Decent Respect To The Opinion Of Mankind: Declaring The Why 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.

Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration Of Independence

Every Fourth of July, Americans celebrate one of the world's most remarkable documents. On that day, in 1776, the Second Continental Congress issued a declaration of their intent to be free from British rule, and by so doing made real a radical proposition that hitherto had only been a quaint abstract concept: that political authority, and the right to govern, descended from the people of a nation.

We are rightly awed by the majesty of Thomas Jefferson's rhetoric. We are properly impressed by the hope and humanity of the ideals he set forth. From that first Fourth of July until now, America has struggled imperfectly to measure up to the premise of universal human equality at the heart of the Declaration of Independence.

Yet the Declaration of Independence is more than its ideals. It is more than a mere assertion of inalienable rights. It is also an homage to humanity.

An Election Heard 'Round The World?

On Sunday (November 24), Hong Kong held their elections for their legislative council.

Democracy won. In a landslide.

The triumph is not just that there was record turnout, with some reports putting voter participation at greater than 70%. The surge of previously non-participating voters powered the election of councillors backed by the pro-democracy protest movement to as many as 90% of the contested seats, leading many to characterize the election as a rejection of Beijing's heavy handed and increasingly fascistic authoritarian rule.

“Almost three million voters sent the Carrie Lam administration an unmistakable message on Sunday, flooding to the ballot box in record numbers to vote against pro-establishment candidates and usher in what by all indications should be a staggering victory for the pro-democracy camp,” Public broadcaster RTHK reported. “While official results are yet to be announced, partial counts suggest that opposition candidates should win an overwhelming majority of the 452 District Council seats up for grabs, and may have a winning ratio of as high as nine-to-one.”

Hong Kong Still Part Of Mainland China

While political leaders here in the US tweeted out expressions of support and solidarity to the protest movement and the newly elected pro-democracy councillors, Beijing predictably reiterated that Hong Kong was "still" China proper, and still under Beijing sovereignty, not just suzerainty.

Beijing has reaffirmed its "firm support" for troubled Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam, despite a landslide win by opposition parties in local elections, as voters vented their frustration over her administration's handling of anti-government protests.

"Our position is crystal clear. The central government firmly supports the Chief Executive Carrie Lam in leading the Hong Kong government, supports the police in enforcing law and restoring order, and supports the judicial organs in punishing violent criminals.," said Geng Shuang, spokesperson at China's Foreign Ministry, at a regular press conference on Monday.

Geng echoed remarks made by his boss Foreign Minister Wang Yi earlier in Tokyo, claiming that Hong Kong matters were China's domestic affairs. He also restated Beijing's commitment to enforcing the "one country, two systems" framework, under which the city is meant to enjoy a high degree of autonomy that mainland Chinese cities are denied. "Hong Kong is China's Hong Kong," Geng said.

Earlier on Monday, Wang told reporters in Tokyo: "Any attempts to undermine the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong will end in failure." Prior to that, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, at a meeting with Wang, had urged China to maintain a free and open Hong Kong.

Yet is that really the situation? Is Hong Kong truly Beijing's to command at this point?

Even the political punditry advises Beijing to "listen" to the Hong Kong electorate (ignoring for the moment the irony of a plea to an unapologetically fascist and increasingly legalist oligarchy to pay greater heed to the voices and concerns of the broader polity), highlighting that the dominant election themes had little to do with local issues and everything to do with the democracy movement itself.

Although the pro-China camp is bravely trying to suggest that the election should be seen as a reflection of mundane local matters, it is hard to ignore the reality that the victorious candidates campaigned on explicitly pro-democracy platforms, largely overlooking district issues.

The Hong Kong local government is now unabashedly, unashamedly, and unwaveringly pro-democracy. About the only reason they are not pro-independence and pro-freedom is the protest movement itself stopped short of demanding full independence or even full local automony. For Beijing to bend itself to pay heed to the rabble rousers from the protests is hardly the posture of full control over the city.

The Crackdown That Didn't Happen

But there is an even more compelling reason to question the firmness of Beijing's stance on the Hong Kong Elections. These elections occurred in large measure because President Xi Jinping of China never pulled the trigger on sending in troops to take control of the city by force, despite considerable saber rattling on the point.

It was barely two months ago, at the beginning of September, that Xinhua "warned" Hong Kong and the pro-democracy supporters that "the end" was coming, hinting that Xi was reaching the end of his patience and that troops could be expected at any time. Xi himself hinted as much when, a few days later, he used distinctly Mao-like language in a televised speech in the run up to China's October 1 National Day holiday.

But if a televised speech by Xi on Tuesday is any guide, their struggle to achieve those goals will be much harder. In that speech, Xi listed Hong Kong, along with Macau and Taiwan, as one of the challenges threatening the rule of the Communist Party. Excerpts of the speech dominated China Central Television’s nightly prime-time news slots. Xi gave the speech to a group of young and middle-aged senior officials enrolled in a training course at the central party school. He called for “constant struggles” against myriad challenges and risks in the areas of economics, politics, culture, society, ecology, national defence and the armed forces, diplomacy, party building and, notably, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan.

Hong Kong's response to Xi's speech was to call on US President Donald Trump to "liberate" the city. Protesters on the streets carried banners which called on President Trump by name to "save Hong Kong" and "Make Hong Kong Great again". 

To say the citizens of Hong Kong were not moved by Xi's warnings is an understatement.

We should remember that, as China's National Day holiday approached, the protests themselves grew increasingly violent, with the Hong Kong police themselves resorting to tear gas and water cannon to disperse the seemingly endless protests. At times the protests themselves resembled nothing so much as an "Asian intifada", with unarmed protesters hurling rocks, bricks, and whatever else could be found at the riot police.

We should remember that on the eve of National Day, Beijing quietly doubled the normal contingent of PLA soldiers present in Hong Kong, leading many to speculate (myself included), that a Tienanmen-style crackdown was at long last about to happen.  Except the crackdown never came.

Protesters Never Backed Down

There will be endless speculation on why President Xi did not order martial law and suppression of the protests by force, but Xi may simply have recognized that force would not resolve the issue.

During protests on the October 1 Nationald Day holiday itself, the police began using live ammunition against the protesters. The protests did not diminish.

When Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam attempted to enforce an "anti-mask" order designed to inhibit the protesters habit of wearing masks to conceal their faces from the ubiquitous Chinese surveillance apparatus, the protests merely escalated in intensity and levels of violence.

Every escalation by the Hong Kong police, every arrest, was only met with more protests. Intimidation was met with determination.

Intimidation was met with grim determination. As one observer noted, writing for The Atlantic, the protesters had few, if any, illusions about the improbability of success.

Aren’t you afraid? I asked, gingerly. “We are afraid,” they quickly admitted. They even giggled, but it got serious quickly. This is our last chance, they said very matter-of-factly. If we stand down, nothing will stand between us and mainland China, they said. They talked about Xinjiang, and what China had done to the Uighur minority. I’ve heard about the fate of the Uighurs from so many protesters over the months. China may have wanted to make an example out of the region, but the lesson Hong Kongers took was in the other direction—resist with all your might, because if you lose once, there will be a catastrophe for your people, and the world will ignore it.

The two women weren’t sure whether they would win. That’s also something I’ve heard often—these protesters aren’t the most optimistic group. No rose-colored glasses here. “But we cannot give up,” one insisted, “because if we do, there will be no future for us anyway. We might as well go down fighting.”

It is not hard to conclude that substituting riot police with soldiers in the face of that measure of determination would have not changed anything except the number of casualties. Perhaps Xi recognized that, and preferred not to have violent repression played out on Facebook and livestreamed video for the world to see; those certainly would not have been images to help China advance on the international stage.

Has The Moment For Crackdown Passed?

With elections roundly endorsing the protests and the sparse agenda of the democracy movement, and with those elections hailed around the world, has Xi allowed the window in which he could have seized control of Hong Kong militarily to close? Certainly a crackdown now would be seen as a repudiation of the elections, not just of the protest movement itself. Such a move now could easily result in more than just condemnatory tweets and other forms of virtue-signalling. Sanctions from other nations would almost surely follow, just as sanctions came against Russia when it annexed Crimea. 

Already, the United States House of Representatives has adopted a bill that, if also passed by the Senate, would mandate an annual review by the State Department to determine whether Hong Kong remained sufficiently autonomous to justify its special trading status under US law. As China’s central government tramples on Hong Kong’s rights, more Western democracies – including those that have hesitated to support US President Donald Trump’s efforts to contain China – are likely to support comprehensive economic sanctions.

While Russia was able to shrug off the worst of them and essentially wait them out, Xi, being in the middle of a low-level trade war with the US, might not have felt quite so sanguine about the prospect.

Whatever the reason for forbearance before, democratic elections amplify the reasoning many times over. A crackdown may still happen, but the risks to Beijing have increased tremendously.

It must also be acknowledged that any repression or reprisal against Hong Kong's democracy movement carries a potentially ruinous cost: the loss of Hong Kong as a financial hub and source of foreign capital.

The U.S. bill is widely seen by Hong Kong protesters as a form of economic pressure for the Hong Kong government and Chinese regime, which relies on the financial hub as a source of foreign reserves and investment capital.

Perhaps the price tag for repression was at long last more than President Xi was prepared to pay.

The Question Still Unanswered

The greatest question in all of this remains unresolved. How shall China successfully continue its "one country, two systems" policy? How can a democratic Hong Kong, rooted in the traditions of the British legal system and Western appreciations of civil liberties, exist peacefully within an increasingly repressive and fascistic Beijing autocracy?

More importantly for Beijing, if it is unwilling to repress Hong Kong, how will it justify repressing Tibet, Xinjiang, and other parts of the country? Having allowed Hong Kong to thumb its collective nose at Beijing's authority, how will it prevent other cities from attempting to do likewise? The PLA has some 2 million men in its ranks--hardly enough to pacify a population of a billion and a half.

In Hong Kong, democracy and autocracy clashed--with democracy emerging the clear winner. The choice of the people has been cast for freedom rather than slavery. If Hong Kong leads other cities in China to choose likewise, there is no way for Beijing to sustain its authority.

In 1989, a restive East German population pushed through the Berlin Wall without opposition from either the East German government or the Soviet hegemon in Moscow. Two years later the Soviet Union disappeared forever.

In 2019, a restive Hong Kong population pushed back against a totalitarian Beijing, with what ultimately proved to be only a token opposition (against what presumably could have been mounted). Will history rhyme, and usher in the collapse of the Beijing oligarchy within the next few years? 

To suggest that is the inevitable outcome of all that has transpired in Hong Kong is to extrapolate far beyond the bounds of all available evidence. Yet if it should pass that Beijing declines and disintegrates in the coming years, there is no doubt that the beginning of that decline was this year's democracy movement in Hong Kong. 

It is a hope, perhaps a dream, but in Hong Kong we may have witnessed elections that will be heard around the world.

These Are Not Democrats. These Are Fascists

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

In the third Democratic debate, candidate and former Congressman Robert Francis O' Rourke let the cat out of the bag on gun control: The Democrats intend to confiscate America's guns. This policy mandate comes even as Americans' enthusiasm for gun control is trending down--probably due to government abuses such as the recent demand of Apple for the names of all the people who've downloaded a gun-sighting app.

Yet this is not the most remarkable policy position that has been embraced by the Democratic 202 Presidential hopefuls. As former Vice-President Joe Biden has demonstrated, the basis for Democrats' domestic policy proposals (to the extent they have any) will be race; to a man, the Democratic Party is now the party of racism. They are also proposing to be a party that will think nothing of deciding how stock markets should behave.

At CNN's hours-long climate change "town hall", Senator Kamala Harris declared her willingness to rewrite the Senate's procedures by eliminating the filibuster:

Kamala Harris says if Congress does not pass the $93 trillion Green New Deal that she will take over the Senate as President and eliminate the filibuster to ram the agenda through

The Green New Deal's creator said it was created to implement socialism, not help the environment pic.twitter.com/k0tONTOUok

— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) September 4, 2019

This notion has been echoed by Senator Elizabeth Warren:

I want to be as clear as I can: When Democrats next have power, we should be bold. It’s time to get rid of the filibuster. #DemDebate

— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) September 13, 2019

Beyond the Presidential candidates, Congress itself has undertaken to not only criticize Supreme Court rulings, but has expressed a desire to arrogate unto itself full legal authority to regulate voting:

Nadler Attacks SCOTUS, State's Rights, and Vote Integrity: 

Voter ID laws, cleaning up voter rolls, and prohibiting felons from voting are "discriminatory" (racist). 

Goal: Federal legislation to override State and Local Voter Integrity Laws. pic.twitter.com/UWbcfzHual

— TrumpSoldier (@DaveNYviii) September 10, 2019

The "boldness" the Democrats seek is more government intervention in the daily lives of Americans, more laws, more regulation, more centralized control over just about everything. They have said this, time and again, in different forums, different contexts, and with regards to different issues.

In response to all their seeming "boldness" and apparent legislative enthusiasm, however, comes the crucial question: Where in the Constitution is either the Congress or the President given authority to act along these lines?

Without a doubt, this question should be at the center of every political debate in this country. As I have observed previously, if we desire good law, we must begin with the Constitution. If we wish to enact good laws, we must take care not to enact laws which contradict the Constitution and violate even one of its strictures. If we hope to design good law, we must ask ourselves the right questions about the law, and the Constitution. 

Is there authority in the Constitution for any of what the Democrats propose to do? With respect to gun control and gun confiscations, the answer is most assuredly "No!". The Second Amendment is quite categorical in its construction, and thus in its meaning:

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.

For Congress to have authority to regulate or confiscate firearms, the Constitution must have some other overriding clause. Alas for the Democrats, there is no such clause. The closest one gets to such authority is the Commerce Clause from Article 1, Section 8, but even the Supreme Court has acknowledged that the Commerce Clause is itself not without limits (United States v Lopez, 514 US 549 (1995)), one of those limits being restraint found elsewhere within the Constitution, such as the Second Amendment, a point further advanced in District of Columbia v. Heller (554 U.S. 570 (2008)).

Is there authority within the Constitution for the President of the United States to end the Senate filibuster? No, there is not. Each House of Congress sets up its own rules without outside input, and is explicitly empowered by Article 1 Section 5 to do so. The President cannot command the Senate to change its rules, and the filibuster is a Senate rule.

Does Congress have authority to regulate State and local elections? A plain reading of the Constitution does not permit this question to be answered in the affirmative. The main body of the Constitution itself is silent on whom may regulate elections, but the Tenth Amendment is quite clear that rights and powers not articulated within the Constitution belong to the states or to the People.

Note that these are not questions of propriety or even of efficacy, but of authority. One need not question whether the confiscation of a particular category of firearm would have an impact on violent crime, or if the elimination of the Senate filibuster would enable the passage of better legislation to acknowledge the reality that the President lacks the authority to do what the Democratic candidates are promising. One need not debate voter integrity laws to realize that Congress is not the body authorized to address elections, but the legislatures of the several states. In each example described above, the Constitution prohibits the Congress and the President from carrying out the legislative and executive order agendas promised by the Democrats.

Yet the Democrats as a party are unaware of this. They are oblivious to the patent unconstitutionality--which is to say, illegality--of what they promise. They are completely nonplussed that the very act of promoting these unconstitutional proposals flies in the face of the oath every Congressman and every Senator takes upon assuming their elected office, an oath that is mandated by law:

I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

How can any politician or political party pride itself on the wholesale disregard of sworn duty? How can any politician seeking or holding high office in the United States fail to acknowledge the supremacy of the Constitution?

The only answer that presents itself is that said politician, said political party, cares nothing for the Constitution. The Democrats, as they have done since the days of Woodrow Wilson, view the Constitution not as a guiding light but as an inconvenience, a nuisance that is best ignored whenever possible. We know this because their promises and their deliberations flagrantly and even pridefully ignore the constraints upon government clearly laid out by a plain reading of the Constitution.

The Democrats are campaigning on a platform of dictatorship, of Constitutional abrogation, of the removal of fundamental rights and basic civil liberties. The Democrats are campaigning to end the rule of law in this country, and replace it with the rule of lawyers, of civil servants, of petty bureaucrats, unelected and unaccountable. They have said this directly and repeatedly. They have said this proudly.

The Democrats are not democrats. They are not adherents of democracy They care nothing for the fact that ours is a government by the people. They are dismissive of the Constitution's Preamble, beginning as it does with the emphatic declaration of popular sovereignty, "We The People...."

The Democrats are literal fascists. One need only look at the definition of fascism to see this to be true:

a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

Substitute "state" or "government" for "nation" in that definition and one gets the perfect summation of every Democratic talking point uttered in the past several years. This is not an exaggeration.

The United States is and has always been a representative democracy. As Alexander Hamilton said so famously, "here, sir, the people govern". "We The People" are the ones who are the final authority in this country. Not Congress, not government, and certainly not the Democratic Party.

Today's Democratic Party is campaigning on an agenda of stripping that all away. They are doing so openly. They are doing so proudly. And their supporters are cheering them on.

Be afraid, America. Be very afraid.

Speech Or Silence: War Has Been Declared.

If there was any doubt that free speech is under assault in this country, those doubts are fully and permanently laid to rest. Free speech--the underpinning of all free societies--has been declared the root of all evil in the eyes of some.

We have Texas Representative Joaquin Castro warning supporters of President Trump to "think twice" about donating to the President's re-election campaign.

We have CNN contributor Reza Aslan tweeting out for the literal genocide of all Trump supporters. This is not an exaggeration:

After today there is no longer any room for nuance. The President is a white nationalist terror leader. His supporters - ALL OF THEM - are by definition white nationalist terror supporters. The MAGA hat is a KKK hood. And this evil, racist scourge must be eradicated from society.

— Reza Aslan (@rezaaslan) August 4, 2019

Reza Aslan got this much right -- there is no room for nuance. Free speech is a moral imperative. Far more than mere words in the First Amendment to the Constitution, the right of free speech, the principle of free speech, is at the very essence of what it means to have a free society. We cannot be free in our thoughts, we cannot be free in our daily lives, if we are not free first of all to speak our minds, to express our own opinions, to champion those causes we deem good and noble and just. Without the freedom of speech, we are not free, period.

Equally imperative is the freedom to be heard. As we cherish our ideas, we naturally seek to share and promote these ideas. I write this blog and comment on social media under the name of this blog precisely because I want to articulate and advocate for those ideas that I hold and which I cherish. We cannot share our ideas if we are blocked from so doing. We cannot promote causes we deem to be good and noble and just if we are silenced. For us to enjoy the freedom of speech, there must be a concurrent freedom to be heard--ultimately, they are two sides of the same coin.

When Reza Aslan calls for President Trump's supporters to be "eradicated", when he indulges in the language of genocide, he is seeking to silence all 63 million-plus people who voted for Donald Trump in 2016, and who will vote for him again in 2020. By seeking their permanent silence--arguably their literal deaths--Reza Aslan is engaged in a most immoral bit of speech.

When Joaquin Castro warns President Trump's supporters to "think twice" about supporting Trump, he is similarly seeking to silence those people, and is similarly engaged in a most immoral bit of speech.

There is no room for nuance in this: Reza Aslan's tweet was evil. Joaquin's doxing of Trump supporters was evil. Apologetics and rationalizations issued in defense of these statements and actions are evil. They are nothing but evil. There is no defense to be made, no justification to be offered, that makes these statements anything but evil.

Reza Aslan and Joaquin Castro have declared war on free speech. Not only have they not been called to account by the legacy media, they have been justified by the legacy media; "Morning Joe" co-host Mika Brzezinski defended Castro's doxing of Trump supporters by claiming the information was already being circulated. Twitter, the Big Tech social media giant always at the epicenter of these controversies, refused to do anything about either Aslan or Castro, claiming their execrable tweets did not violate Twitter's terms of service. 

The legacy media, Big Tech social media, and the Democratic Party as a whole, have aligned themselves with these attacks on free speech. By their silence and by their words, they approve of and support this war to silence dissenting voices. By their silence and by their words, they are in favor of this war to silence you, to silence me, to silence all of us.

There is no room for nuance in this: There is no more room for either debate or disagreement on this topic. There is no middle ground where the nexus of our disagreements can coalesce into either social practice or government policy. That middle ground--the holy ground for all rationally-minded individuals--has been taken away. You are given one of two choices--you may meekly accept the diktats of liberals such as Reza Aslan, and Democrats such as Joaquin Castro, or you may be eradicated. 

This is the binary choice Aslan and Castro present to you. This is the binary choice the legacy media, Big Tech social media, and the Democrats present to you. They will hear no reasons, they will engage in no debates, they will brook no dissent and most assuredly no opposition. They will, if they can, destroy you. They will, if they can, "eradicate" you.

There will be no compromise. There will be no toleration. There will be no accommodation. You will agree or you will be eradicated. You will submit or you will be eradicated. You will obey or you will be eradicated.

There is no room for nuance in this. There will be no compromise in this. Nor, I fear, will there be any peace because of this. Liberals such as Reza Aslan and Democrats such as Joaquin Castro have declared themselves an existential threat to all who think differently from them. They are the mortal enemies of all who deviate from their orthodoxies by so much as a syllable. Being committed to the destruction of their opponents, they leave those opponents little choice but to destroy them. The dangerous flaw in all rhetoric of "us" vs "them" is that there is no assurance the "us" will prevail over the "them"; Messrs Aslan and Castro may speak with impunity today, but as their adversaries number in the tens of millions, once battle has been joined they may not find the fighting as facile as the tweeting.

Indeed, they ultimately cannot prevail, for the moral imperative is free speech, not oppression. Human beings are called to liberty, not condemned to slavery. We are meant to live in free societies, not relegated to tyranny and servitude. The moral imperative is free speech, and, as history shows, it is an imperative that will not be denied. From the Scots' Declaration of Arbroath to the Declaration of Independence, to the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the impetus of human civilization has always been towards freedom. However fitfully we may move, invariably we move towards liberty. 

Democrats demand your silence or demand your death. Rather than engage in speech with others, they compel this immoral choice.

The moral choice is quite clear. When Democrats demand your silence or demand your death, the only moral choice--the only sane choice--is to be neither silent nor dead. 

Speak out. Speak loudly. Speak proudly. Do not be silent. Ever.

All Men Are Created Equal: The Revolution That Mattered

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.

It has long been my contention that this sentence from the Declaration Of Independence is among the most radical, the most powerful, and the most consequential in the entirety of the English language.  With this one sentence, Thomas Jefferson swept away all traditional understandings of human worth and human dignity, setting in their stead a radical new standard of human value. Jefferson was not the first to argue human equality--John Locke was the source for much of his philosophical logic and even a fair bit of his rhetoric, having posited human equality within the state of nature in his Second Treatise on Government. Yet Jefferson was the first man to put these words to paper in a consequential context. This was no mere philosophical exploration, but a declaration of political action--an action that could have severe repercussions for all who signed it.

We should recall the history preceding the Declaration of Independence.  The previous year, on July 5, 1775, the Continental Congress approved the Olive Branch Petition, in an effort to peaceably resolve the disputes the colonists had with the Parliament in Westminster. This missive, addressed to King George III, hoped to obtain his intercession with Parliament and curtail what the Continental Congress described as "the delusive pretences, fruitless terrors, and unavailing severities" of the various ministers tasked with administering colonial relations on behalf of Parliament and the Crown. The petition began with a clear homily to the colonists' status as British subjects, and their desire to remain so:

The union between our Mother Country and these colonies, and the energy of mild and just government, produced benefits so remarkably important, and afforded such an assurance of their permanency and increase, that the wonder and envy of other Nations were excited, while they beheld Great Britain riseing to a power the most extraordinary the world had ever known.

Two days after the Olive Branch Petition was presented to King George, he issued the now-infamous Rebellion Proclamation, not only rejecting the Petition, but declaring its very existence to be a treason against the Crown, and charging the whole of the British Empire to bring the traitors to justice:

...that not only all our Officers, civil and military, are obliged to exert their utmost endeavors to suppress such rebellion, and to bring the traitors to justice, but that all our subjects of this Realm, and the dominions thereunto belonging, are bound by law to be aiding and assisting in the suppression of such rebellion, and to disclose and make known all traitorous conspiracies and attempts against us, our crown and dignity.

This is the backdrop against which Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. The members of the Continental Congress, along with the nascent Continental Army then besieging the city of Boston, were already declared traitors. Continuing a quest either for independence or a fair redress of colonial grievance would be considered proof of treason--a crime punishable by death. The Declaration of Independence was his response to the Rebellion Proclamation.

It was a powerful response.  In simple and direct language, Thomas Jefferson laid out the colonial case for seeking independence. Yet Jefferson went farther than just rejecting the assertions of the Rebellion Proclamation. His solution to the problem of King George branding the colonial activists of the time traitors was to simply deny King George's authority to even propose such a thing. Where the Rebellion Proclamation was grounded in the premise that British subjects had an intrinsic duty of allegiance to the Crown and obedience to its edicts, Jefferson discarded that relationship altogether, arguing instead the Lockean principle of human equality within the state of nature, and declaring that human rights were an endowment from God, not from the King nor from Parliament. 

This is a remarkable political statement for the time, for the British Bill Of Rights,  passed by Parliament in 1689 in the aftermath of the "Glorious Revolution" that replaced James II with his daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange, phrased the source of such rights as the Parliament--a British subject's rights were determined by Parliament, not by God:

And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare

Jefferson not only rejected this human derivation of human rights, he subordinated the entire edifice of government to their protection:

— 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.

Thus Thomas Jefferson expanded the list of unalienable rights to include the right to alter or abolish government that a people found to be hostile to the defense of Mankind's unalienable rights. Where King George proclaimed the activities of the Continental Congress a rebellion, Thomas Jefferson doubled down by proclaiming an unalienable right of the thirteen colonies to rebel. Simply and directly, Jefferson nullified not just King George's Rebellion Proclamation, but the very right of any King (or any Parliament) to even make such a proclamation. If people deem their government hostile to their fundamental liberty, rebellion is their right, and no power on earth may deny them that right.

The "American Revolution" was not a revolution of arms, nor of military muscle. It was and it remains a revolution of ideas. Thomas Jefferson's idea, of the equality and unalienable sovereignty of Man, gave the separatist ambitions of the Continental Congress a moral force and a moral relevance never before seen in history. From this single document flows a singular experiment in human governance, one that has not been attempted nor replicated since--a government subordinate to the will of the people. That sentiment was restated at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, with the equally eloquent Preamble to the United States Constitution:

We the People of the United States, 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, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Americans have debated and discussed the meanings and imports of Jefferson's words. At Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln, wedded this ideal of citizen sovereignty to the struggle of the Civil War, beseeching the American people to continue that struggle so that "... government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." In 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and challenged America to measure up to Jefferson's words in his immortal "I Have A Dream" speech. Civil rights activists of every kind have invoked Jeffersonian themes of equality and fundamental human sovereignty in their various pursuits of societal justice and societal change.

What Americans have not done, what humanity as a whole has not done, is challenge Jefferson's words. While texts such as the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights seek to outdo Jefferson's comparatively compact argument, that Declaration's preamble begins with a pale paraphrasing of Jefferson:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Unparalleled and unchallenged, the Declaration of Independence stands alone as the pre-eminent declaration of human right, human sovereignty, and human dignity. Its words were a challenge to the world in 1776, and they remain a challenge to the world today. Wherever people struggle either to define or achieve equality, or to right injustices and redress grievances, they are proving the enduring truth within its text. Wherever people seek freedom, they are continuing the revolution Thomas Jefferson started.

Thus the premise that all men are created equal was not merely a revolutionary thought for 1776. With its enduring strength and undeniable truth, it is the revolution that has informed all revolutions since. The premise that all men are created equal is the one revolution in human history that matters to us all.

Right And Wrong: The Rule Which Never Changes

"The rules have changed."

This argument has been appearing with increasing frequency of late.  In business, in culture, in politics, we are told that the old ways of doing things no longer apply, that the new era has brought new ways, new ideas, and new rules.

Two noteworthy examples come to us from commentary on two entirely unrelated events, yet addressing this same common theme.

First we have Stephanie Wilkinson's commentary in the Washington Post on an incident involving Eric Trump, son of President Donald Trump, who was recently accosted in a Chicago restaurant when a server spat on him. Her conclusion about that incident is found towards the end of her piece:

The rules have shifted. It’s no longer okay to serve sea bass from overfished waters or to allow smoking at the table. It’s not okay to look away from the abusive chef in the kitchen or the handsy guest in the dining room. And it’s not okay to ask employees, partners or management to clock out of their consciences when they clock in to work.

For comparison--and more than a little contrast--we have Christopher Dale's column in The Federalist where he takes the US Women's Soccer Team to task for what he considered an egregious display of bad sportsmanship in running up the score against Thailand in World Cup competition. In addition, he takes several sports commentators to task for their rationalizations of the team's behavior:

In The Atlantic, Jemele Hill also tenuously ties the ladies’ off-the-field fight for equal pay with the on-the-field fight for their right to party at an opponent’s expense: “Instead of Team USA being celebrated for what its players achieved, the victory became an opportunity to lecture these women on how to behave… The women are fighting… for equal pay and respect—and, on the field, for the right to pummel their opponents and express themselves in a way that men often do.”

This is, quite simply, wrong. Men do not typically act like that in sports. Or at least not without catching well-deserved criticism.

In other words, Christopher Dale argues, the rules have not changed, and whatever struggles women athletes endure off the playing field should not be used to excuse poor behavior on the playing field.

Against these two commentaries I shall inject merely this--Romans 12:17:

Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone.

I ask you to consider this verse as merely a moral proposition; we need not burden the discourse here with defenses of Christian belief or Christian theology. Regardless of one's religious views, we have in this verse a simple moral proposition that may be interrogated from any moral perspective.

The proposition of not repaying evil for evil carries several important inferences Most significantly, we must presume that notions of good and evil are not themselves mere matters of opinion or perspective, simple and mutable relativistic notions to be defined and redefined as we find convenient; rather, these notions form for us an absolute frame of reference, they are, as it were, the North and South of our moral compass, and we must orient our assessment of proper conduct accordingly. This understanding of good and evil is found also in the Noble Eightfold Path of Buddhism, with its prescriptions of "Right Speech" and "Right Speech".

The proposition of not repaying evil for evil also carries the understanding that, regardless of motivation or intent, evil action is evil action. Explain and rationalize as you will, under this proposition you cannot convert evil act into good deed; it is simply not possible.

Which brings us back to Stephanie Wilkinson's assertion that people should not "clock out of their consciences when they clock into work."

First, let us recall the meaning of "conscience":

the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good.

The notion of "clocking out" of one's conscience, then, can only be understood as a setting aside of basic human impulse to do the right thing and make the good choice. That, however, brings us to a conundrum: That's the old rule, not the new rule. Paul's Letter To The Romans, as part of the New Testament in the Christian Bible, stands as a compendium of moral statements and arguments that has existed for centuries. Romans 12:17 enshrines as a moral virtue the idea of doing the right thing, of making the good choice, regardless of situation or circumstance. We have always been called to do the right thing, and we have never been justified in "clocking out" of our consciences, at work or anywhere else. We can argue and debate over what the right thing truly is, over what truly constitutes the good choice, but we can never argue that we have not always been called upon to do the right thing and make the good choice, whatever that thing and choice might be.

Simply put, our understanding of what is the right thing to do may evolve, but we must never doubt that we are always--and have always been--called upon to do the right thing. That rule has never changed, not throughout the whole of human history.

Moreover, as Christopher Dale points out, we cannot change notions of right and wrong in any moment because of things wholly separate from that moment. Regardless of what struggles the US Women's Soccer Team has endured off the playing field, one thing is absolutely certain: The Thailand team had absolutely no part to play in them. The Thai players are not hindering the US women athletes in their quest for equal (or equitable) pay, and certainly are not preventing the US women athletes from achieving respect equal to their male counterparts. Further, the Thai team has no role in deciding the pay rates for women athletes in the US, and no voice in determining the proper measures of respect women athletes should receive in the US. Regardless of the worth of such debates, they are not debates that involve the Thai women's soccer team. 

Christopher Dale makes the argument that male athletic teams have never been encouraged to run up the score when they overmatch an opponent, and are criticized when their celebrations of success go too far. To be sure, male professional sports organizations such as the NFL have an ongoing debate over how much celebration is "too much" when a team scores. There is an explicit declaration within male sports that excessive celebrations upon victory are examples of poor sportsmanship--they are the bad choice and the wrong thing to do. Against such a backdrop, he makes a cogent argument--if the goal for women athletes is to be regarded the same as their male counterparts, they must hew to similar guidelines as to good sportsmanship and proper conduct, and must endure reprobation when they fall short of such standards.

The claim that "the rules have changed" is therefore simply not true. The rule of doing right and avoiding wrong has not changed even a little, not in the whole of human history. Our understanding of conscience is that, no matter what the circumstance, right remains right, and wrong remains wrong. That has always been "the rule"; it has never not been "the rule."

When has it ever been "right" to spit on one's fellow human being? 

When has it ever been "right" to humiliate one's opponents in a sporting contest?

When has it ever been "right" to settle political differences with violence?

When has moral authority to declare "right" and "wrong" ever flowed from the barrel of a gun?

In my experience, I have never known a time when any of these things were the "right" thing to do.

The rule of right and wrong has not changed, not once. We may change the rules we set for ourselves--our laws and our civic virtues--from day to day, but the rule of right and wrong is as it has always been on every day.  

We have always been called to do the right thing. We will always be called to do the right thing. That will never change.

He Is Risen

He is not here; He has risen, just as He said. 

Matthew 28:6

After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.”

So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”

Matthew 28:1-10

Thus Matthew recounts the miracle that is the essence of Christian belief, and the font of all Christian tradition: that Jesus, having suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried, descended into Hell, yet rose again from the dead.

Whether the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is miracle or myth is, ultimately, irrelevant. Miracle or myth, the relevance of the Resurrection in daily living is as metaphor: Jesus overcame even physical death, transcending into Divine Being. 

The Good News that is the Gospel is simply this: through faith--in Jesus and in God--all men may similarly transcend into divinity. Indeed, the Christian community is called to such transcendence,  as Paul points out in Romans:

Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—His good, pleasing and perfect will.

The Resurrection offers meaning and hope. Through the Resurrection, Christ redeems all of Mankind. And if the Resurrection is the foundation of Christianity, redemption is surely its most essential teaching. 

Redemption is Christianity's greatest contribution to Western thought and Western civilization. Redemption shifts the meaning of law--both the laws of men and the Laws of God. Redemption displaces the highly conditional and consequential ramifications of Mosaic Law (and the many other ancient legal traditions of which the Mosaic Law is but a part), replacing atonement as the key to righteousness, and thus the essence of justice. Redemption, the particular gift of Jesus Christ, is thus relevant to even the most avowed non-Christian.

Consider the words themselves. "Atonement" is "reparation for an offense or injury". "Redemption" is an act "serving to offset or compensate for a defect." Atonement is something we ourselves must do; redemption is something that is done for us, and offered to us.

This is no small change to the meaning of law. When Christ healed the paralytic, proclaiming the man's sins were forgiven, the scribes and priestly authorities accused Him of blasphemy. The notion of redemption was as radical--and as threatening to the established social order--then as it is today, the era of political correctness and "#MeToo" pogroms against the slightest of sexual faux pas. When redemption displaces atonement as the measure of justice, those who enforce the law are themselves displaced, for what need is there of priestly intercession or priestly justification when the demand for atonement, the insistence upon acts of contrition, is mooted?

In teaching redemption vs atonement, Jesus articulates an inescapable and universal truth: regardless of who we are, where we are, what we have done or not done, we are all human. We are all part of the same Mankind whom Jesus came into the world to save. This is not a truth that is confined to the Bible, nor to the teachings of Jesus, and there are innumerable secular sources that echo this same truth--one of my personal favorites comes from John F. Kennedy's American University commencement address in 1963: "...our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal."

Thomas Jefferson positioned this truth at the center of the Declaration of Independence, brilliantly transforming a simple proclamation of the American colonies' intention to rid themselves of British rule into a profoundly eloquent proclamation of humanity, and the universal bequest of civil rights and civil liberties that is given to all men in all places at all times. This is a theme President Kennedy would reiterate in his 1960 inaugural address: "...the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God."

Redemption is thus the essential prerequisite to liberty. As redemption is the fundamental proclamation of our humanity, it is also the foundation of our freedom. Redemption establishes that the ultimate authority--the sole arbiter of right and wrong--is not a judge, nor a king, nor any head of a State, but only God Himself. Redemption renders us all equal, and thus through redemption we derive the Jeffersonian precept that all government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed--for when we are all equal before God, and when we are all redeemed by God, on what authority may any one man impose upon his fellows?

The theme of redemption is subtly woven throughout the text of the United States Constitution. We see it in the unconditional pardon power granted to the President in Article 2 Section 2. We see it in the prohibition in Article 1 Section 9 against Bills of Attainder. We see it in the prohibition against "corruption of blood" in Article 3 Section 3. We see it in the rights expressed in the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments. The wording of each of these passages is noteworthy for being unconditional. These rights are not held to the whimsy of a government, nor of any court nor judge. These rights belong to all people, in all times, at all places. Being unconditional, they are neither earned nor can they be rescinded.

Without the hope of redemption, how could any people even contemplate the "more perfect Union" mentioned within the Constitution's Preamble?

Redemption is the eye to the future. Atonement is ever focused on the past. Redemption is what makes possible the societal transformations sought (and, in large measure, achieved) by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., as laid out in his historic "I Have A Dream" speech:

And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.  

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." 

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. 

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. 

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. 

I have a dream today! 

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. 

I have a dream today! 

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together."

The Good News of this Easter Sunday, of every Easter Sunday, is not merely that Jesus has risen from the dead, but that, by His rising, we all may hope to rise--rise above our failings, rise above our faults, rise above the petty differences that separate us from each other. The Good News of Easter is that it is within every man to rise up and be free--and we are all called to freedom, even as Paul reminded the Galatians:

You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

My prayer this day is that all may rejoice in the day, for He is Risen and we are made free.