When History Isn’t Taught In Schools

Last week we celebrated Independence Day. It was the day that America declared its freedom from British rule. It was the day that Congress approved the Declaration of Independence.

The New American website includes what I consider the most important quote of the time period:

The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

We are an imperfect nation founded by imperfect people. However, those imperfect people relied on basic historic principles to create a land that would promote freedom. They were constrained by the customs of their time, and acted accordingly. Many of the issues they did not address (because they were not considered issues at the time) have since been addressed. Unfortunately some of our Congressional representatives do not appreciate the history that gave us our freedom or that allows them supposedly to represent us.

On July 5th, CNS News posted a tweet by Representative Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.). This tweet was posted on July 4th:

The article notes:

Controversial Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) both “liked” and shared Pressley’s post on her Twitter page.

In her Twitter thread, Rep. Pressley argued that the “prejudices, biases & contradictions codified by our founding fathers is still felt today.” She continued to compare the detention of migrants awaiting trial to slavery, writing that “We continue to struggle as a nation to embrace our full history, one that includes family separation of black families at the auction block & today of migrants at camps.”

Writing for The Daily Wire, Josh Hammer rebuked the article, saying that its author was “profoundly ungrateful” and “affirmatively wrong to muddle and belittle the genius that was Thomas Jefferson’s drafted Declaration of Independence.”

Hammer added that the Declaration of Independence actually laid the foundation for the extermination of slavery:

“Slavery was not in any way a tenet of the American Founding; it was an institution manifestly athwart the Founding. The sagacity of the Declaration, in fact, was that it actually laid the seeds — the very codified foundation — for the eventual eradication of that most horrific of compromises of principle.”

Again, history has to be viewed in context. Slavery was an acceptable practice at the time, and women did not have rights at the time. That has changed. As for the Indians, unfortunately it is the rule of nations that since man arrived on the planet that nations have changed hands because of force. Generally speaking, the conquered people assimilated into the new nation. Look at the nations of Europe and Great Britain to find multiple examples of that principle.

America is one of the freest nations in the world–our Bill of Rights protects that freedom. If Representative Pressley thinks the nation she is supposed to serve is so horrible, I would ask what legislation she has introduced to make it a better place.

Meanwhile, let us heed the words of Benjamin Franklin and celebrate our republic.

Haven’t These People Read The U.S. Constitution?

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Let’s look at this Amendment in the view of history and context. All ten amendments in the Bill of Rights limit the power of government and protect the rights of the citizens. The Bill of Rights was added to the U.S. Constitution to ally the fears of a people shell-shocked by the abuses of King George. The people wanted to make sure they would be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government in the future. An armed citizenry was one way of keeping the government in check. The colonists felt like they needed a way to keep the government in check at that time and in the future.

Today the right to bear arms is under attack.

Yesterday CNS News posted an article about Kamala Harris, a presidential candidate who is advocating for policies that undermine the Second Amendment.

The article reports:

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) told CNN’s “State of the Union with Jake Tapper” on Sunday that on her 100th day in office when she’s elected president, if the Congress fails to send her a bill with “good” gun control ideas, she will issue an executive order saying anyone who sells more than five guns a year must perform background checks on those they sell them to.

Harris also plans to direct the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) to take away the licenses of gun dealers who don’t follow the law.

…“What we’re waiting for is Congress to have the courage to act, and so let me tell you what I’m proposing. I’m proposing, one, that if, by my 100th day in office when elected president of the United States, the United States Congress fails to put a bill on my desk to sign with all of the good ideas or any of the good ideas, then I’m prepared to take executive action, because that’s what’s needed, action,” Harris said.

When asked “executive action to do what,” she said, “To do, specifically, for anyone who sells more than five guns a year, they will be required to perform background checks on the people they sell them to, and this will be the most comprehensive background check policy that has ever been had in our country thus far.”

When asked whether that can be done by executive order, Harris said, “Yes. Yes, it can. I’m also prepared to say and to direct the ATF to remove and take away the licenses of gun dealers who fail to follow the law, and, Jake, 90 percent of the guns that are associated with crime have been sold by 5 percent of the gun dealers. We need to take their licenses away.”

I believe that the proposal by Ms. Harris is exactly what our forefathers were trying to prevent.

How Is This Legal?

A website called Bearing Arms posted an article about Boulder, Colorado, earlier this month. It seems as if some of the city officials have forgotten the Second Amendment.

The article reports:

Residents of Boulder, Co., have until December 27 to “certify” their “assault weapons” or remove the firearms from city limits. Those who fail to comply could face fines, jail time, and confiscation and destruction of their firearms, according to the Denver Post.

Boulder police say they have certified 85 firearms since the city council passed an “assault weapons” ban in May. Residents who already owned prohibited rifles, pistols, and shotguns were given the chance to keep their firearms by certifying prior ownership with police. The council also voted unanimously to ban “high-capacity” magazines and bump stocks.

“My hope is that we will see more bans at the state level and one day at the federal level so these weapons will no longer be available,” Councilman Aaron Brockett said in May.

What? Generally speaking, ‘certification’ is the prelude to confiscation.

The Second Amendment states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Keep in mind that the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) were put in place to limit the power of the federal government. Those amendments were necessary in order to get all of the thirteen colonies to sign on to the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights limits the power of the government–it is not intended to limit the power of American citizens.

This is an instance where a state resident, a state official or state legislature needs to step in declare this ban and registration program unconstitutional and send the case through the courts. This law should not be allowed to stand.

Where Was This Reported In The News ?

Breitbart.com reported today that the a federal judge has ruled that the supposed “safe harbor” in the mandate was not adequate to protect religious organizations, including the New York Archdiocese, from suffering imminent harm from the mandate. Because of this judge’s ruling, the archdiocese’s lawsuit against the HHS mandate in ObamaCare can move forward.

In his weekly column at the archdiocese’s website, Cardinal Timothy Dolan pointed out that none of the local media had reported the archdiocese’s victory.

The article reports the judge’s comments on allowing the case to move forward:

“There is no, ‘Trust us, changes are coming’ clause in the Constitution,” Judge Cogan remarked. “To the contrary, the Bill of Rights itself, and the First Amendment in particular, reflect a degree of skepticism towards governmental self-restraint and self-correction.”

The judge noted that the archdiocese could be saddled with millions of dollars in fines should the HHS mandate take effect. “Ignoring the speeding train that is coming towards plaintiffs in the hope that it will stop might well be inconsistent with the fiduciary duties that plaintiffs’ directors or officers owe to their members,” Judge Cogan said.

The HHS mandate is an attack on the freedom of conscience afforded to those employers who provide health insurance coverage for their employees. The Obama Administration has also restricted the right of conscience of those who currently work in the medical field.(rightwinggranny.com). As government grows, our individual rights shrink. It’s time Americans began to push back against the small, subtle taking of our individual freedoms.

Enhanced by Zemanta