- Richard Stockton was taken prisoner for signing the Declaration and imprisoned in New York City’s infamous Provost Jail.
- John Witherspoon saw his eldest son, James, killed during the Battle of Germantown.
- A number of signers saw their homes and property taken, looted, and destroyed by the British.
- Philip Livingston sacrificed what was left of his wealth to support the war effort and likely died penniless.
- Abraham Clark saw two of his sons captured by the British and incarcerated on the prison ship Jersey, with little hope of surviving.
- Francis Lewis’ estate was raided by the British and his wife was taken prisoner.
- John Hart’s farm was also raided and he spent time surviving in the woods.
Think about everything you own and your personal relationships and imagine losing most, if not all, of them. That is the sacrifice these men had to take in the defense of liberty.
And now many Americans are completely clueless about the American Revolution and why we celebrate Independence Day:
Right before he publicly attacked the Confederate flag as a “symbol of slavery,” President Obama quietly removed an anti-slavery provision from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Agreement.
In his scintillating and sometimes raucous dissent from last month’s horrendous same-sex marriage decision in Obergefell vs. Hodges, Justice Antonin Scalia warned a pre-Fourth of July nation that what the Court’s majority had done to them was worse than anything the British perpetrated prior to the Revolutionary War.
In his brief history lesson, Scalia underscored the gravity of the Court’s action by comparing it to England’s treatment of the American colonies that ignited the movement for American independence. The justice said that in its hubris, the majority decision had carried out a more serious offense than the one that sparked the Boston Tea Party and later the American Revolution itself.
Indeed, wrote Scalia, “to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.”
The citizens living in the 13 original American colonies, in fact, had no direct representatives in the British parliament, and therefore could not vote on how they would be taxed or who would represent them. When the British began abusing this already precarious situation, the colonists rebelled. In 1773, the Sons of Liberty boarded ships of the East India Tea Company and proceeded to dump the entire shipment of tea into Boston Harbor, an event that escalated into the war of independence.
When the Supreme Court ceases acting like a judicial body and instead usurps the power to enact legislation, as it did in its infamous June 26 ruling, it radically oversteps its mandate and is worthy of nothing but scorn.
“The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges,” Scalia continued. “But of course the Justices in today’s majority are not voting on that basis.”
“Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court,” he said.
The problem with independence and self-rule is that they are always fragile, and if not defended, can just as easily be lost. Something to ponder on the Fourth of July.
Man arrested in connection with San Francisco killing had been deported several times, officials say
The man arrested in connection with the seemingly random killing of a woman who was out for a stroll with her father along the San Francisco waterfront is an illegal immigrant who previously had been deported five times, federal immigration officials say.
Further, Immigration and Customs Enforcement says San Francisco had him in their custody earlier this year but failed to notify ICE when he was released.
“DHS records indicate ICE lodged an immigration detainer on the subject at that time, requesting notification prior to his release so ICE officers could make arrangements to take custody. The detainer was not honored,” ICE said in a statement Friday afternoon.
Kathryn Steinle was killed Wednesday evening at Pier 14 — one of the busiest tourist destinations in the city.
Police said Thursday they arrested Francisco Sanchez in the shooting an hour after it occurred.
On Friday, ICE revealed their records indicate the individual has been previously deported five times, most recently in 2009, and is from Mexico.
Just when you thought the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) couldn’t sink any lower, an embarrassing federal audit exposes the scandal-plagued agency for awarding dozens of tax-delinquent companies with millions of dollars in government contracts.
It may seem like a bad joke, that the nation’s feared tax agency does business with companies that cheat it and violate its mission. At the very least it’s ironic, though the IRS has been embroiled in so many scandals recently that this may seem unworthy of coverage. Judicial Watch still believes it’s worth noting however, that the colossal agency responsible for collecting taxes lets its business pals slide. Whether its incompetence or special treatment, it’s outrageous and unacceptable.
During a two-year period the IRS awarded 57 contracts worth nearly $19 million to 17 corporations that owed federal taxes during that period, according to a report released recently by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA). In doing this, the IRS actually violated a 2012 federal law called the Consolidated Appropriations Act prohibiting government agencies from using appropriated funds to enter into a contract with a company that has certain federal tax debt or felony convictions.
It’s bad enough that other government agencies reward tax scofflaws with coveted federal contracts, but in the case of the IRS it’s downright shameful. “When the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) conducts business with contractors that do not pay their Federal taxes, it conveys a conflicting message in relation to its mission to ensure compliance with tax laws,” The TIGTA report states. The IRS watchdog further points out that the Consolidated Appropriations Act requires federal agencies to determine whether a prospective contractor has federal tax debt prior to the award of contract actions. Certainly, the IRS has the ability, not to mention resources, to do this.
Perhaps the IRS has been preoccupied conducting its witch hunt of conservative groups. JW has been a leader in uncovering the sordid details of that major scandal and has obtained damaging government records that show the IRS illegally colluded with another federal agency to crack down on conservative nonprofit groups during the 2012 election cycle. The IRS director at the center of the scheme, Lois Lerner, not only broke agency rules—as well as the law—to target conservative organizations, she also lied to Congress in an effort to cover up the wrongdoing.
JW has also reported extensively on a multitude of other transgressions at the IRS over the years, including the fact that the disgraced agency has long allowed prison inmates to fraudulently received tens of millions of dollars in tax refunds and illegal immigrants billions by allowing them to improperly claim tax credits that they don’t qualify for. A few years ago IRS employees were charged with stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars in government benefits, including food stamps, welfare and housing vouchers.
As the deadline for Americans to pay their taxes approached earlier this year IRS employees were singled out as the federal workers with the highest number of tax delinquents that received bonus pay. A federal audit revealed that at the IRS alone, staff members with violations received close to $3 million in awards on top of their regular government salary. Some got the extra cash despite being cited for using drugs, making violent threats, fraudulently claiming unemployment benefits and misusing government credit cards.
Andrew P. Napolitano
In the course of my work at Fox News, I am often asked by colleagues to review and explain documents and statutes. Recently, in conjunction with my colleagues Catherine Herridge, our chief intelligence correspondent, and Pamela Browne, our senior executive producer, I read the transcripts of an interview Browne did with a man named Marc Turi, and Herridge asked me to review emails to and from State Department and congressional officials during the years when Hillary Clinton was the secretary of state.
What I saw has persuaded me beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that Clinton provided material assistance to terrorists and lied to Congress in a venue where the law required her to be truthful. Here is the backstory.
Turi is a lawfully licensed American arms dealer. In 2011, he applied to the Departments of State and Treasury for approvals to sell arms to the government of Qatar. Qatar is a small Middle Eastern country whose government is so entwined with the U.S. government that it almost always will do what American government officials ask of it.
In its efforts to keep arms from countries and groups that might harm Americans and American interests, Congress has authorized the Departments of State and Treasury to be arms gatekeepers. They can declare a country or group to be a terrorist organization, in which case selling or facilitating the sale of arms to them is a felony. They also can license dealers to sell.
Turi sold hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of arms to the government of Qatar, which then, at the request of American government officials, were sold, bartered or given to rebel groups in Libya and Syria. Some of the groups that received the arms were on the U.S. terror list. Thus, the same State and Treasury Departments that licensed the sales also prohibited them.
How could that be?
That’s where Clinton’s secret State Department and her secret war come in. Because Clinton used her husband’s computer server for all of her email traffic while she was the secretary of state, a violation of three federal laws, few in the State Department outside her inner circle knew what she was up to.
Now we know.
She obtained permission from President Obama and consent from congressional leaders in both houses of Congress and in both parties to arm rebels in Syria and Libya in an effort to overthrow the governments of those countries.
Many of the rebels Clinton armed, using the weapons lawfully sold to Qatar by Turi and others, were terrorist groups who are our sworn enemies. There was no congressional declaration of war, no congressional vote, no congressional knowledge beyond fewer than a dozen members, and no federal statute that authorized this.
When Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., asked Clinton at a public hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Jan. 23, 2013, whether she knew about American arms shipped to the Middle East, to Turkey or to any other country, she denied any knowledge. It is unclear whether she was under oath at the time, but that is legally irrelevant. The obligation to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to Congress pertains to all witnesses who testify before congressional committees, whether an oath has been administered or not. (Just ask Roger Clemens, who was twice prosecuted for misleading Congress about the contents of his urine while not under oath. He was acquitted.)
Here is her relevant testimony.
Paul: My question is … is the U.S. involved with any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons … buying, selling … anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey … out of Libya?
Clinton: To Turkey? … I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody’s ever raised that with me. I, I…
Paul: It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that they may have weapons … and what I’d like to know is … the (Benghazi) annex that was close by… Were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons … and were any of these weapons transferred to other countries … any countries, Turkey included?
Clinton: Senator, you will have to direct that question to the agency that ran the (Benghazi) annex. And I will see what information is available and … ahhhh…
Paul: You are saying you don’t know…
Clinton: I do not know. I don’t have any information on that.
At the time that Clinton denied knowledge of the arms shipments, she and her State Department political designee Andrew Shapiro had authorized thousands of shipments of billions of dollars’ worth of arms to U.S. enemies to fight her secret war. Among the casualties of her war were U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three colleagues, who were assassinated at the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, by rebels Clinton armed with American military hardware in violation of American law.
This secret war and the criminal behavior that animated it was the product of conspirators in the White House, the State Department, the Treasury Department, the Justice Department, the CIA and a tight-knit group of members of Congress. Their conspiracy has now unraveled. Where is the outrage among the balance of Congress?
Hillary Clinton lied to Congress, gave arms to terrorists and destroyed her emails. How much longer can she hide the truth? How much longer can her lawlessness go unchallenged and unprosecuted? Does she really think the American voters will overlook her criminal behavior and put her in the White House where she can pardon herself?
All of the hype has been on King v. Burwell and Obergefell v. Hodges, cases ruling in favor of Obamacare and gay marriage, respectively. But as everyone focuses on these cases, lost in the shuffle was perhaps a case that was worse than both of those decisions: Texas Housing v. Inclusive Communities.
A little background on the case:
Texas, whose housing department was fighting a fair-housing claim, maintained that the Fair Housing Act of 1968 required that plaintiffs show intentional discrimination, which demands a higher level of proof.
The case originated in Dallas, where an advocacy group called the Inclusive Communities Project claimed the Texas housing agency discriminated by distributing federal tax-credit subsidies almost entirely to buildings going up in poor, black neighborhoods, thereby solidifying residential segregation.
In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled in Texas Housing that claims of racial discrimination can be filed based on “disparate impact,” that is the theory that standards are racist if minorities can’t meet them at the same rates as whites. In terms of housing, that would mean that discrimination claims can be filed if population statistics are skewed against minorities, without any actual proof of racism.
That’s right, even if you’re not being racist, you have “unconscious prejudice,” according to Anthony Kennedy:
The court’s opinion, by Justice Anthony Kennedy, noted America’s history of racial segregation and the efforts Congress has made to remedy its continuing effects, including the statute disputed in Thursday’s case.
“The court acknowledges the Fair Housing Act’s continuing role in moving the nation toward a more integrated society,” Justice Kennedy wrote, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
But this is not true, as Breitbart paraphrases Justice Alito’s dissent:
The dissent, written by Justice Samuel Alito, points out the absurdity of using “disparate impact” as a measure of racial discrimination. By the same logic, he writes, minimum wage laws must be racist, because they can be shown to have a disproportionately negative effect on young black males, who are priced out of the labor market. Alito also notes that neither the 1968 Fair Housing Act, nor its 1988 amendments, allowed “disparate impact” to be evidence of racial discrimination.
The result is that the housing market is going to be flooded with legal complaints, as the dissenting justices argue:
As the four dissenters make clear, a compliance and litigation nightmare now looms for many in real estate, finance, and local government as they try to dodge liability. “No matter what [Texas] decides” in the case at hand on locating low-income housing, for example, one or another group “will be able to bring a disparate-impact case” based either on the theory that projects should be put in poorer areas (which enables building more of them) or in affluent areas (which will benefit some future residents).
So essentially, the left and the federal government can use racial lawsuits as blackmail against the housing markets. Wasn’t this the kind of policy that led to the 2008 recession?
As with the other two cases, words don’t have meaning with the current Supreme Court. But it is this case that could have the most severe repercussions. Because you’re a racist, even if you don’t think that you are.
In a ruling just handed down Monday, the court found in Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board v. Texas Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans the government does indeed have the authority to regulate political speech.
Yes, that’s the ruling: The government can now legally regulate private citizens’ political speech.
The justices should have glanced at the statements of one of their colleagues, Justice Thurgood Marshall, who in 1972 made it clear: “Above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content. To permit the continued building of our politics and culture, and to assure self-fulfillment for each individual, our people are guaranteed the right to express any thought, free from government censorship. The essence of this forbidden censorship is content control.”
Content control, indeed. And content control on the part of the government toward the free American citizen is what we now have.
The court case began as a spat over what constituted a proper license plate in Texas. The Sons of Confederate Veterans thought a little emblem of the rebel flag to the left of the tag number would be OK – especially since tthe state’s Department of Motor Vehicles Board regularly and with seeming abandon pretty much approved all the other requests for specialty plates – roughly 350 of them.
But the Texas DMV Board, to paraphrase, said, “No, Sons of Confederate Veterans, your confederate flag is offensive.” So the two sides went to court. And the Sons of Confederate Veterans argued what would seem to be the obvious: that the government board was breaking First Amendment free speech provisions. One court found in favor of the DMV Board; another, for the vet group. Enter the U.S. Supreme Court.
In an opinion written by Justice Stephen Breyer, the court’s conclusion was the government just “would not work” without having the right to determine what constitutes rightful and proper free speech. He then posed from left field: “How could a state government effectively develop programs designed to encourage and provide vaccinations, if officials also had to voice the perspective of those who oppose this type of immunization?”
Can you say, whaaat?
But he clarifies: Allowing the Confederate flag on the license plates could give the impression the Texas government endorses the rebel emblem, Breyer said.
Sanity seems to have made a brief appearance, on the wings of Justice Samuel Alito who wrote in his dissenting opinion: Dude, that’s just stupid. Referencing the license plates in Texas that carry Dr. Pepper and NASCAR emblems, Alito asked, “Would you really think that the sentiments reflected in these specialty plates are the view of the State of Texas and not those of the owners of the cars?”
But it was too late. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan had already cast their constitutional caution to the wind and joined with Breyer – and, in a shocker to a conservative’s core, so didd Thomas. One can only guess he had personal reasons and a personal vendetta against the rebel flag, because constitutionally speaking – the ruling just bites.
Think this is a license plate matter confined to Texas? Or maybe a cause for silently applauding the court’s boldness in booting that much-hated Confederate flag?
Well, it’s not. It’s a massive First Amendment ding. And now we’re already feeling tremors elsewhere. Right after the Supreme Court released its horrific Texas ruling, a federal judge in Manhattan issued one of his own, putting the halt on Pamela Geller’s American Freedom Defense Initiative to post ads on city buses and subway cars of a menacing man with a masked face alongside warnings about radical Islamists. The case of Geller versus the Metropolitan Transportation Authority had traversed a similar path as the Sons of Confederate Veterans – it led to a court fight about so-called offensive speech, which led to a First Amendment win for Geller, which led to the MTA’s sulky decision to quit posting any and all political ads.
Now curiously, right after the Supreme Court decided government can in fact control political speech, the same judge who previously found in Geller’s favor then ruled that the MTA ban on all ads moots his earlier support of her cause based on the First Amendment. That means she can’t put up her political ads after all. As Geller’s attorney rightly raged: So the government gets to break the First Amendment and then simply change its rules to “avoid the consequences of its unlawful behavior?”
They’re vowing to pursue the matter all the way to the Supreme Court. Let’s hope Thomas has recovered his senses when they arrive.
James W. King SCV Camp Commander Albany Georgia
Source ….. Southern Heritage News & Views
STOP revisionist History! KNOW THE FACTS! When history is distorted someone needs to re-post the FACTS! The Confederate Battle Flag was never a National Flag of the Confederacy. It was carried into battle by several armies such as the Army of Northern Virginia and the Army of Tennessee. It was also used as a Naval Jack by the Confederate Navy. History books, the media, the school systems, etc. abound in falsehoods and inaccuracies of Confederate and Southern history. This fact sheet will help to clarify and dispel some of these rampant inaccuracies.
MYTH – The War of 1861 – 1865 was fought over slavery.
FACT – Terribly untrue. The North fought the war over money. Plain and simple. When the South started Secession, Lincoln was asked, “Why not let the South go in peace?” To which he replied, “I can’t let them go. Who would pay for the government?” Sensing total financial ruin for the North, Lincoln waged war on the South. The South fought the War to repel Northern aggression and invasion.
MYTH – Only Southerners owned slaves.
FACT – Entirely untrue. Many Northern civilians owned slaves. Prior to, during and even after the War of Northern Aggression. Surprisingly to many, history impaired individuals, most Union Generals and staff had slaves to serve them! William T. Sherman had many slaves that served him until well after the war was over and did not free them until late in 1865.U.S. Grant also had several slaves, who were only freed after the 13th amendment in December of 1865. When asked why he didn’t free his slaves earlier, Grant stated “Good help is so hard to come by these days. “Contrarily, Confederate General Robert E. Lee freed his slaves (which he never purchased – they were inherited) in 1862!!! Lee freed his slaves several years before the war was over, and considerably earlier than his Northern counterparts. And during the fierce early days of the war when the South was obliterating the Yankee armies! Lastly, and most importantly, why did NORTHERN States outlaw slavery only AFTER the war was over? The so-called “Emancipation Proclamation” of Lincoln only gave freedom to slaves in the SOUTH! NOT in the North! This pecksniffery even went so far as to find the state of Delaware rejecting the 13th Amendment in December of 1865 and did not ratify it (13th Amendment / free the slaves) until 1901!
MYTH – The Confederate Battle Flag was flown on slave ships.
FACT – NONE of the flags of the Confederacy or Southern Nation ever flew over a slave ship. Nor did the South own or operate any slave ships. The English, the Dutch and the Portuguese brought slaves to this country, not the Southern Nation. BUT, even more monumental, it is also very important to know and understand that Federal, Yankee, Union ships brought slaves to America! These ships were from the New England states, and their hypocrisy is atrocious. These Federals were ones that ended up crying the loudest about slavery. But without their ships, many of the slaves would have never arrived here. They made countless fortunes on the delivery of slaves as well as the products made from raw materials such as cotton and tobacco in the South. This is the problem with Yankee history. History is overwhelmingly portrayed incorrectly by most of the Federal & Yankee books and media.
MYTH – The Confederate Battle Flag represented the Southern Nation.
FACT – Not true. While the Southern Battle flag was carried into battle, the Southern Nation had 3 different National flags during the course of the war. The First National flag was changed due to a resemblance of the US flag. The Second National flag was subsequently modified due to the similarity to a flag of truce. The Third National flag was the adopted flag of the Confederacy. The Confederate Battle Flag was never a National Flag of the Confederacy. It was carried into battle by several armies such as the Army Of Northern Virginia and the Army of Tennessee. Was also used as a Naval Jack by the Confederate Navy.
MYTH – The Confederate Battle Flag is known as the “Stars & Bars”.
FACT – A common misconception. The First National Confederate Flag is correctly known as the “Stars & Bars”. The Confederate Battle Flag is known as the “Southern Cross”.
MYTH – The Confederate Battle Flag represents racism today.
FACT – The Confederate Battle Flag today finds itself in the center of much controversy and hoopla going on in several states. The cry to take this flag down is unjustified. It is very important to keep in mind that the Confederate Battle Flag was simply just that. A battle flag. It was never even a National flag, so how could it have flown over a slave nation or represented slavery or racism? This myth is continued by lack of education and ignorance. Those that vilify the Confederate Battle Flag are very confused about history and have jumped upon a bandwagon with loose wheels.
MYTH – The United States Flag represented freedom.
FACT – No chance. The US flag flew over a slave nation for over 85 years! The North tolerated slavery and acknowledged it as a Division of Labor. The North made a vast fortune on slavery and its commodities. It wasn’t until the South decided to leave the Union that the North objected. The North knew it could not survive without the Southern money. That is the true definition of hypocrisy.
MYTH – Abraham Lincoln was the Great Emancipator.
FACT – While Lincoln has went down in history as the Great Emancipator, many would not care to hear his real thoughts on people of color. Martyred President Abraham Lincoln was fervently making plans to send all freed slaves to the jungles of Central America once the war was over. Knowing that African society would never allow the slaves to return back to Africa, Lincoln also did not want the slaves in the US. He thought the jungles of Central America would be the best solution and conducive to the freed slaves best interest. The only thing that kept this from happening was his assassination.
MYTH – The South revered slavery.
FACT – A very interesting fact on slavery is that at the time the War of 1861 -1865 officially commenced, the Southern States were actually in the process of freeing all slaves in the South. Russia had freed it’s servants in 1859, and the South took great note of this. Had military intervention not been forced upon the South, a very different America would have been realized then as well as now.
MYTH – The Confederate Army was comprised of rich slave owners.
FACT – Very far from true. The vast majority of soldiers in the Confederate Army were simple men of meager income. Most of which were hard working farmers and common men. Then, as now, very few rich men ever fight a war.
MYTH – Only the North had men of color in their ranks.
FACT – Quite simply a major falsehood of history. Many blacks, both free and of their own will, joined the Confederate Army to fight for their beloved Southern home. Additionally, men of other ethnic extraction fought as well. Oriental, Mexican & Spanish men as well as Native American Indians fought with pride for the South. Today, many men of color are members in the heritage group SCV – Sons Of Confederate Veterans. These men of color and pride rejoice in their heritage. The continued attacks on the Southern Nation, The Confederacy, and her symbols are a terrible outrage to these fine people. These attacks should be denounced with as much fervor as those who denounce the South.
MYTH – The Confederate Flags are an authorized symbol of Aryan, KKK and hate groups.
FACT – Quite the contrary. These despicable organizations such as the KKK and Aryans have taken a hallowed piece of history, and have plagued good Southern folks and the memories of fine Confederate Soldiers that fought under the flag with their perverse agenda. IN NO WAY does the Confederate Flag represent hate or violence. Heritage groups such as the SCV battle daily the damage done to a proud nation by these hate groups. The SCV denounces all hate groups, and pridefully boast HERITAGE – NOT HATE.
MYTH – The SCV – Sons Of Confederate Veterans are a racist, hate group.
FACT – This is a blatant attack on one of the finest heritage groups ever. The SCV – Sons Of Confederate Veterans are a historical, patriotic and non-political organization comprised of descendants of Confederate Soldiers and sailors dedicated to insuring that a true history of the 1861 -1865 period is preserved and presented to the public. The SCV continues to educate the public of the memory and reputation of the Confederate soldier as well as the motives for his suffering and sacrifice. The SCV – Sons Of Confederate Veterans are in NO WAY affiliated with, nor does it recognize or condone the terrible legacy of hate groups such as the KKK.
Patrick J. Buchanan
“Natural law — God’s law — will always trump common law,” said Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and a Christian leader in her own right, “God will have the final word in this matter.”
But, for now, Justice Anthony Kennedy has the final word.
Same-sex marriage is the law of the land, as the right of gays and lesbians to marry is right there in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868. We just didn’t see it.
Tony Kennedy spotted what no previous court had detected.
The absurdity of the decision aside, it represents another stride forward for the revolution preached by Antonio Gramsci. Before we can capture the West, the Italian Marxist argued, we must capture the culture.
For only if we change the culture can we change how people think and believe. And then a new generation will not only come to accept but to embrace what their fathers would have resisted to the death.
Consider the triumphs of the Gramscian revolution in our lifetime.
First, there is the total purge of the nation’s birth faith, Christianity, from America’s public life and educational institutions. Second, there is the overthrow of the old moral order with the legalization, acceptance and even celebration of what the old morality taught was socially destructive and morally decadent.
How dramatic have the changes been?
Until the early 1970s, the American Psychiatric Association regarded homosexuality as a mental disorder. Until this century, homosexual actions were regarded as perverted and even criminal.
Now, homosexuality is a new constitutional right and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is marrying homosexuals in front of Stonewall Inn, the site of the famous 1969 gay riot against police harassment.
Similarly with abortion. It, too, was seen as shameful, sinful and criminal until Harry Blackmun and six other justices decided in 1973 that a right to an abortion was hiding there in the Ninth Amendment.
Did the Constitution change? No, we did, as Gramsci predicted.
We are told that America has “evolved” on issues like abortion and homosexuality. But while thinking may change, beliefs may change, laws may change, and the polls have surely changed, does moral truth change?
Are the Ten Commandments and Christian tradition and Natural Law as defined by Aquinas just fine for their time, but not for ours?
If what Justice Kennedy wrote Friday represents moral truth, what can be said in defense of a Christianity that has taught for 2,000 years that homosexual acts are socially destructive and morally decadent behavior?
Three decades ago, this columnist was denounced for writing that homosexuals “have declared war on human nature.
And nature is exacting an awful retribution.” Hateful speech, it was said.
Yet, when I wrote that line, AIDS victims in America numbered in the hundreds. Worldwide today they number in the millions. And there is a pandemic of STDs among America’s young who have joined the sexual revolution preached in the 1960s.
Can true “social progress” produce results like that?
And if it is an enlightened thing for a society to welcome homosexual unions and elevate them to the status of marriage, why have no previous successful societies thought of so brilliant a reform?
The late Roman Empire and Weimar Germany are the two examples of indulgent attitudes toward homosexual conduct that come to mind.
“No-fault” divorce was an early social reform championed by our elites, followed by a celebration of the sexual revolution, the distribution of condoms to the poor and the young, and abortions subsidized by Planned Parenthood when things went wrong.
How has that worked out for America?
Anyone see a connection between these milestones of social progress and the 40 percent illegitimacy rate nationwide, or the 50 percent rate among Hispanic-Americans, or the 72 percent rate among African-Americans?
Any connection between those fatherless boys and the soaring drug use and dropout rates and the near quadrupling of those in jails and prisons over the last third of a century?
One notes a headline the other day, that, among whites in America, deaths now outnumber births. This has been true for decades in Europe, where all the native-born populations are shrinking as the Third World crosses over from the Mahgreb and Middle East.
Any connection between the legalization of abortions — 55 million in the USA since Roe — and the shrinkage of a population?
“God will have the final word in this matter,” says King.
Certainly, in the world to come, He will. Yet, even in this world, it is hard to recall a civilization that rejected its God, repudiated the faith and morality by which it grew great, embraced what was previously regarded as decadence, and survived.
Our utopian president may see ours as an ever “more perfect union.”
Yet, America has never been more disunited and divided — on politics and policy, religion and morality. We no longer even agree on good and evil, right and wrong.
Are we really still “one nation under God, indivisible”?