Noting that freedom of speech, the ability to express publicly one’s political or religious views without fear of reprisal of government entities, is one of the keystones of freedom. Thomas Jefferson weighed it even more seriously. “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.”
One of the most alarming Acts that was passed in early America was President John Adams’ Alien and Sedition Act which specifically outlawed “conspiracies” that opposed “any measure or measures of government” and also forbade “any false, scandalous and malicious writing against the Congress or the president.”
Jefferson rightly fought against these totalitarian measures and subsequently defeated John Adams as president. Freedom of Speech is a cornerstone of liberty itself.
It is with great alarm therefore, that today we witness the crushing of freedom of speech by Big Tech companies such as Google, Amazon, and Apple and the outlets such as Facebook and Twitter. Felix Salmon at Axios wrote that, “Tech giants including Facebook, Google, Amazon and Twitter have moved to quiet Trump and the far right.” “The country’s CEO’s in general, and its tech CEO’s in particular, have found themselves capable of projecting their power into the White House in way that was both successful and unprecedented.”
Big Tech is a permanent political force, observes Luis Miguel, wielding awesome power – for the left. It can almost be considered a Fourth Branch of Government.
Gad Saad, writing in his new book, The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas are Killing Common Sense, dispels a common myth—that Big Tech companies are “private” and therefore ought to be able to censor whom they like. “Social media companies are not the government,” goes the reasoning. “They have a right to choose which content will be carried on their platforms.”
Saad responds. “In a sane world, this would be a laughable position to hold, and yet it is endlessly repeated without any reflection on its nefarious implications. Google, YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter have more global control over us than all other companies combined. It is not hyperbole to say that they have more collective power, in terms of the information they control, than all the rulers, priests, and politicians of history.”
“Big tech companies routinely ban right-leaning commentators, but of course this is all an unfortunate ‘algorithmic coincidence.’ What could be more sinister?”
To see the point, Saad illustrates. “Just as your electricity or phone line is not shut off if the electric company or phone company doesn’t like what you say, social media platforms should not be in the business of monitoring and punishing speech.”
To claim that these Big Tech companies are “private businesses” and should be free from government restraint also overlooks some fundamental facts. Big Tech receives “government subsidies, contracts, tax benefits, and regulations that keep smaller entrepreneurs from creating viable competitors,” observes Luis Miguel. “This can be seen today—when the establishment saw conservatives flocking to Twitter-alternative Parler, it wasn’t long before Amazon, Google and Apple colluded to shut the platform down.”
In short, the Main Stream Media and government itself—via Big Tech—is touting censorship against the American people. If free speech disappears, even under the guise of “monitoring misinformation,” liberty is lost.
That love of order and obedience to the laws, which so remarkably characterize the citizens of the United States, are sure pledges of internal tranquility—Thomas Jefferson.
The disintegration of America is happening before us in slow motion. We are witnessing the complete erosion or our society by violence and mayhem, deliberately brought about by leftist policies that are completely hamstringing not only law-enforcement, but the entire adjudication process as well. In this wake, smash-and-grab gangs of mostly black thugs are now smashing store windows in major cities and robbing merchants blind.
One area where this is particularly harmful is found in dealing with criminal behavior among the black-communities of America. Running from the slur “racism,” the majority-culture has allowed soft-on-crime policies to go unchecked when it comes to minorities. From the school-house to the court-house, to the open-border sponsored by the Biden Administration, a consistent enforcement of rules is a thing of past.
Heather Mac Donald
Heather Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute. She is also a best-selling author of many books on cultural issues as well as contributing editor of City Journal. She appeared as a guest on the Tucker Carlson show (guest-hosted by Brian Kilmeade) a few days ago and offered what I consider to be the best “in-a-nutshell” analysis of what is going on in America. Below is the transcription I made.
They were discussing specifically the ending of “cash-bail” for minorities, particularly in light of the Christmas parade homicides committed by Darrell Brooks, Jr. in Waukesha, WI on Nov. 23. Heather Mac Donald speaks first about the growing lawlessness in our society.
She mentions “disparate impact.” This is the concept that policies and procedures and rules appear to have a “disproportionate” impact on minority groups. The assumption is that more blacks are incarcerated, or ticketed, for example, because whites are racist in application of the law. Mac Donald shows that this is nonsense.
Heather: “Brian, we are witnessing the disintegration of civilization right before our eyes. When massive numbers of individuals know that they can rampage through stores, plundering and looting, confidant of their immunity from the law, there is nothing left of the civilized order. The protection of property is the cornerstone of a stable, prosperous society. Merchants have to know they can put their goods in the stream of commerce without being robbed blind.
“Now, the common thread in the shameful looting, in the Waukesha Christmas parade murders, and rising gun violence, is the concept of disparate impact. And unless that concept is explicitly refuted and rejected there’s no way we are going to get a handle on this rising crime.
“The reason that felony theft laws are not being enforced, and the reason Darrell Brooks was put back onto the streets despite an active warrant and a 50-page rap sheet is because enforcing theft laws, … requiring bail, has a disparate impact on blacks.”
Continuing, she adds, “But law enforcement has a disparate impact on blacks, not because its racist, but because the black crime-rate is so high.
“But when you stop enforcing the law in order to avoid disparate impact its blacks who are hurt the most.”
Brian: “Look at the stats; raw numbers. More Blacks are committing crimes than other minority groups, than whites.” “That’s why the arrests are greater and that’s why they are more in jail. Is that what you are saying?”
Heather: “Absolutely. Law enforcement is a function of criminality. It is not driven by racism. The blacks die from homicide at 13 times the rate of whites, that’s because they are committing homicides at 13 times the rate of whites. In NYC, … blacks commit about 75% of all shootings, … even though they are only 23% of the population.” “Whites commit less than 2% of all shootings though they are 34% of the population.”
“So, the solution here is not to stop enforcing the law. That means more mayhem, more deaths. The solution is to tackle – despite what Chesa Boudin (San Francisco DA) thinks is the root cause of crime … he would say poverty and racism—the root cause of inner-city crime is family breakdown.” “As long as that problem goes unaddressed our only solution is to enforce the law in a color-blind just fashion.”
In response to an article posted several years ago, one wrote me with this sour note: I am sick of this god stuff! The original piece is entitled “Where does the Constitution mention God?” The letter-writer included several alleged quotes from Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and Washington that supposedly put the kibosh on the idea that the founding fathers had any recourse to God or biblical principles when crafting our nation. But, as is common with atheists or those “sickened with god stuff,” their energy would be better served to learn the real principles of our Constitution as well as the Bible.
Modernists love to chide that the founders could not have been genuine Christians in light of some of their own statements which seem to decry Christianity itself, or in their toleration and practice of slavery. But the entire issue does not turn on whether or not any or all of them were actually faithful Christians. Rather, did the framers of our nation rely upon Christian concepts in forging our nation? Personal weaknesses or mistakes of the founders only show that all men have sinned.
Another salient but frequently avoided fact is that the founding generation of Americans warned continually of the errors of the Roman Catholic Church, from which their own fathers had fled to find freedom on the shores of the New World.
Thus, many statements which Thomas Jefferson or other founders made–for example, decrying religious bondage– had more often to do with Catholicism than New Testament Christianity. That they were not precise in their delineations is not to be taken to say that they feared pure Christianity.
For example, read what Thomas Jefferson wrote to Benjamin Rush in April of 1803. Jefferson refers to himself as “a Christian” in distinction to the “corruptions of Christianity.” “To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other.”
Jefferson many times referred to religious doctrines that did not originate in the Bible, but in the chair of Rome.
It is also interesting that the booklet which Jefferson put together of Jesus’ teachings he himself advertised as proof that he was a “real Christian” and that those who referred to him as an “infidel” were wholly in error and motivated by doctrines which Jesus Christ Himself did not inspire. The following is from Jefferson’s letter to Charles Thomson:
“I too have made a wee little book, from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus. It is a paradigm of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen. It is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel, and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what it’s Author never said nor saw. They have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great reformer of the vicious ethics and deism of the Jews, were he to return on earth, would not recognize one feature.”
To modern unbelievers who find offense in Christianity, we quote the words of Christ, “go learn what this means.” That is, instead of scouring the writings of the founders to discover a godless phrase or two, let them teach you the significance of Christianity and its beneficent influence on our nation.
America was founded as a Christian Nation. This is not “Christian Nationalism” as the modern attack mischaracterizes. It refers to the fact that the principles of Christianity are those which undergirded our nation. John Adams wrote, “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were … the general principles of Christianity … I will avow that I then believed, and now believe that these general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
Patrick Henry was even more forthright. “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, people of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom to worship here.”
Benjamin Morris, a second-generation American, having thoroughly surveyed the founding generation for these same ideals, summarized it this way. “Christianity is the principle and all-pervading element, the deepest and most solid foundation, of all our civil institutions. It is the religion of the people—the national religion; but we have neither an established church nor an established religion.” Some of the founders even referred to America as a “Christian Republic” because they considered our form of government to be an outgrowth of Christianity and freedom.
It would be well for modern professorships and their blind followers to actually study what the founders had in mind on this topic rather than being so jaundiced against Christianity and the Bible. Perhaps that would keep them from “being sick.”
Anyone who has witnessed either a community or a church tearing apart because of rumors, gossip, innuendo’s and idle talk can testify to the fact these types of troubles sometimes take on a life of their own. The general feeling is that, at some point, as situations become more aggravated, one cannot stop it. Whatever may be the initial cause and regardless of how that problem may have become settled by the initial participants, the issues continue to live. This is simply human nature.
It is for this reason that Jesus commanded, “Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are with him in the way; lest haply the adversary delivers you to the judge, the judge delivers you to the officer, and you are cast into prison” (Matt. 5:25). Simply put, if possible, do not allow differences to grow.
The principle is the same with the nature of government, since government is only comprised of fallible humans. The very reason our Founders insisted upon a small government is not only because all of human history demonstrates suffering of individuals at the hands of their own political leaders, but that governing systems that become too large with power gravitating to a central office are unable to be effectively controlled by individuals—in spite of the fact that it is to be “of, by, and for the people.” It is individual freedom that they were after.
Thomas Jefferson bluntly observed that he wanted government simple. “I am for government rigorously frugal and simple.” As far back as 1824, he criticized the size of our government. “I think, myself, that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.” This was not merely personal preference. It was wisdom speaking.
Carelessly casting aside the warnings of the Founders, Americans have allowed all power to coalesce to Washington, D.C. The impediments placed in the Constitution by the Founders to forestall the growth of power are antiquated relics of dusty history. And the sociology of the situation is such that this gigantic leviathan that we have suffered to rule now takes on a life of its own. Some call it The Deep State. Others, The Establishment. Still others referred to it as The Shadow Government.
Whatever label we might put upon it, there is clearly a legion of government bureaucrats deeply buried within the halls of government. These bureaucrats are totalitarian in nature, communist in orientation, and pound out numberless rules, regulations, decrees to control the lives of once-free Americans. It is a fantasy that our elected leaders are in control.
Consider the presidency of Donald Trump and only one small sampling of the Deep State at work.
We now learn that the Justice Department, and specifically its investigative arm, the FBI, while Trump was the chief executive officer of the United States, illegally surveilled Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani during his conversations with Trump on iCloud. This occurred during the manufactured “Russiagate” scandal—pressed by Democrats and the MSM.
Not only was the entire “Russiagate” a red herring, born and bred within the inner recesses of our own government, but the Justice Department itself acted in Mao-like fashion against its own sitting president. Here is the totalitarian “permanent state” or cabal working to destroy Trump from within.
Siding with the rogue FBI is the MSM—The New York Times, The Washington Post, and NBC News—who have now been forced to retract incorrect stories about Rudy Guiliani. They all falsely reported that he had been briefed about the “Russian intelligence influence operation” that had supposedly targeted him. Never mind the clear evidence that was on the table involving the entire Biden syndicate in laundering money from foreign nations. Go punish Guiliani and Trump.
Now more. Within the last two weeks federal investigators carried out a search warrant at the home and office of Guiliani because of his alleged ties to Ukraine — all based upon incorrect information (see Epoch Times, 5-2-21).
Alan Dershowitz, a constitutional lawyer, openly stated that the FBI’s raid on Guiliani’s apartment violated the Constitution. “This was just a misuse of the search and seizure power. Initially, it was turned down; now it was approved, both by a judge and by the attorney general of the United States, so it wasn’t lawless action, but I believe that they acted inconsistently with both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution and that there should be remedies of it.”
Kash Patel, the lawyer from Queens, New York, who served in senior posts during Trump’s Administration, including senior advisor to the Director of National Intelligence, is also facing a “Justice Department investigation.” Patel had assisted Rep. David Nunes’s investigation of crimes and abuses committed during the FBI’s operation targeting the Trump campaign. He had helped uncover the Democratic-led hoax called “Russiagate.” This is too much for the Democratic-controlled government. Patel is facing payback–an “official” Justice Department investigation.
Apparently, Donald Trump was president “on paper only.” Americans have lost control of their government. The Swamp has always ruled, and now with the Biden Administration they are ensuring no one like Trump will ever take office again. Government “of, by, and for the people” has indeed “perished from the earth” – at least for now.
Psalm 58 is David’s passionate prayer about corrupt judges (political leaders) who devastate and destroy the righteous by unjust public laws and regulations. The first verse reads, “Do you indeed decree what is right, you gods?”The question implies a “no” answer, just as v. 2 states, “No in your hearts you devise wrongs … your hands deal out violence on the earth.”
Here, the Hebrew Bible refers to civic leaders and judges as “gods,” just as does Psalm 82:6. What about this reference to political or civic rulers as “gods?”
In Psalm 82:6, Jesus makes clear that these judges are so called because “to them the Word of God came.” That is, they were inspired of God. The explanation here, however, “lies in the conception of such power as bestowed by God, and in some sense a delegation of His attribute …” This is to say that leaders, popularly elected by a democratic process or not, are invested with such authority as to enable them to be entrusted with God’s blessings of my liberty. To oversee that my freedom is protected and guarded in the civic sphere.
This is why Thomas Jefferson referred to the official obligations of political leaders as guarding “the sacred deposit” entrusted to them. What is the “sacred deposit?” Nothing less than the “rights and liberties of their fellow citizens.” For this same reason John Adams referred to politics as a “divine science.”
Cicero was an ancient Roman writer before Christ whom our Founding Fathers loved to quote. Remarkably, Cicero was able to see this same principle clearly enough in spite of his pagan environment. Regarding the function of civic rulers Cicero observed: “For there is really no other occupation in which human virtue approaches more closely the function of the gods than that of founding new States or preserving those already in existence.”
Old Testament scholar John Goldingay summarizes this well. “When the New Testament talks about these dynamics, it sometimes refers to powers and authorities … in a way that might suggest that there is something supernatural about them.”.
In sum, elected leaders in American society are actually invested with authority by the people that empower them to operate in positions which, in some ways, make them spokesmen of God. Hence, the Bible’s reference to them as “gods.”
Does This Reference Shield Leaders from Criticism?
Some suppose that, because the New Testament commands “honor the king” (1 Pet. 2:17), that critical review of a political leader or his or her policies, is off-limits to the Christian. Nothing could be further from the truth.
David was struck with deep sorrow regarding the leadership of Israel at the time of composing this Psalm. His prayer to God (Psalm 58) recognizes the reality that the forces of government were anything but honorable. Instead, their decisions were not founded upon any law, nor supported by any principle of justice! Because of this, his language is sharp, strong and even harsh.
Not only did these leaders not “exercise authority uprightly” (v. 1), but “with their mind” they “devise acts of wrongdoing in the country.”
Where leadership of a nation lacks sound principles of honor and personal integrity, the people suffer. “ … their rulers do not rule in a way that gives priority to integrity an concern for the people.”Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
“With their hearts they devise wrongs” and with their “hands” they “deal out violence” (v. 2). There is no justice in their policies. “Their poison,” or speech proceeding from their mouths, is “like the venom from a snake; like a “cobra that has stopped its ears” (v. 4). In the ancient world there were persons that charmed, lulled into inactivity, serpents, so as to prevent them from biting.
The singer of Israel then prays (v. 6-8) that God would “smash the teeth in their mouth and break the fangs of the lions.” Not a pretty picture of the wicked character of political leaders. They are like “lions,” tearing apart their prey (the people) by their unrighteous policies. In the position of “gods,” yet acting like hungry lions (see also Isa. 5:29).
It is reflecting upon these types of Psalms that our Founding Fathers insisted that, if we wish to enjoy God’s temporal blessings on the earth, leaders need to exhibit personal virtue and morality. But this is exactly what we do not have. Instead, like David’s lament, we have an American government filled with wicked people that “devise wrongs”, “deal out violence” by their policies, “speak lies,” and spew out “venom like that of a serpent,” and shreds apart the country “like lions.”
Consider two broad facts that demonstrate this. These two facts are the unjust, immoral and unconstitutional establishment of a Welfare State, while at the same time opening the Border to allow invasion of our nation.
The initial sin is the diabolical Welfare State by which the fruits of one’s labor becomes stolen property by ruling forces so they may redistribute to the poorer. In this bribery fashion followers of the Democrat Socialist Party pretend to be assisting the poor! Non-thinkers suppose Joe Biden is actually aiding people.
The second sin is the wicked policy of Open Borders which invites the entire world to be supported by the American taxpayer via this Welfare State. These two political legacies, working in tandem, will end America as we have known it.
It is ironic that powerful people in office, such as the Joe Biden’s, are compared by inspired David to deadly poisonous snakes that refuse to listen to any reasonable voice that tries to stop them from injecting their venom into the populace.
One other note needs be made here. It is the solid link between:
Character and Conduct
This is an important feature in human composition that cannot be overlooked.
Steven J. Lawsonnotes that:
An inseparable connection exists between a person’s character and his conduct. The former is the source of the latter. Some people claim that a leader’s private life does not matter, that we should be concerned only about his public performance. But what a leader is internally will always show up externally. This is the focus of Psalm 58.
The key lesson to remember about the Psalm, however, is this. David gives a scathing indictment of unjust rulers. Their hands meted out violence and injustice. Their words were as “venom” and they spoke like “snake charmers” (58:5). But David, nor any inspired spokesman, called upon men to take matters into their own hands. Instead, leave vengeance to the Lord. Recognize and call out the evil—but let the Lord settle the accounts.
Thomas Jefferson warned us that the Supreme Court itself had the potential to distort the original intent of the Founders by using “Judicial Review.” He saw that the Court might begin creating law instead of merely interpreting the laws passed by the legislature and applying them in the cases that came before it. Late in life he wrote:
It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression … that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body, (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed; because, when all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.
While there are certainly other factors involved in America’s decline from its original constitutional model, Jefferson’s admonition strikes at the heart of the issues involved today.
With the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and President Trump’s constitutional role in filling that vacancy, the war that is shaping up in Washington, D.C. is ominous. Showing complete disdain for our Constitution, the frenzied left is promising such outlandish measures as bringing impeachment charges against our president solely for the purpose of hindering him from doing his Constitutional duty.
Let’s look, however, behind the mayhem to see the foundational issues involved.
One rude and reckless blogger posted this on Facebook. “With justice Ginsberg passing today, all my female and minority friends better vote like your life depends upon it … these … Republicans are going to have you barefoot and in the kitchen with zero rights over your genitals and put minorities ‘back in their place’ in society …!!”
It is difficult to imagine a more frantic and ignorant statement than this. But it does highlight some major erroneous thought processes that live on the socialist left. Before noting them it is worth mentioning that the comment above focuses upon the issue of abortion. That is noteworthy because it is the lefties and socialists in America who like to say, “You conservatives are a ONE ISSUE group of people—always mentioning abortion!” In point of fact, that is inaccurate—however, surrounding the war pertaining to Ginsberg’s replacement, just who is riveting attention to one single issue? The Liberal Left.
Judicial Supremacy is a “radical over-extension”, indeed, perversion – “of the legitimate doctrines of ‘judicial review and stare decisis (‘to stand by matters that have been settled’). In brief, the modern doctrine of “judicial supremacy” is as follows: (1) That the Supreme Court has the authority to construe the Constitution in issues that come before the Court and that that meaning of the Constitution, instead of applying only against the parties that come before the Court, applies against everyone in the country situated in similar circumstances.
(2) That an opinion of the Supreme Court can only be modified or cancelled by a later opinion of the Supreme Court or by a formal amendment to the Constitution.
(3) Nothing can be done to any justice of the Court as a consequence of any opinion handed down, no matter how fraudulent or willfully false it may be.
(4) Most importantly: Judicial Supremacy assumes that the meaning of the Constitution’s provisions are: (i) largely unknown and even unknowable, unless that provision becomes illuminated by the Supreme Court itself; (ii) politically plastic, in that the meaning of those provisions can, and even should, change from time to time as the Supreme Court deems advisable.
What Shall We Say to These Things?
Like liberal views of the Bible, so these views of the Constitution and of the role of the Supreme Court land us in nothing less than an oligarchy whereby we are ruled by a board of nine judges—not the Constitution itself. And in case of a 5-4 decision by the Court, the fate of the nation can be decided by only one single judge. Little wonder therefore, that the Political War of 2020 is heightening.
First, the Constitution had a Definite Meaning Before the Supreme Court was Formed. The Constitution and all of its provisions were well known by the people much before the Supreme Court was formed. The Constitution was ratified in 1788 and the Bill of Rights in 1791. However, the Supreme Court was not formed until 1789 and the first cases reached it in August of 1791. In other words, the Supreme Court did not even exist when the Constitution was ratified. Are we to believe that it was passed and ratified by “We the People” but that they had no idea as to its meaning until nine black-robed justices began handing down decisions?
Further, public officeholders have been “bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support the Constitution” and the president to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”—no person could honestly have taken this oath before the formation and decisions of the Supreme Court if “Judicial Supremacy” be true.
Second, Judicial Supremacy is Self-Contradictory. Article 3 of the Constitution covers the Judicial Branch. “The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Section 2 describes the cases that come before the Supreme Court. Those who favor the modern doctrine of “Judicial Supremacy” point to this Section to establish it. But that presupposes that we are able to comprehend the meaning of its provisions without Supreme Court clarification.
This is the same fundamental contradiction made by the Roman Church when seeking to establish papal supremacy. Catholic defenders run to Matthew 16:16-18 in an effort to establish the doctrine in the minds of doubters. However, this maneuver assumes that one may read and understand the text without papal assistance. In point of fact, the text actually teaches no such thing as papal supremacy any more than Article 3 gives foundation for Judicial Supremacy.
Third, the Constitution is Self-Defining. One is able to read and understand the meaning of the text without assistance from an “inspired” Court of Nine. If there are challenges to interpretation, one need only read The Federalist Papers, the commentary composed by those who actually wrote the Constitution, to determine its meaning. As a matter of fact, it was upon this basis, by the notes put together in articles by John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton, that the colonies learned and accepted the Constitution to begin with.
There is a frenzy of activity surrounding the replacement of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, but the real reason the Democrat/Socialists of America are waging war is found in the following statement from the Tenth Amendment Center. “Progressives want a living, breathing Constitution because they want to mold society into their own image. They crave power. Originalism restrains power.” Without rule of law, government becomes arbitrary and despotic. Exactly where the Socialists will take us.
Fox & Friends reported Monday that an Ohio business owner “is receiving threats for cooperating with law enforcement officials investigating the looting of her cupcake store last month.” “Kelly Kandah, the owner of Colossal Cupcakes in Cleveland, which was destroyed by looters, said some of those threats include people telling her that when her store is rebuilt, ‘it’s going to happen again.’”
Ms. Kandah said that some of the “complaints” of rioters were due to the fact that her cooperation with the FBI is “upsetting people” because she would involve the police over something such as property.”
The family-owned business, which is Ms. Kandah’s investment of her own private capital, is afraid to re-open after repairs because her plea to law enforcement for protection is seen by the looters as “racist” for “not supporting ‘black lives.’”
Kelly Kandah’s story is only one example of literally hundreds and thousands of private business owners who have lost, and are in the process of losing their own private property to the forces of evil. Violence is sweeping the country in the aftermath of the George Floyd death leaving cities such as Minneapolis looking like the streets of Baghdad.
Socialism Cancels Property Rights
Much of the current hedonistic lawlessness, inclusive of the disrespect of private property, is due to the infusion of socialistic “values” in our people. The doctrine of socialism disdains the very concept of “private property.” Private property is itself considered to be evil, according to Spargo & Arner (Elements of Socialism).
Not only is private property considered to be evil, but is the very cause and root of all societal problems. “Dishonesty” is supposedly caused by “private property” (p. 23); property is that which “divides mankind into classes” (p. 206), and therefore, all property must be leveled.
A malicious view of these socialists is found in their comment regarding “Negroes” and private property. “The ‘thieving propensities’ of the Southern negro do not come from a criminal nature, but from the failure of a simple barbarous people fully to appreciate the conception of private property” (p. 71).
Since private property is seen as a development of evolutionary changes through centuries, and people are as well, Spargo & Arno are suggesting that blacks have not evolved to the point where they have appreciated the developments of civilization.
It is ironic that the current slew of Marxists and socialists in our universities have maligned Christianity with a backward view of blacks and private property—when in point of fact, it is SOCIALISM itself which teaches it.
Like Spargo & Arno of yesteryear, the current Mayor of NYC, Bill de Blasio, himself a Marxist, has decried the very concept of private property in a 2017 interview, as reported by USA Today (9-13-17). Private property is a roadblock to economic progress, per de Blasio.
The mobs, looters, and violence mongers stalking our city streets agree with him. Private property is for destruction. A godless worldview.
The founders of America correctly recognized that all of private property is an extension of one’s life, energy, and ingenuity (see W. Cleon Skousen, The Five-Thousand Year Leap, 171). Therefore, “to destroy or confiscate such property is, in reality, an attack on the essence of life itself.”
“The person who has worked to cultivate a farm, obtained food by hunting, carved a beautiful statue, or secured a wage by his labor, has projected his very being—the very essence of his life—into that labor.”
Property rights—or more correctly, the right to property, is in reality an extension of personal liberty. Justice George Sutherland of the U.S. Supreme Court once stated, “… the individual—the man—has three great rights, equally sacred from arbitrary interference: the right to his LIFE, the right to his LIBERTY, the right to his PROPERTY.”
He went on to note that “the three rights are so bound together as to be essentially one right. To give a man his life but deny him his liberty, is to take from him all that makes his life worthy living. To give him his liberty but take from him the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty, is to still leave him a slave.”
Property rights is an essential ingredient to liberty and freedom. John Adams saw it clearly. “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be secure or liberty cannot exist.”
Thomas Jefferson wrote, “A right to property is founded in our natural wants, in the means with which we are endowed to satisfy these wants, and the right to what we acquire by those means without violating the similar rights of other sensible beings.”
For the reasons cited above, “Life, liberty, and property” is the phrase enshrined two times in our Constitution.
What Occurs When Property Rights Are Not Respected?
W. Cleon Skousen, in The Five-Thousand Year Leap, observed that FOUR things will occur, and have occurred, where the right to property is not preserved.
One, the incentive of an industrious person to develop and improve property is destroyed. This is exactly, to the tee, what is occurring in America right now as Marxist lawless gangs loot and destroy. Kelly Kandah is “AFRAID” to re-open her business, just as she was afraid to DEFEND her business as thugs destroyed it while she hid in the back rooms while the ransacking occurred. “My family built it up, [I] listened to it get absolutely destroyed,” she said on June 2. “That whole time we were locked in there [back bathroom]… I just listened to everything getting shattered and crushed.”
Two, the industrious individual would also be deprived of the fruits of his (or her) labor. Witness again Kelly Kandah, as well as a host of other law-abiding citizens who have lost their life fortune’s while their businesses went up in smoke in recent George Floyd riots.
Three, marauding bands would be tempted to go about the country confiscating by force and violence the good things that others had frugally and painstakingly provided. Who has not seen the video clips of huge Black Lives Matter crowds plus Antifa and useful idiots robbing and pillaging businesses, homes, and grocery stores?
Four, mankind would be impelled to remain on a bare-subsistence level of hand-to-mouth survival because the accumulation of anything would invite attack. Kelly Kandah, who has laboriously accumulated something of value through the years in her Colossal Cupcakes, invites lawless attacks simply due to that fact alone. It matters not that she declares she is “absolutely for the cause” (Black Lives Matter). That cuts no figure to Marxists and violence-mongers. She has accumulated something of value.
Be sure of this. In the wake of destruction of private property also comes destruction of innocent lives. Indeed, some of this has already been occurring. And all of this from a “WOKE” crowd.
“Politics” is one of those words that has taken on ugly connotations in almost every context in which it is used. It has the air of manipulating people for some personal gain. Indeed, one of the definitions of “politic” is “shrewd, crafty, unscrupulous.” If we leave it right there, then the issue of Christian involvement settles itself.
However, political science refers to the methods and principles of governing. When used in this sense, it is more statecraft, which is “the art of managing state affairs.” Used in this way the entire issue of Christian participation takes on a different color. Let’s back up to some basics.
God created man in his own image (Gen. 1:26). Only mankind (humanity) was created by God with this “image.” This apparently refers to the capacity of humans to exercise free will; to have moral sensitivity; to manage rational behavior. The point, however, is that humankind only, of all of God’s creation, has intrinsic value.
An extension of this value is liberty—freedom of movement and choice. This is man’s endowment from God because man cannot sustain himself without labor or work. Man is to utilize (subdue, have dominion over, Gen. 1:28) the creation to that end. The original order from the Creator was to work or labor in order to eat (Gen. 2:15-16). God’s design therefore implies liberty in order to accomplish this.
At the same time, private property is an extension of my labor, an extension of myself. “Thou shalt not steal” implies private ownership of property. Even the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the same in 1972 in Lynch v. Household Finance. Property rights are “fundamental civil rights.” Further, the right to property is inseparable from the right to liberty. One cannot exist without the other.
What is Law?
“Law” is simply “rule of action.” Frederic Bastiat, in his classic essay The Law, wrote it best. “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” Are Christians banned from crafting laws by which to protect their God-endowed rights? Surely not.
Law then, as Bastiat breaks it down, is defined as “the common force that protects this collective right [and it] cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute.” That is to say, law is the common force of a number of people and only has the authority of those individuals in defense of life, liberty, and property.
We ask: Is it right to defend my life with force? If yes, then, I may do it collectively as well with a “common force.” Is it right to defend my liberty with force? My property? “Thou shalt not steal” is again, good law—but it is meaningless without an enforcement mechanism. Empty words without teeth. Remember, even the apostles carried swords (Luke 22:38).
If the answer to any of these questions is “no” then we might ask how was it that God Himself so provided for those things in the Old Testament? Defense of any of these is certainly not inherently wrong. The “common force” is nothing less than government. If a Christian may engage in defense of life, liberty or property as an individual, he or she may do so as part of government.
Is it possible that a “common force” (government) can be used for nefarious ends? Of course. But it is also possible for the collective force or governing authority to do right. This is the basis of Romans 13:1-7.
The New Testament
Let’s check our answer with the New Testament. The apostle Paul was arrested in Jerusalem (Acts 23). Kept in a Roman prison, he discovered that a plot had been laid for his life by the Jews. This conspiracy (23:12) was made known to Paul by his nephew while visiting the apostle. Paul instructed the young lad to take the information to the commandant. The commandant considered the news credible and prepared almost 500 armed soldiers—acting as a police force and deterrent to the murderous plot of the Jews—to transport Paul to Caesarea.
Here is a case of an apostle, utilizing the lethal force of government to protect his life and ensure a miscarriage of justice did not occur. It is certainly right to use violence for self-preservation. If it is right for Paul to use it, it is right for another Christian to participate in the governing authority that Paul used.
It seems less than satisfactory for one to respond, “Well, the Roman soldiers and governing authorities are going to hell anyway, so let them to the killing.” By that lack of rationale one would hope that conversions among the military or police or state officials would not occur so that we may protect ourselves with the devil’s population!
It seems clear that a Christian may engage in statecraft—organizing laws and regulations for a community based upon Christian standards, including enforcement mechanisms. The only issue therefore, is: What kind of governance is it by which we can best maintain the liberties granted to us by God? The perfect answer is provided succinctly by the one and only Thomas Jefferson.
In a letter to Gideon Granger in 1800 Jefferson explained how centralization of government would lead to despotism and loss of freedom.
Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. Public servants at such a distance and from under the eye of their constituents, must, from the circumstance of distance, be unable to administer and overlook all the details necessary for the good government of the citizens, and the same circumstance, by rendering detection impossible to their constituents, will invite the public agents to corruption, plunder and waste. And I do verily believe, that if the principle were to prevail, of a common law being force in the United States, … it would become the most corrupt government on the earth.
If you wish to maintain your liberties, keep the governing powers local. With words that are so accurate they ring prophetic, he continued,
What an augmentation of the field for jobbing, speculating, plundering, office-building and office-hunting would be produced by an assumption of all the State powers into the hands of the General Government. The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the States are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign nations. Let the General Government be reduced to foreign concerns only, and let our affairs be disentangled from those of all other nations, except as to commerce, which the merchants will manage the better, the more they are left free to manage for themselves, and our General Government may be reduced to a very simple organization and a very inexpensive one; a few plain duties to be performed by a few servants.
The inspiring ideals enshrined in the founding documents of our nation include a limited government that allows maximum personal freedom, equality of opportunity, and equal justice under the law. These are founded upon the pillars of inalienable rights, including the fact that all men are created by God as equal. But we have gone about “as far left” as socialist policies can take us if the Democratic debates are an indication of where America will be tomorrow.
“Our job,” Bernie Sanders spouted in the Iowa debate, “is to build the United Nations.” Not surprising from a socialist who has been photographed enjoying toasts with the leader of the old Soviet Union’s gulag communistic state. But frightening that he maintains substantial support in the Democratic Party.
The United Nations has been from its inception a design for socialistic world government. In its most recent COP 25 climate summit in Madrid, Spain, Executive Director Stuart Scott called for the UN to implement drastic population-control policies and “family planning” such as control the Chinese. Other plans include a massive transfer of wealth from “western countries” (read, “United States”) to third world poorer nations in the form of “climate reparations.” The UN is a world dictators’ dream. This is what Bernie Sanders favors. National Socialism is not brave enough—we need International socialism.
It is inescapable, however, that we have already lost so many of our freedoms that have made America the envy of the world. Whether due to taxes, to regulations on our businesses, farms, homes, cars, to our activities, to our speech, and to our abilities to exercise without government interference our religious liberty—our American heritage has dwindled.
So the issue is whether we will preserve even the semblance of our once-cherished ideals of limited government, the sovereignty of the States, the protection of life and property that is so nobly enshrined in our founding documents? Will we maintain any semblance of our freedom over our own health care or will we capitulate to the totalitarian proposals of the Democrats by which the government becomes a monopoly funded 100% by the American taxpayer? Will we continue the path to a more limited government under president Donald Trump or listen to the siren song of socialists?
“The modern trend is in the direction of greater concentration of power in the hands of government. The problem of individual freedom within the framework of a more or less regulated economy will have to be fought out in our age, just as the question of political liberty and the free market were the issues in Jefferson’s day. … Jefferson felt that without liberty, life was not worth living. …In the difficult years that undoubtedly lie ahead, Americans will have to gather all their moral forces for the preservation of their way of life, their liberties, and their opportunities.”