Archive for the ‘History’ Category

Whose Land? Whose Privilege?
By Ramblin’ Rose

Since late May, our nation has witnessed great destruction in the name of “justice.” But few seem to be able to articulate what really fuels the hatred…yes, hatred of our great country.

Granted, the First Amendment permits free expression and peaceful assembly. But the riots do not seem to fit within the stated parameters. Unless one professes that only black lives matter, what follows is only racism in reverse, filled with obscene epitaphs and frequently more violence.

Many white people have decided to bow before both BLM and Antifa, to apologize for their sins and the perceived sins of previous generations, to defund the police, to condone spikes in crime and utter anarchy. Those who refuse to utter those words and declare that “all lives matter” are mocked, called names and attacked verbally, physically, emotionally.

The “mob” maintains that there is “white privilege.” Many of us ask ‘what is white privilege?’ since we have not experienced it. Black athletes and Hollywood elites earn mega times more than middle class white people. Black students frequently attend better schools than white learners and often without having to pay for tuition or books. When a minority and a white person apply for the same job, the minority is the one with a paycheck. (Don’t forget the career politicians of any ilk.)

A couple of weeks ago, Mayor Ben Rozier of Bloomingdale, Georgia penned this definition of “privilege,” without even making it white privilege. Immediately, the council demanded his resignation. Read his words and determine for yourself if it is so inflammatory:

What is privilege? Privilege is wearing $200 sneakers when you’ve never had a job. Privilege is wearing $300 Beats headphones while living on public assistance. Privilege is having a Smartphone with a Data plan which you receive no bill for. Privilege is living in public subsidized housing where you don’t have a water bill, where rising property taxes and rents and energy costs have absolutely no effect on the amount of food you can put on your table. Privilege is the ability to go march against, and protest against anything that triggers you, without worry about calling out of work and the consequences that accompany such behavior. Privilege is having as many children as you want, regardless of your employment status, and be able to send them off to daycare or school you don’t pay for. Privilege is sending your kids to school early for the before school programs and breakfast, and then keeping them there for the after school program, all at no cost to you paid for by the people who DO HAVE TO DEAL WITH RISING TAXES AND COSTS! you know, us so called ‘PRIVILEGED’ the ones who pay while you TAKE TAKE TAKE!

As some attempt to destroy our historical memorials and statues, they do not seem to understand that we must learn from our story in order to avoid repeating it.

White privilege has morphed into “white supremacy.” That is the term used to reference President Trump’s July 4th (actually on July 3rd) celebration in the Black Hills. The Lakota tribe claims that the land belongs to them and not to the United Stated.

Let’s check with the impartial (tongue-in-cheek) historical source to authenticate the information. There we read “The Arikara arrived by AD 1500, followed by the Cheyenne, Crow, Kiowa and Pawnee. The Lakota (also known as Sioux) arrived from Minnesota in the 18th century and drove out the other tribes, who moved west.”

It appears that the Lakota-Sioux were not the original owners and, in fact, drove out other Native Americans who had forced out other tribes. One must also consider if the Arikara were residents there prior to 1500 AD or if they, too, were conquerors.

Wikipedia does not document their history other than to note that they were semi-nomadic people. If they did not displace any other humans, should they not be judged to the changes they caused to the environment? The killing of buffalo? The destruction of vegetation to cultivate their crops? Whose land did they occupy?

Yes, as we go back to determine who has more or longer-lasting rights, the arguments become illogical.

While we gather to celebrate the UNITED States of America, we see only division, angst, and hatred.

Many days I wish that those who hate this country and its history so much would just leave—as they often threaten but never seem to be able to fulfill their own promises.

Many still stand for the flag and OUR national anthem and kneel at the foot of the Cross. God, please heal our land and re-unite our citizens—the ones who love you and this nation.

Columbus—Explorer vs. Conqueror // Enrichment vs Destruction
By Ramblin’ Rose

Recently the US championed that after a lengthy hiatus, we again launched a shuttle from our soil to outer space to continue explorations. Humankind has always dreamed of what lies beyond the horizon.

Well, not all, apparently. As the mourning of the wrongful murder of George Floyd morphed into protests into vandalism into anarchy, the focus of the emotional outbursts had changed from white vs. black to the rejection and destruction of anything of this country, its history, its foundation. Rather than following the agenda stated to explore changes to better civilization, the morphed plan seems to be to destroy this country and return to the glory prior to 1492. Or, maybe even prior to 1700 B.C. when slavery was recorded—the domination of one person over another for forced labor.

At the epicenter of the riots and anarchy in the metro area in Minnesota, the indigenous peoples toppled a statue of Christopher Columbus. (Yes, similar destruction occurred in other cities. In fact, monuments commemorating historical leaders and events in many “Western” countries have met similar destruction.) But why Columbus? Why the native Americans? How did the events of May 25th turn to the hatred for Columbus?

Columbus, as the prototypical Western white male, not Columbus the man, epitomizes the perceived prejudices of the Europeans against the native peoples, according to the multiculturalists. Dinesh D’Souza, an Indian-born American author and filmmaker, defines multiculturalism as “a denial of all Western claims to truth.”

Was Columbus an explorer or a conqueror of the New World? Our world?

Columbus sought a shorter trade route to India and sailed west. But he never set foot on the soil of North America in any of his four voyages to the New World. History credits him with calling the indigenous peoples “Indians” because he thought he had discovered the way to India. On his first voyage, he landed on an island in the Caribbean, probably San Salvador.

Yes, initially Columbus expressed his prejudice about the peaceful islanders, the Tainos. He said that the men were handsome and the women beautiful. D’Souza writes “…He praised the generosity and lack of guile among the Tainos, contrasting their virtues with Spanish vices. He insisted that although they were without religion, they were not idolaters; he was confident that their conversion would come through gentle persuasion and not through force.The reason, he noted, is that Indians possess a high natural intelligence. There is no evidence that Columbus thought that Indians were congenitally or racially inferior to Europeans…” Reportedly, other explorers (Pedro Alvares Cabral, Amerigo Vespucci, Ferdinand Magellan, and Walter Raleigh) provided similarly positive impressions about the native peoples.

Later, Columbus found another reality in the islands. The men he left when he returned to Spain were savagely murdered by the Arawak tribes who also inhabited the region. That reality also contradicts the rosy history reported by the indigenous peoples, specifically the American Indian Movement, aka AIM.

While the exact history and origin of those called Native Americans are still under debate, it seems certain that they were not native to the Americas. Nor is the date or the path of their arrival without discussion. What is widely accepted is that they came from somewhere else. Many theorize that they arrived from Asia (some claim Africa) via the Bering Strait…probably in waves. They were not all from one homogeneous people; they identified as members of different tribes, and they fought and conquered one another for land, property, slaves, and power. Their battles were brutal.

By the time that Cortes arrived at the Yucatan Peninsula, the migrations had reached through the Americas. The Mayans had suffered defeat at the hands of the Aztecs who inhabited central Mexico. The Mayans welcomed the Spaniards, thinking that they were gods—armor, horses and weapons, and also allies in battling the Aztecs when they learned that the Spaniards planned to attack the Aztecs for their gold.

But one must also ask, who had extracted the gold from the mines? Could they have been the slaves captured from other indigenous tribes conquered by the Aztecs prior to the arrival of the White Man? Definitively, yes, according to historians.

In a Twitter exchange between Senator Ted Cruz and Ilhan Omar, Cruz schooled Omar with these words: “As an ‘indigenous person’ myself, I am amused by the left’s cherry-picking of history. My people, the Choctaw, were in a constant state of war with other nations, prior to European colonization of North America. My tribe also owned slaves and fought for the Confederacy in the Civil War, and instead of a rebuke, we get cradle-to-grave free health care at the expense of taxpayers. If Columbus hadn’t stumbled across Hispaniola, Cuba and the Americas, someone else would have. Discovery of the region by European nations was inevitable, as were the diseases and innovations they brought with them. My region in Oklahoma was a battlefield before a single European ever set foot on the continent. Some tribes in the area, prior to the Indian Removal Act, beheaded some of their enemies and captured others as slaves.”

Those clear descriptions do not fit the narrative of the Leftists. Maybe even the modern history curricula in our schools do not match history as much as they align with the 1619 project. D’Souza observes “…Columbus has metamorphosed from a grand crusader into a genocidal maniac and a precursor to Hitler. American Indians are now beyond reproach, canonized as moral and ecological saints.”

It appears that the riots are not really about the death of a black man on May 25th. It appears that BLM, Antifa and now AIM found a moment that afforded them an opportunity to attack Western civilization and realize its destruction. What will follow? Anarchy just as with primitive cultures. We are living the dark side of Humanity.

While campaigning, then-Candidate Trump would say that Americans would get tired of all the winning if they elected him. As the 2020 election nears, Victor Davis Hanson has written this article that’s appropriately titled “Trumped Out?” I’m not. Give me 4 more years of this. I’m loving it.

Hanson is apparently loving it, too:

The August jobs report “unexpectedly” reminds us that never have so many Americans been at work. The 3.7 percent unemployment rate continues to be the lowest peacetime unemployment figure in 50 years. Black and Hispanic unemployment remain at record lows. Workers’ wages continue to rise. Talk of recession is belied by low interest, low inflation, low unemployment and a strong stock market. The result is that millions of Americans enjoy far better lives than they had in 2016.

If President Trump isn’t re-elected, what will happen? Here’s Hanson’s opinion into that:

When we look to alternatives, all we seem to hear is multi-trillion-dollar hare-brained schemes from radical progressives and socialists masquerading as Democrats at a time of record national debt. The Green New Deal, Medicare for All, free healthcare for illegal aliens, reparations, the abolition of $1.5 trillion in student loan debt, and free tuition for all—are the stuff of fantasies and either would have to be repudiated by any of the Democratic nominees who actually was elected, or would destroy an already indebted nation.

That doesn’t sound attractive. That’s what would likely happen with a Democrat president. Democrats control the House. The woman who really runs the House is so radical that she thinks this isn’t radical enough. I’m not talking about Nancy Pelosi. I’m talking about AOC. This is what awaits us if AOC ever assumes total control:

But these are not normal times. There is (for now) no longer a Democratic Party. Instead, it is a revolutionary Jacobin movement that believes socialism is our salvation, that identity politics is our creed, that gun confiscation is our duty, that the abrupt end of fossil fuels is coming very soon, that open borders is our new demography, and that the archetypical unmarried, childless, urban hipster is our model woke citizen.

Over my dead body. President Trump has had quite the effect on otherwise timid Republicans. Check out the ‘Trump effect’ on Lindsey Graham:

It’s important that traditional-thinking people decimate today’s AOC Democrats. They’re despicable. They’re the antithesis of fair-minded. Today’s AOC Democrats don’t see the United States as the greatest protector of human rights or civil rights. Check out what Robert Francis O’Rourke thinks of your right to protect your family:

Prof. Hanson is a historian by trade. When he makes statements about history, I pay attention. That’s why I paid attention to this statement:

I cannot remember a moment in U.S. history when a presidential candidate conspired with the intelligence community of the lame-duck administration of the same party to destroy a presidential rival.

Robert Mueller forever discredited the idea of a special counsel, given his unprofessionalism, bias, and apparent incompetence that ate up 22 months of the Trump presidency. Even in the crude post-1960s, we have never seen anything like the current assassination rhetoric of Hollywood celebrities and the boasts of doing bodily harm to the president by his political opponents.

That’s what AOC’s Democratic Party is about. They’re mostly interested in trampling anyone, whether it’s a Republican, a Democrat who isn’t sufficiently woke or an apolitical person, who doesn’t march in lockstep with them. I don’t agree with each of President Trump’s tweets. I certainly disagreed with his idea of bringing the Taliban to Camp David. But I’ve literally thanked God that he’s our president. I thank God because he’s a fighter. As Prof. Hanson said, “After all that, the strange thing is not that Trump can be occasionally wearisome, but that he is even still breathing.”

According to Ashley Fairbanks’ bio, Ms. Fairbanks is a progressive with an education from the University of Minnesota, where Ms. Fairbanks studied “American Indian studies and Political Science.” The reason I mention this is because Ms. Fairbanks wrote this article, which was heavy on the guilt trip and short on tolerance.

Early in Ms. Fairbanks’ article, she wrote “People learn the real history, the important stuff, from books. People learn from knowing people different than themselves. Lessons you must have missed.” According to her bio, Ms. Fairbanks “is an Anishinaabe woman and citizen of the White Earth Nation. She operates as a socially-conscious designer and public artist. She works with a cohort of artists that do racial justice popular education and organizing. She seeks to use her design skills to activate people around issues ranging from police brutality to environmental justice. She has worked with the Energy Action Coalition, Indigenous Environmental Network and Honor the Earth to create campaigns around the KXL and Sandpiper pipelines and protecting our water from mining.”

Based on that information, it’s difficult picturing Ms. Fairbanks interacting with people different than herself. This information makes it even more difficult to believe that she interacts with anyone who isn’t a hardline progressive and environmental activist:

Ashley sits on the board of Voices for Racial Justice. She went to the University of Minnesota to study American Indian studies and Political Science, and has completed Intermedia Arts Creative Community Leadership Institute, NACDI’s Native Organizing and Leadership Institute, The Humphrey School’s Roy Wilkins Community Policy Fellowship and is a 2016 Forecast Public Art Emerging Public Artist Grantee.

That’s the resume of a SJW. This paragraph encapsulates Ms. Fairbanks’ thinking:

We often forget that the history that we are teaching students shapes their entire worldview, not just their ideas on history. When we are taught white history, white science, white literature, and people of color and indigenous people get one week in our designated month, we are teaching white supremacy.

I’d love to hear Ms. Fairbanks’ definition of what white science is. I think I understand what white literature and white history are but science is science. I don’t doubt that white literature is different than the literature written from a black person’s perspective. I’m certain, however, that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west whether you’re black, brown, yellow or white. I’m equally certain that gravity works by the same principles for people of all races.

Understanding those things makes me think that Ms. Fairbanks’ opinions are either jaded or incorrect or both. I won’t automatically reject everything she’s said but I’ll maintain a healthy skepticism.

Technorati: , , , ,

There’s no question about whether Ted Cruz is a skilled debater. Apparently, though, his debating skills are limited. Sen. Cruz thinks that political opportunity outweighs the need for honesty and intelligence. This time, Sen. Cruz thinks that creating a no-fly zone in Syria is foolish.

During his interview with Bloomberg, Sen. Cruz criticized Sen. Rubio and Mrs. Clinton “for supporting a no-fly zone and arming the so-called moderate rebels. I think none of that makes any sense. In my view, we have no dog in the fight of the Syrian civil war,” he said, arguing that Rubio and Clinton “are repeating the very same mistakes they made in Libya. They’ve demonstrated they’ve learned nothing.'”

Sen. Cruz should be ashamed of himself. Saying that a no-fly zone is a mistake is a mistake. I suspect that he knows that but he couldn’t resist the opportunity of linking Sen. Rubio and Mrs. Clinton. Building a safe haven, which a no-fly zone would do, might cause a dramatic reduction in refugees leaving Syria.

Is Sen. Cruz foolish enough to think that a dramatic reduction in Syrian refugees fleeing their country is a mistake? Seriously? Is Sen. Cruz foolish enough to think that potentially reducing the number of ISIS terrorists using the crisis to get into western Europe and the United States is a mistake? If he is, then he isn’t qualified to be commander-in-chief.

I don’t think Sen. Cruz is that stupid. I think, though, that Sen. Cruz can’t resist being a political opportunist, even if that means being dishonest.

“If the Obama administration and the Washington neo-cons succeed in toppling Assad, Syria will be handed over to radical Islamic terrorists. ISIS will rule Syria.”

Sen. Cruz, establishing a no-fly zone is the opposite of toppling Assad. It’s simply creating a safe haven for victims of Assad’s brutality. It wouldn’t require but a handful of US boots on the ground while protecting Syrians.

If you want to talk about learning from the past, let’s look into how establishing a no-fly zone in 1991 in northern Iraq created Kurdistan. The US protected the Kurds from Saddam Hussein after Operation Desert Storm. Now the Peshmerga, the Kurds’ army, are one of our best allies in the Arab world. If that’s Sen. Cruz’s definition of a mistake, he should visit dictionary.com. Their definition of mistake is “an error in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc.”

I’d argue that protecting the Kurds and creating a loyal Arab ally in the heart of the Middle East is a success story.

A former supervisor of mine occasionally sends out videos or pictures to a group of friends. I’m fortunate to be part of that group. The videos and pictures are frequently about principles that this great nation was founded on. Sometimes, they’re about mocking trendy things that tear at the fabric of this great nation. This video doesn’t fit neatly into either of those categories. It fits into a category all its own:

This video fits into the category of ‘When America was great, America was good, too.’ In the course of my lifetime, I’ve seen a handful of people that I consider great Americans. Ronald Reagan sits atop that group. He isn’t alone. He’s joined by Billy Graham, Bob Hope, Red Skelton and John Wayne.

These men shared a compelling set of traits that’s in short supply these days. That set of traits are humility, modesty and a willingness to work together. It’s important to note that these heroes didn’t tolerate big egos or mean-spiritedness.

That’s why America was good when it was a great and prospering nation.

Natan Sharansky’s op-ed provides a stunning contrast between the Obama administration’s Iran capitulation and President Eisenhower’s negotiations with the then-Soviet Union. Check this out:

For starters, consider that the Soviet regime felt obliged to make its first ideological concession simply to enter into negotiations with the United States about economic cooperation. At the end of the 1950s, Moscow abandoned its doctrine of fomenting a worldwide communist revolution and adopted in its place a credo of peaceful coexistence between communism and capitalism. The Soviet leadership paid a high price for this concession, both internally, in the form of millions of citizens, like me, who had been obliged to study Marxism and Leninism as the truth and now found their partial abandonment confusing, and internationally, in their relations with the Chinese and other dogmatic communists who viewed the change as a betrayal. Nevertheless, the Soviet government understood that it had no other way to get what it needed from the United States.

The Soviets capitulated because they didn’t have any options. Soviet negotiators thought that President Eisenhower was a serious, hard-nosed negotiator. They didn’t fear him like they feared President Reagan but they knew they couldn’t take liberties with Eisenhower.

As a result of their capitulation, the Soviets experienced a shaming that they never recovered from. It took several more decades before the gulags closed and the dissidents were freed but the Soviets had been dealt a stunning defeat.

Imagine what would have happened if instead, after completing a round of negotiations over disarmament, the Soviet Union had declared that its right to expand communism across the continent was not up for discussion. This would have spelled the end of the talks. Yet today, Iran feels no need to tone down its rhetoric calling for the death of America and wiping Israel off the map.

The Iranians sized up President Obama and figured it out that he wasn’t a serious negotiator. To the Iranians, President Obama looked like a mark in a con man’s sights. They figured that President Obama could be flipped. That’s because they knew he was a desperate man in search of a legacy. As a result, the Iranians played hardball with him.

The sanctions were working. Iran’s mullahs would’ve been toppled if President Obama was interested in that. Unfortunately for Israel and the US, President Obama wasn’t interested in dealing the Iranian regime a death blow. Because President Obama zigged when other administrations would’ve zagged, Iran is poised to become a Middle East hegemon with a nuclear weapon.

While negotiating with the Soviet Union, U.S. administrations of all stripes felt certain of the moral superiority of their political system over the Soviet one. They felt they were speaking in the name of their people and the free world as a whole, while the leaders of the Soviet regime could speak for no one but themselves and the declining number of true believers still loyal to their ideology.

President Obama’s legacy will be his administration-long apology tour. He’s felt that the United States wasn’t a force for good. This will be his fitting epitaph:

It’ll take a generation to clean up all the history-changing messes he’s created. President Clinton said that the 1990s represented a “vacation from history.” On 9/11, history came to collect on that debt.

It might well be that 2009-2016 will be called the United States’ vacation from being the United States.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Lynne Cheney has a bone to pick with the College Board, which she writes about eloquently in this op-ed. Here’s what’s got Mrs. Cheney upset:

If you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

—President Ronald Reagan, speech at the Brandenburg Gate, Berlin, 1987

It isn’t that Lynne Cheney has a problem with President Reagan’s speech at the Brandenburg Gate. It’s the context in which the College Board uses President Reagan’s speech that’s got her upset:

President Reagan’s challenge to Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev remains one of the most dramatic calls for freedom in our time. Thus I was heartened to find a passage from Reagan’s speech on the sample of the new Advanced Placement U.S. history exam that students will take for the first time in May. It seemed for a moment that students would be encouraged to learn about positive aspects of our past rather than be directed to focus on the negative, as happens all too often.

But when I looked closer to see the purpose for which the quotation was used, I found that it is held up as an example of “increased assertiveness and bellicosity” on the part of the U.S. in the 1980s. That’s the answer to a multiple-choice question about what Reagan’s speech reflects.

No notice is taken of the connection the president made between freedom and human flourishing, no attention to the fact that within 2 1/2 years of the speech, people were chipping off pieces of the Berlin Wall as souvenirs. Instead of acknowledging important ideas and historical context, test makers have reduced President Reagan’s most eloquent moment to warmongering.

This stuff might as well come straight out of the Obama foreign policy handbook.

But I digress.

It’s apparent that Mrs. Cheney thinks the College Board is filled with members of the PC Police:

When educators, academics and other concerned citizens realized how many notable figures were missing and how negative was the view of American history presented, they spoke out forcefully. The response of the College Board was to release the sample exam that features Ronald Reagan as a warmonger.

It doesn’t stop there. On the multiple-choice part of the sample exam, there are 18 sections, and eight of them take up the oppression of women, blacks and immigrants. Knowing about the experiences of these groups is important—but truth requires that accomplishment be recognized as well as oppression, and the exam doesn’t have questions on subjects such as the transforming leadership of Martin Luther King Jr.

The AP Test should be used to show which students have the best grasp of American history — all of American history. It’s cheating the brightest students when many of the most influential Americans aren’t used in a history test.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

According to this article, President Obama has turned the US Air Force into a pro-Iranian Air Force:

According to the report, Netanyahu and his commanders agreed after four nights of deliberations to task the Israeli army’s chief of staff Beni Gants to prepare a qualitative operation against Iran’s nuclear program. In addition, Netanyahu and his ministers decided to do whatever they could do to thwart a possible agreement between Iran and the White House because such an agreement is, allegedly, a threat to Israel’s security.

The sources added that Gants and his commanders prepared the requested plan and that Israeli fighter jets trained for several weeks in order to make sure the plans would work successfully. Israeli fighter jets even carried out experimental flights in Iran’s airspace after they managed to break through radars.

However, an Israeli minister “who has good ties with the US administration revealed Netanyahu’s plans to Secretary of State John Kerry” and as a result Obama then threatened to shoot down Israeli jets before they could reach their targets in Iran.

It’s simply stunning that President Obama would threaten to shoot down Israeli jets if they tried destroying Iran’s uranium enrichment plants. Has President Obama gone totally insane? The thought that President Obama would shoot down Israel’s jets to protect Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities is like hearing President Obama lifting protection from Poland to tell Putin he was a trusted ally.

President Obama’s foreign policy has an Alice-in-Wonderland feel to it. It’s like we’re being told that the sun sets in the east and rises in the west. Nothing about President Obama’s foreign policy makes sense.

Netanyahu had to abort the operation and since then relations between Israel and the United States have been declining, according to the sources quoted in the report.

President Obama is the most anti-Israel president in US history. Whoever’s in second isn’t close. The thought that a US president is willing to protect the biggest state sponsor of terrorism while shooting down our best ally in the region’s planes indicates President Obama’s priorities aren’t America’s priorities.

President Obama is an historic president … for all the wrong reasons.

On this day in 1776, men of great integrity gave us an incredible gift. On July 4, 1776, they gave us the Declaration of Independence. Though it’s 238 years old, we’re still benefiting from these men’s wisdom. They suffered greatly to turn that declaration into reality. This society will be hurt, though, if we don’t appreciate what they gave us. Let’s look at the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

What these incredible men gave this nation is a system of government that prevents another man from becoming our king, legislature and judge.

Eventually, another group of great men wrote our Constitution. The principles listed in the Declaration of Independence became the pillars upon which the Constitution was written. When the Constitution was written, it created 3 co-equal branches of government, the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch. They were seperated so nobody could become ultimate ruler.

Later in the Declaration of Independence, they listed their grievances. Here are some of the most noteworthy grievances:

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

Because of these usurpations, this nation’s Founding Father understsood the importance of creating an independent judiciary, a legislature to write laws and a president that is accountable to We The People in executing those laws. They understood that presidents should respect the fact that they are given their “just powers from the consent of the governed.”

That’s the system they created. Unfortunately, we’ve had to deal with corrupt presidents from time to time. This is one of those times. Fortunately, the Founding Fathers gave us a system to deal with these situations. This week and last, the courts pushed back against this corrupt president.

The final paragraph of the Declaration is telling, too:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

This Declaration emphatically said that this nation would be based on the belief that these states would be free and independent, that each of the states had the authority to wage war and negotiate the terms of the cessation of war and to sign treaties with other nations. In the minds of the Founding Fathers, each of the states was its own sovereign nation. In fact, when the Revolutionary War ended, France recognized each of the states as a sovereign nation.

These principles were so important to the Founding Fathers that they pledged their lives, their considerable fortunnes and their sacred honor in fighting for these principles.

Had they lost the war, the signatories understood that they’d be tried and convicted of treason, which would likely be followed by their execution. Despite that risk, they said they’d rather fight for the blessings of liberty than living under King George III’s tyranical government.

Thank God they made the right choice.