Six thousands years of humans writing down history reveal that the most common form of government has been a monarchy.

The most powerful monarchy the world had ever seen was the globalist British monarchy.

The British Empire at it zenith 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.

In the British Empire, the most important “vote” was that of the King.

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.”

Americans did not like being ruled by the will of one man, who was, in a sense, a one-world government-type leader.

Americans separated from the British Empire in the Revolutionary War.

America’s founders set up a system where citizens control the government.

They insisted the Federal government be limited by a separation of powers and the Bill of Rights.

Soon other countries followed suite, rejecting their kings and replacing them with representatives elected by the “citizens.”

“Citizen” is a Greek word meaning co-ruler.

A representative form of government is called a republic.

In a republic, the citizens are the king, ruling through representatives.

When we pledge allegiance to the flag “and to the republic for which it stands,” we are pledging allegiance to us being in charge of ourselves.

When someone protests the flag, they are effectively saying, I do not want to be king anymore!

In colonial America, first landowners could vote, then those owning a certain amount of personal property.

After the Revolution, men without land or property could vote, provided they paid taxes.

During the Civil War, Republican President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which was followed by the Republican-controlled Congress pushing through the 15th Amendment assuring that freed slaves had the right to vote.

The momentum of 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.

One way is to have activist justices change the definition of existing words in the Constitution or Bill of Rights by broadening, expanding, or altering their meaning, thus effectively creating a new law from the bench.

This is an example of the will of a MINORITY (5 justices) being imposed on the MAJORITY, which is the classic definition of a tyranny.

The other way to change the Constitution is through the amendment process, which preserves the will of the people.

There have been 27 Amendments added to the Constitution.

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 the Amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the states, again maintaining that it is the will of the majority of the people.

In contrast to activist justices, the Amendment process insures Americans maintain 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.”

After World War I, it was the will of the majority of the MEN in America was 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.”

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, 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

Much later, some Islamic countries allowed 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 nations practicing Islamic Sharia Law, such as Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Brunei and ISIS controlled areas of Iraq and Syria.

The increase in the number of people voting gave rise to an increase in the number of ways to sway voters, including:

— media ignoring, censoring, or publishing “fake news” about a candidate;

— persuading more candidates to run to divide the opposing party’s voter base;

— using community organizers, agitators, and agent provocateurs to foment riots;

— race-baiting;

— fear-mongering;

— Antifa and Black Panther-type intimidation at polls;

— getting more voters to become dependent on government entitlement handouts;

— voting multiple times;

— street money to pay people to vote;

— psychological projection, where a candidate who secretly committed crimes publicly accuses their opponent of committing the exact crimes, thus putting their opponent on the defensive and muddying the waters so the public does not know who is telling the truth;

— “October Surprise” crises in the last week before the November elections: planned political attacks ads and mailers; saved up “shocking revelations” about a candidate are released;

— prepared “breaking news” stories to grab the headlines and disrupt the momentum of a winning candidate; or engineered financial distress and “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 altering search results;
— 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.

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.

China is implementing a “social credit” system to shame 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 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.

Since the potential for corruption lies in each human heart, the remedy is for citizens to exercise eternal vigilance.

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.”

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.”