is more in control than people realize. The real numbers deciding who the candidate will be are very small.

We predict that as the real Obama agenda starts to be revealed, many who voted for change will regret their vote and it will be hard for them to want to vote again since it will appear that it is futile. They will become discouraged when they see that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

All of these facts are a clue for what we can do to change things.

The point is that in the long run the odds are not that great against us, simply because the people who really make things happen are not that many.

Also, even though we are given the idea that the average American votes based on what’s in it for him, this is not quite accurate — yet. It is true that there are massive voter registration drives designed to capture this sentiment, but it has been far less successful than the socialists would like. There has been voter fraud attempting to use this sentiment around the country. It will grow unless we work to stop it.

The average voter usually votes for the lesser of two evils since the Insiders have a lock on the two major parties. They will do everything they can to make sure that candidates acceptable to them survive the primaries.

Professor Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton’s mentor at Georgetown University, said it all in his book Tragedy and Hope:

... the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.

He continued:

... it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which…will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.

This has been the strategy of the Insiders all along.

It is hard to suppress the desire to document fully the origins of the two major parties by the Insiders here, but it would take too much time and space. For the time being, please accept my assurance that the enemies of our Constitution and liberty founded both parties.

A clue to this is that both parties started with the same name: Republican. The first Republicans changed their name over a few years from Republican to Democratic-Republican to Democrat.

A proper study of history will reveal that the term Democrat was used to denote what became known as socialist. Our Founder Robert Welch wrote about this fact on more than one occasion. The term republican denoted a virulent revolutionary.

Do not confuse these terms with the difference between a republic and a democracy. We are talking, not about governments, but the actions and definitions of people, and the names put on them by the Insiders. Other terms such as federalist were used to denote an adherent of liberty and an adherent of our republican system. These persons opposed the very idea of violence as a means of change.

And, never forget that our enemies have always had a way of using semantics as a weapon. They use words that sound good, or they twist the meanings of words.

Over ensuing decades, the parties presented a liberal or conservative face based on what was needed for the voter to elect their candidate, not what the reality was of those in control of the parties. Presidents were elected, but key cabinet positions in the 20th Century were held by Council on Foreign Relations members regardless of the party in power.

Norman Thomas, the head of the Socialist Party for decades, said this in 1953 after years of Democratic administrations:

... here in America more measures once praised or denounced as socialist have been adopted than once I should have thought possible short of a socialist victory at the polls.

Not to neglect the Republicans, Norman Thomas said in 1958:

The United States is making greater strides toward Socialism under Eisenhower than even under Roosevelt, particularly in the fields of federal spending and welfare legislation.

But, the Insiders don’t always control the parties completely. In the 20th Century, the best example of them losing their clout is the nomination of Barry Goldwater in 1964.

What occurred then is not only an instance where the Insiders cannot control every nomination, it is a great example of where a small, dedicated, informed, organized, and enthusiastic number of patriots can get the job done.

I was involved in the Draft Goldwater movement in 1963. From a vantage point in my area of the world once I became a member of our Society, it was obvious that members of The John Birch Society were the impetus behind the Goldwater nomination. I did not realize this until I learned who some of the members were while I worked with them on our Society’s agenda.

As we all know, The John Birch Society is not partisan, never recommending or raising money for candidates or parties. But our members do get involved in partisan politics — as should all Americans.

Political action can be frustrating. The solution is building the base of understanding within our communities and then the political action simply becomes an extension of that understanding.

This is another clue for how we will change things.

Third parties offer a minority an opportunity to vote for someone as opposed to against someone. There is however, a major problem with the party concept as George Washington pointed out in his brilliant Farewell Address. More problems exist in the operation and control of the parties.

Many put all their faith in third parties. But as soon as some good people get a third party rolling, creating a base that will threaten the Insiders, the Insiders will send in trained operatives to infiltrate the party and even finance it in order to gain control. They have done it more than once. The classic 20th Century example was the American Party. It was infiltrated and destroyed from within once it became a threat to the two major parties.

This is not to say that third parties are not good. It is just that when they become popular, they spell their own doom simply because they have become popular. Roberts Rules of Order will always be used by partisans who will bog down a party from within with petty squabbles. There will also be deliberate subversion within the party.

Infighting is a natural-born element of partisan politics. This is compounded by Insider moles who start internal factions and infighting over all sorts of issues. And, extreme candidates emerge helping the controlled media to tarbrush the third party.

This is another clue of what we need to do.

One point that we need to emphasize is that no matter what candidates say about various issues, particularly abortion or gun rights, if they hold membership in the CFR or advocate increasing foreign entanglements, they belie their positions. For in the long haul, if a candidate takes strong positions while simultaneously advocating something that will overrule those positions, then he is being less than honest with the voter.

This is particularly true considering the United Nations. No one can support the UN and state that they are opposed to abortion and support the Second Amendment. The reality is that the UN is the biggest supporter of gun confiscation and an intense ally of such organizations as Planned Parenthood.

Yet many voters do not always connect the dots and gain an understanding of the subterfuge. Particularly the conservative voter. They will applaud a candidate or politician who says he is pro-life or pro-gun and ignore the fact that he is pro-UN — or in favor of regional governments. This is a McCain.

This supplies another clue for what we have to do.

We know that the work of each of our members influences 100 votes for the most constitutionalist candidate in a congressional district. This has been proven to be the case in area after area. Recruit from 500 to 1,000 members of The John Birch Society in a Congressional District and a good representative gets elected. Oftentimes, this occurs with even fewer members in an off-year election.

It works this way as veteran members know: One member educates 10 people on the average. They in turn inform 10 each. In other instances, they educate and/or influence literally thousands.

We do not need to tell anyone who to vote for; citizens will be able to figure it out for themselves if they have enough understanding.

The converse is likewise true: If members feel that they have done their job after a constitutionalist is elected and quit our Society, neglecting our educational agenda, the vote evaporates for the constitutionalist.

In either case, it takes time for the effect to have results.

This is the last clue about what we need to be doing.

In summary, election victories often do not result from the mass of potential voters, let alone the majority of the population. Build understanding through education with enough people, and the voting pattern changes. Plus, political parties are only an extension of the Insiders until enough informed people are organized and are determined to change this.

There is one exception that makes experience in The John Birch Society very important: You have to be able to recognize the enemy. Too many of our good friends cannot do this. They become overwhelmed in partisan politics as a result, get discouraged, and quit the movement entirely. This has happened several times over the past four decades. Moral or conservative movements have risen only to be frustrated by party politics.

There is only one solution. It is a hopeful solution. It is a simple solution. It is building The John Birch Society into a sizable organization in key states and doing so as rapidly as possible.

As an organization, we do not need to be involved in politics. As a natural course, with a wide range of membership, some of our members will only write letters but many of our people will be involved in their communities in all manner of ways: civic clubs, churches, youth movements, commercial clubs, even politics. The influence will permeate throughout the community as a result.

Over a short amount of time with the proper educational efforts tied to our agenda activities, we will spread a layer of understanding throughout various communities that will result in better representation from the cities and counties on up to the Congress. Once there is a good Congress, then we will have a good President. After all, the same people vote for both. We cannot have a good President until we do have a good Congress. Congress remains the key.

The positive results in such areas as Oklahoma this election demonstrate this concept. Our members there have built a solid base of understanding and built influence within a wide spectrum of opinion molders over several years. The results show it.

Over a short amount of time with the proper educational efforts tied to our agenda activities, we will spread a layer of understanding throughout various communities that will result in better representation from the cities and counties on up to the Congress. Once there is a good Congress, then we will have a good President. After all, the same people vote for both.

Congress remains the key for not only the goal of a better administration, it remains the key because if we mean to preserve the Constitution, we have to have individuals in Congress who demand that government adhere to the Constitution. The only way we can have that is if we have voters who demand it of their Congressman. And we are back to square one.

The future rests with the people, particularly opinion molders. And it doesn’t take that many in the general scheme of things. It is simply a matter of will and enthusiasm — and never giving up.

As one veteran member of our Society recently said to me, “All success comes from hard work. Do the hard work and you will have success.”

The John Birch Society has created a wide level of understanding over the years. Members often lament that we are not doing enough. They are right, but it is a matter of resources and being able to concentrate, focus on the important things, and not water down our efforts by diffusion or dispersal of our efforts. At the same time, many members do not realize the state of affairs we would be in if we had not been busy educating the American people over the past 50 years.

The next few years will require much from each of us. The agenda of Obama and Co. is very draconian and includes involuntary servitude for all students. It is, of course, called public service. It will be placed under the auspices of Homeland Security and history (particularly the history of the Third Reich) has shown us where this can lead.

We have set the Insiders back more than once. We continue to do so. We will win if we can muster enough resources to place field staff in key states as outlined in our Fall Appeal letter.

As Americans see what the government has in store, parents and businessmen will rally to our organization — if we take the pains to reach out to them, find the common ground and educate. Imagine the prosperity future generations would realize once freedom under the Constitution was once again restored.