Some people say that our war fighters died in vain, as antifa and other radical leftist communist / socialists have turned America into a pathetic, radical, violent, lawless, dystopia full of racism and hate mongering specifically intended to destroy America.
Lincoln addressed this very issue in his speech at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania November 19, 1863. Between 46,000 and 51,000 soldiers from both armies were casualties in the three-day battle, the most costly in US history.
It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. Abraham Lincoln, November 19, 1863
It is false that our war fighters died in vain. They died defending our way of life. The issue is that we must now carry on where they had no choice but to stop.
It is now in our hands to have affinity for and to defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign or domestic. As Lincoln said, “from these honored dead we take increased devotion … that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. ” That is the exact opposite of the socialism that radicals are trying to force us to accept.
That means that it is up to us to end the antifa riots in our cities and remove from power any who we trusted to administrate for us who have in any way facilitated those riots, to restore our economy and expectations that all citizens will work to support themselves, to begin again to enforce our God-given right to Individual Liberty, and with the help of the One Sovereign God, to absolutely and permanently purge all corruption from our government and bring to clear and impartial Justice by due process our employees who have betrayed our trust and their oath of office by using their official position to commit high crimes and misdemeanors.
This scanning electron microscope image shows SARS-CoV-2 (round gold objects) emerging from the surface of cells cultured in the lab. SARS-CoV-2, also known as 2019-nCoV, is the virus that causes COVID-19. The virus shown was isolated from a patient in the U.S. Credit: NIAID-RML. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.
I suppose we could call it the Chinese Cold Virus, or maybe the Cold War of 2020. Our “social distancing” quarantine The Great Wall of COVID-19.
Diagram of COVID-19, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_COVID-19
We are presently battling this virus in what could honestly be referred to as a Cold War, and the stakes are life or death for the elders and those among us with weak immune systems. Reliable information is updated daily at 10:00AM EDT on the official US government Center for Disease Control web site at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html and in Indiana on the official Indiana State Department of Health web site at https://www.in.gov/coronavirus/.
Inherent in this global effort to slow the spread of the disease so that all infected can receive life saving health care are many voluntary suspensions of individual liberty that are clearly not within the constitutionally granted powers of government, but with which we as sovereign individual citizens voluntarily choose to comply in the interest of the well being of ourselves and our communities. The danger is that these voluntary deprivations of individual liberty could become government expectations, rather than temporary voluntary individual accommodations of government requests.
Special efforts by public health agencies to combat the spread of COVID-19 are warranted. In the digital world as in the physical world, public policy must reflect a balance between collective good and civil liberties in order to protect the health and safety of our society from communicable disease outbreaks. It is important, however, that any extraordinary measures used to manage a specific crisis must not become permanent fixtures in the landscape of government intrusions into daily life. There is historical precedent for life-saving programs such as these, and their intrusions on digital liberties, to outlive their urgency.
Thus, any data collection and digital monitoring of potential carriers of COVID-19 should take into consideration and commit to these principles:
The article concludes:
EFF has long advocated against digital surveillance by government and corporations of our movements, health, and personal relationships, and against big data systems that can turn our lives into open books. Such data processing often invades our privacy, deters our free speech and association, and disparately burdens racial minorities. Some use of big data may now be warranted as public health officials work to contain COVID-19. But it must be medically necessary, as determined by public health experts; any new processing of personal data must be proportionate to the actual need; people must not be scrutinized because of their nationality or other demographic factors; and any new government powers must expire when the disease is contained.
In this country we have law, essentially in several tiers. There are our local laws, such as how large a sign we are permitted to place in our home’s front yard, and State laws to provide uniform coverage for healthcare or education or even law enforcement. But the highest Law in our land is our Constitution.
Our constitution was not haphazardly slapped together but instead was the product of significant years of experience and debate. The first such document was not the one we follow today, rather it was The Articles of Confederation, and was intended to “bind the States in a League of Friendship”. But friendship did not make for efficient government. George Washington convinced the Congress to hold a Grand Conference, or Constitutional Convention, to revise the Articles of Confederation.
The Constitutional Convention was assembled at the Pennsylvania Statehouse in Philadelphia in May 1787. George Washington was elected President of the convention and they then shuttered the windows, swore secrecy, and proceeded to swat flies, sweat, and argue for four months. What resulted was referred to as The Great Compromise: the beginning of our US Constitution.
Even with all that effort, debate, and compromise, the Constitution would not be ratified by the 13 States until further safeguards and protections were promised. By Joint resolution of Congress, on September 25, 1789, twelve (12 – not 10) amendments were proposed. The Constitution and proposed amendments were submitted to the States for Ratification, and ten of those twelve proposed amendments became the first ten amendments to the US Constitution.
These amendments were required because of concerns the Federal government would over reach, intruding into the private lives and rights of individual citizens, or the rights of the States. To prevent this and legally restrain the Federal government, these amendments were added, and then the 13 States ratified the new government, as set forth in the US Constitution.
There are many books written on each of these amendments: the second amendment is high in the public conscious these days with the push from certain quarters to disarm law abiding citizens under a pretense of “security” – a common reason used by nobles and monarchs in Europe which always resulted in worsening the lives of their subjects. The fifth was commonly sited in the ’40’s and 50’s – “I’ll take the 5th” meant a person refused to answer that question because it could incriminate her.
The fourteenth amendment (14th) was passed by Congress June 13, 1866 and ratified July 9, 1868. It states in Section 1:
“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 wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
This amendment has many implications for us now. For one thing, it reveals the legal concept motivating the “anchor baby” – when a pregnant illegal alien gives birth on American soil, the baby is legally an American Citizen: the mother is not, but the child is. This can be used to create humanitarian problems as well as legal problems. Nothing in the Constitution says the illegal alien can stay here illegally, but it does say the child cannot be punished without due process. Often the solution has been to simply acknowledge defeat and allow the illegal alien to remain in the US illegally with her child. She could be deported immediately and given the option of taking her citizen child with her or giving it up for adoption.
Another relevant application of this, our highest national Law, is the treatment of persons accused of crimes: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This means everyone is to receive DUE PROCESS.
One example where this could apply would be if a police officer, during a routine traffic stop, believed that the operator of the car was carrying a “large amount of cash”. For example, if she or he were on their way to purchase a large appliance or recreational vehicle with money they had saved in advance for that purpose. But the law enforcement officer might believe “no one buys with cash anymore, the car loan is a way of life, you’re always going to have a car loan”. So, if he decides the driver of the car might possibly be intending to use the cash for an unlawful purpose, such as buying a cache of controlled substances, he can simply take the cash – no due process, no proof of an actual crime, just “he feels this is an unusual amount of cash for someone to be carrying around”. Is he stopping a drug dealer from making a purchase? Likely so. But what if the citizen really has paid off all his debts, accumulated an emergency fund, and buys with cash, never borrows?
This type of abuse was common in medieval Europe and a strong reason why the first ten amendments were demanded before the States would ratify. By ignoring our highest laws we cause ourselves problems. Suppose a government official in the future decides you have “too much” of something — food, clothing, some other scarce and needed goods? Is this setting a precedent today that results in unilateral confiscation of anything, anytime, from anyone in the future? The Founding Fathers were concerned this could happen, as it was the norm in Europe! So they wrote “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process”. More difficult, more inconvenient for government. Exactly as the writers of the Constitution intended. Harry Truman wrote “The Constitution was not written to make the government as efficient as possible, rather to make it as safe as possible for the citizens”. Where The Buck Stops by Harry S. Truman. Read it.
A very significant part of the 14th amendment is that we are not tried and condemned legally by public opinions, in the public media, such as FaceBook. Nor are we automatically guilty and condemned because someone merely accuses us. Additionally if there is evidence that our accuser has been consulting with others on what to say and how to say it, instead of going to proper authorities to file her charges, her testimony could be summarily dismissed as potentially fraudulent.
The reason we have a Constitution like this, and require all citizens receive due process, is because if we bend the rules to condemn someone we do not like now, then it sets a precedent that later, if we are accused of something, we ourselves could be denied due process.
Our Constitution came into being as a way to unite our States for commerce and protection, “in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”. This is not a need to be taken lightly.
Supreme Court Justice Hugo Lafayette Black vigorously defended the “plain meaning” of the Constitution, rooted in the ideas of its era, and emphasized the supremacy of the legislature; for Black, the role of the Supreme Court was limited and constitutionally prescribed. His absolutism led him to enforce the rights of the Constitution, rather than attempting to define a meaning, scope, or extent to each right. Black expressed his view on the Bill of Rights in his opinion in the 1947 case, Adamson v. California, which he saw as his “most significant opinion written:”
I cannot consider the Bill of Rights to be an outworn 18th century ‘strait jacket’ … Its provisions may be thought outdated abstractions by some. And it is true that they were designed to meet ancient evils. But they are the same kind of human evils that have emerged from century to century wherever excessive power is sought by the few at the expense of the many. In my judgment the people of no nation can lose their liberty so long as a Bill of Rights like ours survives and its basic purposes are conscientiously interpreted, enforced, and respected… I would follow what I believe was the original intention of the Fourteenth Amendment—to extend to all the people the complete protection of the Bill of Rights. To hold that this Court can determine what, if any, provisions of the Bill of Rights will be enforced, and if so to what degree, is to frustrate the great design of a written Constitution.
“The Law, once bent, does not easily spring back into shape.”
Constitutional protections apply to all of us, even if we are guilty, even if we are accused by someone. We need to see that Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill receives the same due process as everyone else, guaranteed by our Constitution, not because he is or is not guilty of anything, but because in so doing we protect our own future right to due process.
Much information is available on our laws and their history at the national archives. Many good sources are available for a very nominal price, prepared by skilled and studied historians who curate these archives. The National Archives Store can be found at https://www.nationalarchivesstore.org/. They have a very nice, picture rich, history of our founding documents (signed by the author!) for under $27, including shipping. EVERY American should know where we come from and how, to appreciate and be motivated to defend our way of life. I highly recommend you buy and read this book: The Charters of Freedom by David Ferriero, Archivist of the United States.
Zechariah’s Vision of Four Chariots from Doré’s English Bible
How Nations stay at Peace with God
Zechariah 6: 1 And I turned, and lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold, there came four chariots out from between two mountains; and the mountains were mountains of brass. 2 In the first chariot were red horses; and in the second chariot black horses; 3 and in the third chariot white horses; and in the fourth chariot grisled and bay horses.
BRASS represents JUDGMENT. “Horses” pulling chariots here represent “spirits” or philosophies or ideologies powering socio-economic political systems. Red is the color representing Communism, black represents Socialism, white represents Capitalism (he that will not work let him not eat, the worker is worthy of his wages, a wise man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children) and the color of the forth horse is literally translated “green” (the translators had never seen a green horse, and used alternate meanings that could also fit the word) and green is the color of Islam. Communism and Socialism went north into Asia and Europe: Islam took over much of Africa: Capitalism eventually went into Europe and some of Asia after Communism and Socialism had failed there.
4 Then I answered and said unto the angel that talked with me, What are these, my lord? 5 And the angel answered and said unto me, These are the four spirits of the heavens, which go forth from standing before the Lord of all the earth. 6 The black horses which are therein go forth into the north country; and the white go forth after them; and the grisled go forth toward the south country.
BUT Islam is not contented to enslave all of Africa, but demands global dictator status: 7 And the bay (the green horse) went forth, and sought to go that they might walk to and fro through the earth: and he said, Get you hence, walk to and fro through the earth. So they walked to and fro through the earth.
Islam spreads by infiltrating other countries, exploiting the humanitarian philosophies of those countries, over populating while demanding total economic support and refusing to integrate, and then violently taking those countries all over the earth.
And God says of Capitalism, which came after Communism and Socialism,
8 Then cried he upon me, and spake unto me, saying, Behold, these that go toward the north country have quieted my spirit in the north country.
The nations learned that Communism and Socialism do not work and adopted Capitalism – as a result they then gained fairness, prosperity, and peace – that pleased God.
The teaching of God’s Word is that each person should work and earn his living, each worker should be timely paid his wages, budget his money, save for emergencies, purchases, and to provide for his future generations. Charity in Scripture teaches we temporarily help people to get back to where they are earning their own living, and nothing in sScripture teaches we should be guaranteed a living wage if we will not work to learn skills that command a living wage, or that we should receive medical care, or any other thing at all unless we are actively working to earn those necessities. Socialism has never worked in the long term because it always ends up like it is now in Venezuaila – extreme poverty, starvation, arbitrary decisions against the working people by the Socialist elite, rioting, and violence with a very few uber-rich who previously ran the dead Socialist system. Ultimately a strong military leader emerges to purge the corrupt government and becomes a dictator.
Is Socialism the environment we want earth to adopt? Do we want Socialist Death Committees deciding that the medical care our loved ones need is “too expensive” and “doesn’t fit the needs of the State” so they are denied proper care and effectively ordered murdered by witholding food and water to be sure that they die? Do we want to live in a world where only criminals and government have the ability to defend their own rights and family?
Should we listen to the Word of God and adopt Capitalism instead? Should we reward workers according to their personal industry? Should we help only those who actually need our help and in ways that cause them to become productive members of our communities? Should we require (and train) all people to be financially and socially responsible so that they do not need others’ help? Should each Citizen be a member of the community in every way, including willingness and capacity to stand up to any terrorist threat temporarily until professionally employed government security personnel can arrive and take over?
Because that is what the Founding Fathers codified in the Constitution for the United States. And we need to do that or die.