Skip to comments.Liberty -- Endowed by Whom? The Eternal Bequest
Posted on 07/03/2013 4:48:58 PM PDT by Iam1ru1-2
Amid all the contemporary political and cultural contests, too many conservatives fail to make the case for overarching eternal truths -- whether in debate with adversaries across the aisles of Congress, or with neighbors across Main Street.
Lost in the din is the foundational endowment of Essential Liberty, and any debate that does not begin with this eternal truth will end with temporary deceits.
The most oft-cited words from our Declaration of Independence are these: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The eternal assertion that Liberty for all people is "endowed by their Creator" and is thus "unalienable" should require no defense, because "we hold these truths to be self-evident," and because the rights of man are irrevocable from the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."
But the root of all debate between Liberty and tyranny -- or, in political parlance, between Right and left -- is the contest to assert who endows Liberty -- God or man.
The left's humanist position has been made plainly evident by Barack Hussein Obama, who has a history of deliberately and repeatedly omitting the words "endowed by their Creator" when citing in open constituent forums the Declaration's reference to "Rights." What, exactly, is the inspiration for such overt and explicit omissions by the titular head of the Democratic Party?
Contemporary Leftist protagonists seek to replace Rule of Law with the rule of men. This is because the former is predicated on the principle that Liberty is "endowed by our Creator," while the latter asserts that government is the giver of Liberty.
The history of man, since its first record, has repeatedly and tragically documented that when the people settle for the assertion that government is the source of their rights, tyranny is the inevitable result. And tyrants always attempt to undermine Liberty by driving a wedge between it and its foundational endowment by our Creator.
For generations, American liberals have driven that wedge by asserting that our Constitution provides a "wall of separation" between church and state. But does it?
The short answer is "yes," but it is most certainly not the faux wall constructed by judicial activists, who have grossly adulterated the plain language of our First Amendment especially during the last 50 years.
Contrary to what many liberals would have us believe, the words "wall of separation between church and state" do not appear in our Constitution -- nor is this notion even implied. Thomas Jefferson penned those words in an obscure 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in response to concerns about Connecticut's establishment of Congregationalism as their state church. Jefferson assuaged their concerns, telling the Baptists that the First Amendment prohibited the national government from establishing a "national church," but he concluded rightly that the Constitution prohibited the national government from interfering with the matters of state governments -- a "wall of separation," if you will, between federal and state governments.
The "wall of separation" argument is thus a phony one. Indeed, it is a blueprint for tyranny.
We are created, from the beginning, in the Image of God, and that image is the essence of Liberty, the well of all rights for all people for all time.
Our enlightened Founders, in their revolutionary opposition to tyranny, looked far beyond kings and parliaments to the enduring source of the rights of man, and they enumerated in our Declaration of Independence that we are, indeed, created in God's Image for His purpose, and that no man could strip that endowment from the soul of another. Thus, we have the equal capacity to be free, personal, rational, creative and moral beings, and we are entitled to be so through His endowment.
These rights and freedoms were further enshrined in our Constitution.
In 1776, John Hancock wrote of Jacob Duché, the first Chaplain appointed by the Continental Congress, "Congress ... from a consideration of your ... zealous attachment to the rights of America, appoint(s) you their Chaplain." Duché, Pastor of Philadelphia's Christ Church, captured the spirit of the American Revolution, saying, "Civil liberty is as much the gift of God in Christ Jesus ... as our spiritual freedom... 'Standing fast' in that liberty, wherewith Christ, as the great providential Governor of the world, hath made us free."
It is in that spirit that we at The Patriot Post adopted our motto, Veritas vos Liberabit -- "The Truth Will Set You Free" (John 8:32). That is the essence of the assertion that we are "endowed by our Creator" with life and Liberty.
Ignorance of the true and eternal source of the rights of man is fertile ground for the Left's assertion that government endows such rights. It is also perilous ground, soaked with the blood of generations of American Patriots. As Jefferson wrote, "The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
Indeed, the "Cycle of Democracy" demands this tonic. And despite the pervasive assault on Liberty by the current legions of Leftist NeoComs, to paraphrase the great Prussian military historian, theorist and tactician Carl von Clausewitz, "the best defense is a good offense."
Our Founders closed their Declaration with this pledge to each other, and all who would follow: "With a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
In his 1800 letter to fellow Declaration signer Benjamin Rush, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
Like millions of our generation's American Patriots, I have sworn likewise. We must never forsake our Sacred Honor.
No matter what setbacks we face, Liberty is an eternal endowment. Thus, we must hold the lines on defense, and regroup for relentless attack on offense.
Never lose faith, fellow Patriots!
In honor of this, the 237th anniversary of our Declaration of Independence, contemplate these wise words of our Founders, and please consider supporting The Patriot Post's mission in defense of Liberty. 2013-07-03-alexander-4.jpg
"While we are zealously performing the duties of good Citizens and soldiers we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of Religion. To the distinguished Character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to add the more distinguished Character of Christian." --George Washington
"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 those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God." --John Adams
"May every citizen ... have a proper sense of the Deity upon his mind and an impression of the declaration recorded in the Bible, 'Him that honoreth Me I will honor, but he that despiseth Me shall be lightly esteemed.'" --Samuel Adams
"This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins." --Benjamin Franklin
"The belief in a God All Powerful wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters and capacities impressed with it." --James Madison
"The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among parchments and musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the Hand of Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power." --Alexander Hamilton
"But where says some is the king of America? I'll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Britain. ... [L]et it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS king. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is." --Thomas Paine in Common Sense
"God who gave us life gave us Liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." --Thomas Jefferson (1774)
” they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”
And yet, everybody has to ask the government for permission for eberything they do...
It is clear that Congress, as a legislative body, exercise two species of legislative power: the one, limited as to its objects, but extending all over the Union: the other, an absolute, exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia. The preliminary inquiry in the case now before the Court, is, by virtue of which of these authorities was the law in question passed?
[Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 6 Wheat. 265; 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821)]
The 1st section of the 14th article [Fourteenth Amendment], to which our attention is more specifically invited, opens with a definition of citizenshipnot only citizenship of the United States[***], but citizenship of the states. No such definition was previously found in the Constitution, nor had any attempt been made to define it by act of Congress. It had been the occasion of much discussion in the courts, by the executive departments and in the public journals. It had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States[***] except as he was a citizen of one of the states composing the Union. Those therefore, who had been born and resided always in the District of Columbia or in the territories [STATUTORY citizens], though within the United States[*], were not [CONSTITUTIONAL] citizens.
[Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394(1873)]
For more details, scroll down to page 10:
Fourteenth Amendment explained / Eric Williams
The Fourteenth Amendment - Revisited
First - forget everything you ever knew about the Fourteenth Amendment - then carefully read the below expose:
Take the Amendments opening clauses, All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state where in they reside...
Now, consider the same clauses with the central, explanatory clause removed, and it then reads: All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside...
Under the rules of English grammar and punctuation, the second clause, and under the jurisdiction thereof, is an explanatory clause. Explanatory clauses do not add to nor in any way change or alter the meaning of the writing in which they are included; their purpose is to explain. As it is self evident that naturalized persons volunteer into the jurisdiction of the United States as an inherent aspect of their voluntary naturalization, the explanatory obviously was not relevant thereto. Therefore the inclusion of this explanatory clause is to clarify that persons born in the United States, in deference to the Thirteenth Amendment, do not become and are not, at the moment of their birth in the United States, automatically citizens thereof because such newborn persons are incapable of personally volunteering themselves into servitude. I contend that the inclusion of persons naturalized was somewhat obfuscatory.
Finish the article at the link above.
Liberty is apparently earned by blood. Over and Over.
I find the left loves to talk about rights. So I ask them where their rights come from. Most of the time they will tell me the Constitution. That is an easy argument to win. Because if their rights come from the Constitution, then if the Constitution were to be changed to all slavery or to strip women of the right to vote that they would be good with that.
Most say no that they would not. To which I respond, then your right DONT come from the Constitution, they come from somewhere else. I then ask them once again, where do your rights come from, because I submit that whatever “gives” you your rights can also take them away.
The follow on conversation if needed:
- If your rights come from (God, nature, whatever), wouldn’t everyone’s rights come from the same source? Everyone being equal and all.
- If the Constitution does not exist to GRANT rights, what is the purpose of the Constitution?
- If society can’t take away your rights, what gives you the authority to take away anyone else’s rights? For example, if you have the right to defend yourself from attack, don’t I also have that right?