Greetings, ladies and gentlemen! Let me be one of the first to wish y’all a very Happy Independence Day this week. I hope that we learn to stop saying “Happy 4th of July,” as that is nothing but a date on the calendar. It is imperative that we start speaking in terms of meaning, and not just a number in a respective month.
What does Independence Day mean? It means we firmly established what our unalienable rights are in the nation we established, these United States of America. We also established that these rights are endowed to us not by man, but by our Creator, the God of the Judeo-Christian faith heritage.
Now, I could go on a long very philosophical explanation as to what inspired Thomas Jefferson to write these impeccable words, but that is, perhaps, for another missive.
The vital message of this piece is for us to realize, recognize, and comprehend a simple concept: this nation was established upon the ideal that individual rights were supreme, sovereign, and our natural right. These rights being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (John Locke originally called this right, property). Later, after winning our hard-fought independence, James Madison codified and specified these rights in our Constitution, our rule of law. The first ten amendments to our Constitution are described as our Bill of Rights. They focus on the individual and our protections from what our Founding Fathers has experienced: the intrusive, invasive, and onerous nature of tyrannical governance.
The Founders wanted to ensure that we did not have a federal government that sought to usurp the sovereignty of our states and the people. Thus, the final two amendments, 9 and 10 were made. Those amendments enshrined the aspect of the enumerated powers not specifically granted to the federal government being retained by the states and the people.
With all, last week’s presidential debates should cause us concern. What we witnessed last week is the seminal philosophical challenge to our Constitutional Republic, something which any young person, once upon a time in America, learned in basic Civics 101.
First of all, let me plainly state, any person who does not believe in these United States of America as a sovereign Constitutional Republic, with a rule of law, and borders to secure, should be disqualified from ever being considered for the office of president of the United States. For us to have witnessed these “candidates” willingly admit that they would provide taxpayer-funded benefits to those in our country illegally is disconcerting, no, disgusting. How can one be the leader of something that you do not believe in? How can you be the leader of America when you embrace the policies of sanctuary states and cities, offering shelter to those here illegally? How, can you be our nation’s president and take an oath to our Constitution when it is clear you do not support it?
An example last week was one US Senator, Kamala Harris, saying that she would use executive action to undermine the Second Amendment, an individual right codified in our Constitution, as one of those Bill of Rights.
The issue in America, as we watched those debates, is not about Republican or Democrat. The true issue is now what a right is in America. Who now defines the relationship between the individual and government in our nation?
When you watched the debates — and we need not waste time with too many more — it was clear that the progressive socialist left has redefined rights in America to coincide with their ideological agenda. Any and everything that the left in America deems part of their agenda, their platform, is now a right. Therefore, the progressive socialist left’s ideological rights supersede what we once knew as our unalienable rights endowed by God and our highly esteemed Constitutional rights.
Last week’s debate, and the left’s rhetoric, confirm that if you do not succumb to their ideological will, your constitutionally endowed rights are meaningless.
If you do not accept the left’s redefinition of gender, you are to be silenced. If you do not accept the left’s ideological right that redefines marriage, then you shall be hauled before courts. If you do not embrace the left’s definition of life, and instead, support the sanctity of the womb, well, according to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, you are no different from a racist. Heck, if you do not cower to the left’s ideological rights, then you are indeed a racist, sexist, homophobe, xenophobe, and any other disparaging name they can conjure.
The progressive socialist left does not regard or respect your property, your resources. It is theirs for the taking to support their ideological right: the right to free healthcare, free college education, and the overall redistribution of wealth through insidious schemes such as universal basic income.
What we saw happen in last week’s debates — and something very few are discussing — is that our Constitution has been relegated to a mere suggestion, not a rule of law. Our Constitutional Republic only exists in name, nothing more, evidenced in that we truly no longer educate our generations on its meaning, its importance.
In the America that the progressive socialists presented last week, citizens in America are no longer citizens, they are victims. We will no longer have the equality of opportunity that has enabled our Country to be a standard-bearer for individual liberty and freedom in the world. We shall be condemned into a hell of equality of outcomes where any of those twenty who were on that stage deemed themselves lord over us all.
If there is one blessing we can receive from last week’s Democrat (socialist) Party debates it is that we no longer must guess, or try to convince ourselves there are socialists in America. We do not have to debate whether socialists are running for president. We now know exactly what the “fundamental transformation of America” means.
It means the progressive socialist ideological agenda has been redefined as “rights,” — and that should be unacceptable to any true American patriot.
Are you one?
This column was originally published at The Old School Patriot.
The views expressed in CCNS member articles are not necessarily the views or positions of the entire CCNS. They are the views of the authors, who are members of the CCNS.