In the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling on SB 1070, Arizona’s immigration law and Obamacare I thought it good to repost my syndicated column from July 19, 2011. I can’t say it any better today than I did then:
Tragically, for a lot of people, Independence Day is/was a Will Smith big-budget movie, a case or two of beer, hot dogs, hamburgers and a picnic. But it’s so much more than that to those of us who know the factual history of our great nation and those who risked and sacrificed so much to bring our freedom from the crown to fruition.
One of the things I am most proud of, pursuant to our Founding Fathers, was their faith in and recognition of God. It offends me to hear the seditious ignorance of the foolish that fight to remove any and all references to God when, in fact, our Founding Fathers intended for God to be acknowledged and prayers to be offered in conjunction with good government and the observance of federal holidays and the ceremonies adjoining same.
The corrupters of the Constitution would have us believe that our Founding Fathers intended for the Constitution to be changed; they argue that the framers intended it to be a fluid document. And even more Erebusic, they argue that the architects of this nation mandated no mention or observance of God in, on, or around anything having to do with government – all of which are blasphemous lies.
I have long argued that the founders were intelligent, articulate men who were more than capable of saying exactly what they meant. But the corrupters of freedom, believing all wisdom to be embodied in themselves, have argued otherwise – even as to when the Constitution was signed.
Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin all wrote that they had signed the Constitution July 4, 1776, but there are some historians who argue that they signed a month later. So the question becomes, whom are you going to believe – the men who were there and participated, or PBS and the History Channel?
If the Founding Fathers had intended the First Amendment to mean what the courts have fallaciously and errantly allowed it to be subverted into, they would have specifically written it that way. But in a perverse way, the First Amendment has become exactly what they intended it not to be.
The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free expression thereof.” Yet that is exactly what is happening today. School districts are sued and bullied because they dare to hold graduations in a building with a cross on it. The Veterans Administration has ordered chaplains at the funerals of fallen military not to invoke God’s name or to make any reference to Him at the funerals. Children are forbidden to wear T-shirts to school with the name of Christ on them. Military cadets are forbidden to offer prayers of thanks for their meals in their cafeterias – even knowing that they may sacrifice their lives in service to their country. The prohibition of religion is precisely what is taking place today.
If the Founding Fathers meant no state-sanctioned religion as it is enforced today, why did they reference God so inclusively?
One of the clearest examples showing that the Founding Fathers never intended the First Amendment to be applied as it is today comes from John Adams. The day before he would sign the actual Constitution, Adams wrote a letter to his wife, Abigail. The very first paragraph on the third page of that letter, Adams wrote: “I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding generations, as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the Day of Deliverance by the solemn acts of God Almighty.” And for those who will hasten to say that Adams was just caught up in the euphoria of the moment, one paragraph later, in closing the letter, he wrote: “You will think me transported with enthusiasm, but I am not. I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure that it will cost us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the gloom I can see rays of ravishing light and glory. I can see the end is more than worth all the means. And that Posterity will triumph in that day’s transaction, even [although] we should rue it, which I trust in God we shall not.”
Comments :
While I typically enjoy and agree with your writings, I have numerous problems with this one, as it consistently presents inaccurate historical facts. The US Constitution, written in 1787, not 1776, was neither signed nor written by John Adams or Thomas Jefferson. Both were serving as ambassadors to foreign countries during the Constitutional Convention. Also, the Bill of Rights, hence the 1st Amendment, were not ratified until 1791. The Declaration of Independence was written and signed in 1776. As for Adams' letter to his wife, it was also written in reference to the Declaration of Independence on July 3, 1776.
The founders were among the most articulate of all who have ever deliberately set out to form a government based on reasoned argument, logical conclusions drawn by the animated contesting of ideas, principles and new concepts advanced by philosophers, considering the actual plight of people from their first breath, and their natural absolute equality.
They formed the most rational, logical fixed rule of law over government ever established, and by logic, demonstrated the "Natural Rights of Man" must precede government, and all legitimate government must be formed by the consent of the governed. The logic of their consideration is infallible and undeniable in any way.
They well understood they too were subject to err, to short-fall, and short-sighted perspective, and they carefully ensured "The Rule of Law limiting Government" could easily be altered and modified to adapt to new understanding and further explication of the world, but they ensured to change the "constitution" of law constricting government, a great majority of common belief had to be brought together, or the constitution would remain unchanged.
It is the simple fact that those who would rule by fiat have never countenanced "rules over their own conduct", and fully expect to rule according to their own thoughts for the moment, this is the "premise" by which they claim fluid and debatable meaning attached to precise and defined words and phrases.
Except that we take words to have meaning, that we believe they are used to convey thought and meaning, by people with precision in their thoughts and actions, such ideas as put forth by the left sound like the pulings of spoiled brat, denied his way again, in the desire to torture rats. The very least of responsible adults demands fixed law, the meaning of words to continue as they have, and the facts of history to be most probably brought down to the future with the greatest of accuracy man can muster.
That we routinely accept less than this, and actually elect people to office who suggest they will act as such, tells of decadence among us which must be decried, denounced, and cast out, if we would have even a chance of securing our Republic as we once had.
Again, "not to decide is to decide". We must act, or in not acting, accept that as the definition of "acting and deciding". It was our Republic it only is in question whether we would have it back, or are satisfied with the social democracy, defaulted to when we allow government to ignore any constraints as we have. Allowing this be our accepted place today means accepting complete subjugation when the present work is done.
We can act, and alter the future, or we can "act, by not acting, and ensuring the future is default". Not to decide is to decide.
Semper Fidelis,
John McClain
GySgt, USMC, ret.
Vanceboro, NC
They formed the most rational, logical fixed rule of law over government ever established, and by logic, demonstrated the "Natural Rights of Man" must precede government, and all legitimate government must be formed by the consent of the governed. The logic of their consideration is infallible and undeniable in any way.
They well understood they too were subject to err, to short-fall, and short-sighted perspective, and they carefully ensured "The Rule of Law limiting Government" could easily be altered and modified to adapt to new understanding and further explication of the world, but they ensured to change the "constitution" of law constricting government, a great majority of common belief had to be brought together, or the constitution would remain unchanged.
It is the simple fact that those who would rule by fiat have never countenanced "rules over their own conduct", and fully expect to rule according to their own thoughts for the moment, this is the "premise" by which they claim fluid and debatable meaning attached to precise and defined words and phrases.
Except that we take words to have meaning, that we believe they are used to convey thought and meaning, by people with precision in their thoughts and actions, such ideas as put forth by the left sound like the pulings of spoiled brat, denied his way again, in the desire to torture rats. The very least of responsible adults demands fixed law, the meaning of words to continue as they have, and the facts of history to be most probably brought down to the future with the greatest of accuracy man can muster.
That we routinely accept less than this, and actually elect people to office who suggest they will act as such, tells of decadence among us which must be decried, denounced, and cast out, if we would have even a chance of securing our Republic as we once had.
Again, "not to decide is to decide". We must act, or in not acting, accept that as the definition of "acting and deciding". It was our Republic it only is in question whether we would have it back, or are satisfied with the social democracy, defaulted to when we allow government to ignore any constraints as we have. Allowing this be our accepted place today means accepting complete subjugation when the present work is done.
We can act, and alter the future, or we can "act, by not acting, and ensuring the future is default". Not to decide is to decide.
Semper Fidelis,
John McClain
GySgt, USMC, ret.
Vanceboro, NC
No comments:
Post a Comment