The Fourth of July may be just a holiday for fireworks to some people. But it was a momentous day for the history of this country and the history of the world.
Not only did July 4, 1776 mark American independence from England, it marked a radically different kind of government from the governments that prevailed around the world at the time -- and the kinds of governments that had prevailed for thousands of years before.
The American Revolution was not simply a rebellion against the King of England, it was a rebellion against being ruled by kings in general. That is why the opening salvo of the American Revolution was called "the shot heard round the world."
Autocratic rulers and their subjects heard that shot -- and things that had not been questioned for millennia were now open to challenge. As the generations went by, more and more autocratic governments around the world proved unable to meet that challenge.
Some clever people today ask whether the United States has really been "exceptional." You couldn't be more exceptional in the 18th century than to create your fundamental document -- the Constitution of the United States -- by opening with the momentous words, "We the people..."
Those three words were a slap in the face to those who thought themselves entitled to rule, and who regarded the people as if they were simply human livestock, destined to be herded and shepherded by their betters. Indeed, to this very day, elites who think that way -- and that includes many among the intelligentsia, as well as political messiahs -- find the Constitution of the United States a real pain because it stands in the way of their imposing their will and their presumptions on the rest of us.
More than a hundred years ago, so-called "Progressives" began a campaign to undermine the Constitution's strict limitations on government, which stood in the way of self-anointed political crusaders imposing their grand schemes on all the rest of us. That effort to discredit the Constitution continues to this day, and the arguments haven't really changed much in a hundred years.
The cover story in the July 4th issue of Time magazine is a classic example of this arrogance. It asks of the Constitution: "Does it still matter?"
A long and rambling essay by Time magazine's managing editor, Richard Stengel, manages to create a toxic blend of the irrelevant and the erroneous.
The irrelevant comes first, pointing out in big letters that those who wrote the Constitution "did not know about" all sorts of things in the world today, including airplanes, television, computers and DNA.
This may seem like a clever new gambit but, like many clever new gambits, it is a rehash of arguments made long ago. Back in 1908, Woodrow Wilson said, "When the Constitution was framed there were no railways, there was no telegraph, there was no telephone,"
In Mr. Stengel's rehash of this argument, he declares: "People on the right and left constantly ask what the framers would say about some event that is happening today."
Maybe that kind of talk goes on where he hangs out. But most people have enough common sense to know that a constitution does not exist to micro-manage particular "events" or express opinions about the passing scene.
A constitution exists to create a framework for government -- and the Constitution of the United States tries to keep the government inside that framework.
From the irrelevant to the erroneous is a short step for Mr. Stengel. He says, "If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it certainly doesn't say so."
Apparently Mr. Stengel has not read the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Perhaps Richard Stengel should follow the advice of another Stengel -- Casey Stengel, who said on a number of occasions, "You could look it up."
Does the Constitution matter? If it doesn't, then your Freedom doesn't matter.
Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.
~~~~~~~ OneDollarDVDProject.com needs your activist support. Do your friends and family know what you know?
This video sounds great and all but there are some things that need to be kept in mind about Boykin. First off, he's a true blue fundie nut and Israeli-firster who was a huge supporter of GWB and who believes that the war on terror is the will of God (The whole Jesus is a God of war bullshit).
Let's also not forget that Boykin was an adviser to Janet Reno regarding the stand-off at Waco. At the time he was the commanding officer of Delta Force.
Almost everything he mentions in this video is dead on the money. The problem is he states "this administration" this and "this administration" that - as if the Republicans hands are clean. He states the problems in a way that makes it sound as if the Marxism is only being perpetrated by the Democratic party instead of it being perpetrated by both sides of the aisle.
I'm afraid this guy is nothing more than a Free Republic/Liberty Post big government Republican.
I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. - Benjamin Franklin
So, he's was and is a General for Christian Zionism.
Oooops
My post wasn't meant to slam you or anything. The General brought up some excellent points that everyone needs to think about. I just thought it important for everyone to know where he is coming from.
I'm no expert on him but his name rang a bell so I did an internet search for him. We has a Wikipedia page.
I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. - Benjamin Franklin
Which is it: "Those damn muslims" or, "Those damn Zionists"?
It's those damn Bolsheviks.
Karl Marx, a.k.a. Moses Levy Mordecai, or Mordecai Levi, or Karl Heinrich Marx, it is unclear what his real name was, is the link to the truth of the matter. This person skirts around Communism and the jewish Bolsheviks by calling it Marxism, for reasons known only to himself.
It is vital to understand that there is no truth without discernment and no wisdom without the truth. What then is “faith” but an effort to confound truth and wisdom?