It seems as though Donald Trump and Elon Musk draw lightning no matter where they go. Put them into the same space and suddenly the whole world draws near to see the fireworks. And like clockwork, discussions swirl around free speech. 

Monday night, X Spaces hosted a conversation between Elon Musk and Donald Trump. 2.1 million people listened in, while the post itself gathered over 54 million views. While these numbers are impressive, the number one Spaces event remains Musk’s discussion with Ron Desantis a few years ago. 

Of course, technical troubles before the discussion with Trump caused saliva to run down the chins of the establishment media. They took no time at all to report about the “glitches” and “technical difficulties” before the program began. 

Musk claims the attack was a DDOS attack or a distributed denial-of-service attack. This type of cyber-attack is akin to trying to fit so many people through the gate that the system crashes and is of use to no one.  

The drooling, lap-dog media put it upon themselves to march out anonymous sources who claim Musk was lying and that he was lying about the attack. 

The hatred for Musk and for Trump showed itself on full display both before and after the event.

The EU Put Their Hat in the Ring 

Hours before Musk and Trump were scheduled to sit down, the internal market commissioner of the EU, Thierry Breton, threatened Musk and his attempt to put EU citizens at “serious harm”. 

In his strongly worded letter, Breton made it his duty to warn Musk that he must do “due diligence” to oblige by the Digital Services Act of the EU. Breton stated in his letter, “As the individual entity ultimately controlling a platform with over 300 million users worldwide, of which one-third is in the EU, that has been designated as a Very Large Online Platform, you have the legal obligation to ensure X’s compliance with EU law and in particular the DSA in the EU.” 

He continued, “This notably means ensuring, on one hand, the freedom of expression and of information, including media freedom and pluralism, are effectively protected and, on the other hand, that all proportionate and effective mitigation measures are put in place regarding the amplification of harmful content in connection with relevant events, including live streaming, which, if unaddressed, might increase the risk profile of X and generate detrimental effects on civic discourse and public security.” 

One wonders how a person might reasonably protect freedom of expression and information, and yet at the same time censor anything possibly deemed “detrimental” to civic discourse and public security. 

Breton posted the letter on X with a caption reading, “With great audience comes greater responsibility. As there is a risk of amplification of potentially harmful content in the EU in connection with events with major audiences around the world, I sent this letter to @elonmusk.” 

The tyrant-in-training finished his letter with a promise. He wrote, "My services and I will be extremely vigilant to any evidence that points to breaches of the DSA and will not hesitate to make full use of our toolbox, including by adopting interim measures, should it be warranted to protect EU citizens from serious harm," the Commissioner added.  

Meanwhile, reports now indicate that Brussels itself did not approve the letter and seems a little miffed that Breton stepped out the way he did. The Financial Times reports that the European Commission denied that Breton had approval from President Ursula von der Leyen to follow through with the letter. 

The Threat Against Free Speech 

Even though Breton seems to have embarrassed himself slightly in the eyes of Brussels, X continues to be under the microscope of the EU. Strangely, it’s as though a platform whose owner talks frequently about free speech, and rights might be a threat to the authoritarian regime of the EU. 

Add in the riots in the UK and the 1984-style crackdown on how information flows on social media, and X has again found itself in the crosshairs of the censors-on-high. 

If the EU decides that X has not followed the DSA discussed by Breton, they could potentially face fines of up to 6 percent of their worldwide turnover, as reported by the Financial Times. This would make for a nice little bonus in the EU coffers. 

The Power of Independence and Free Speech 

Unfortunately, the EU wasn’t the only entity discussing speech censorship BEFORE the Trump and Musk interview. During the press briefing at the White House on Monday, hours before the interview, the Washington Post’s Cleve Wootson Jr. wondered, "What role does the White House or the president have in sort of stopping that or stopping the spread of that or sort of intervening in that? Some of that was about campaign misinformation, but, you know, it’s a wider thing, right?" 

Imagine, a reporter questioning a White House Press Secretary on the role of the President in stopping “misinformation” from a conversation between a business owner and a presidential candidate. 

Of course, the fact-checkers were out in droves to claim that Trump lied anywhere from 20 times to 200 times.  

But the gall of the progressive and authoritarian camp is on full display before our very eyes. We now witness preemptive strikes by those who deem speech a danger to society and civility, as they clamor for any means necessary to stop a man they hate. 

Regard for citizen’s rights has been flown out the window under the cover of public safety. And they will continue to do so. 

Why? Fear drives panic. Panic pushes people to look for someone to be in charge. When a person steps up and offers their hand, all they ask in return is the obedience and submitted heart of the person following them. Our expert and political class recognizes that society has hit the point at which they can drive fear to build obedience. 

Look no further than Covid, when people masked up and socially distanced by the billions, all because their government told them to be afraid. Now, the new pandemic is not an air-borne illness, but conversations and posts on social media. The infection and sickness are now racism, hatred, and violence. 

Even though the tiny number of cases is questionable, the authoritarian establishment will continue to double down on this danger. At the end of the day, they care so much because they themselves live in fear. They fear the populace. They fear the loss of power. They shake at the thought of falling into obscurity and seeing their aims and goals fade into the mist. 

Never Back Down on Free Speech 

We’ve watched plenty of moves to squash, restrict, and punish free speech. The common individual must grasp free speech with every fiber of their being. If we do not, we will compromise the deepest parts of us – our beliefs and convictions. Once we give in to the bully forcing us to be silent, we will dramatically shift our inner beliefs to match our actions. We will slowly and surely shrug our shoulders saying, “It didn’t matter that much anyway.”  

If we find ourselves in that position, then we’ve already lost. Now is the vital time in which the American spirit can push against any thought of authoritarian control. As a populace, we can make sure those in positions of power give up their own beliefs and convictions instead. 

We can ensure they are the ones who shrug their shoulders and say, “It didn’t matter that much anyway.” 

On the 4th of July, we as a nation reflect on what our founding fathers did to provide us with such amazing opportunities and blessings. We honor our struggle for independence and the dangerous step into a war with Britain to earn that independence. 

Our founders may have claimed independence on the 4th of July, but it took them seven years to prove it true. Thankfully, the war's end justified the Declaration of Independence and started America on a course of becoming a history-changing nation. 

We went from a rag-tag group of colonies to completely changing the face of the world permanently in only 150 or so years. 

Some might say we changed the face of the world the day the Declaration of Independence was signed. 

Either way, on this 4th of July, we at Self-Evident would like to give you a few reasons why we have such a passion for not only America, but its history, foundations, and heroes. 

1) We Were Founded on Liberty 

When King George III chose to ignore the colonies’ last attempt at reconciliation, the floodgates of revolution poured through. Deep within the hearts of the colonists sat a yearning for liberty. After 130 years of increasingly oppressive measures from Britain, the colonies felt they had no recourse but to take up arms. 

Our founding fathers felt so passionate about their rights that they pledged their lives to an ideal in public fashion by signing the Declaration of Independence for all the world to see. These men, coming from all walks of life, quaked the earth with the ink of their pens. The nations of the world felt the tremors and watched with bated breath as a small group of colonies set their face against their own crown. 

Throughout all of it, the call of liberty never waned. Despite being outnumbered and impoverished when it came to food, clothing, weapons, ammo, and soldiers, our ancestors dug deeper and continued to pursue the expansive haven of rights that nestled within the victory of independence. They knew that victory meant striking gold in their excavation of liberty, and the bounty offered at victory meant the possibility of true liberty for their children and future generations.  

Thankfully, when it seemed as though our revolution would fail, the French came to our aid and helped bring the long, protracted war to a close. 

Our desire to create a nation founded not just on the gospel but on God-given rights and liberties inspired the world around us. In the coming years, transformation swept through Europe as people attempted to throw off the shackles of their own oppressive regimes.  

While some of those movements were messy, complex, ill-advised, or downright opportunistic, our own desire for liberty showed the true American spirit. Our heritage did something for us that could not be imitated by most other people who attempted to grasp liberty. After all, the wilderness of the American East Coast, tumultuous global politics, and the correct brew of faith and philosophy forged a truly American identity. 

From the beginning of the colonies until the signing of the Declaration of Independence, American individualism found its form in recognizing individual sovereignty. Personal property, inalienable rights given by God, the prosperity of hard work, and deep faith and reliance on God all shaped the American identity. 

We settled and developed the land. We fought the French and Indian War for Britain. We overcame illness, attack, famine, winter, and hardship. We built a thriving nation that became a light on a hill for the rest of the world.

And liberty made it possible. 

2) We Honored God 

John Quincy Adams said, "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." 

From the various colonial charters and constitutions that named sharing the gospel our main mission to the words of various founders giving God the glory – our ancestors knew that the divine authority deserved honor, worship, and praise.  

Without God, our nation would not have come to be. From the bluster of hurricanes to the rising of rivers, and the falling of fog – God made His presence known in protective miracles for our nation. As Nathaniel Webster once said, “Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.”  

While we might consider the creation of the Constitution a miracle in itself (which it was), the decades preceding that document are replete with stories of God’s hand guiding our nation. We witnessed men become bullet-proof. Our allies arrived to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. The land itself fought in our favor.  

Truly, the prayers of both the colonists and our founding generation powerfully moved the machinations of heaven. Anybody who takes a moment to look at history cannot deny the powerful miracles God worked on our behalf. 

Accordingly, our founders knew that days of humiliation and prayer not only petitioned God but joined our nation in a single, prayerful purpose. From the beginning of the colonies, the community knew it must approach God for our daily provision and protection. Those who called for days of prayer and humbled themselves before the Lord fully knew His hand was required for the health of our land.  

Benjamin Franklin himself said, “In this situation of this assembly, groping, as it were, in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of Lights to illuminate our understandings? At the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for the divine protection. Our prayers, sir, were heard — and they were graciously answered. All of us, who were engaged in the struggle, must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor. To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend?… I have lived, sir, a long time; and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men! And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that “except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.”  

But faith in the Lord as the builder of our house did not cease with the ratification of the Constitution. Even when we structured our nation and continued to develop it by adding states, each state constitution gave deference to God. Not only this, but many states enshrined the importance and power of the church and religion in their constitutions as well. 

In other words, God rightfully rested in the foundational identity of America as a nation. 

3) Our Founders were True Men 

They were never perfect. Though neither are we.  

Unlike our leaders today, the founders were men of insight, intellect, and wisdom. We may attempt the sad comparison between ourselves and them, but if we dare try, we may find ourselves sorely lacking. The stain of slavery rests heavily upon the shoulders of our founders. Just as the horrific burden of abortion rests upon us in modernity. 

And while we may attempt some self-righteous superiority, the truth is our founders truly understood governance in a way that may be lost forever. They studied the ancient civilizations as they debated and argued what the best possible structure of government would be. The downfalls and possible weaknesses became obvious to them, and yet they continued to debate on how to best ease the pain of those shortcomings in the system they were creating. 

The beautiful blend of separation of powers, checks and balances, protection of liberty, and respect of rights gave rise to imitation constitutions all around the world. The results of their work proved exponential. 

Unfortunately, most don’t see this. The tireless work of our founders truly is underappreciated when we consider what they went through and the effect they left on generations to come. 

We tend to look at America with the magnifying glass of pride and arrogance, but our ancestors were sober and vigilant in their labors. They weighed it out and debated over every word written in the Constitution. They knew – add a word in one place and it could mar the face of the American experiment forever. Take a word out in another place and it could fundamentally shift the American approach to governance. 

These men didn’t just want to become free. They desired to institutionalize liberty and create a boundary around it that might not fail – even knowing it most likely would eventually fail. 

4) We are Truly Unique as a Nation 

We as Self-Evident do not wear rose-colored glasses. We freely recognize how far America has fallen from the inspirational ideas of our founding fathers. However, we do not lose hope. The heart of America is still there, hidden behind the dark assault of the power-hungry and the wicked. We know our nation’s humility before the Lord lies buried beneath a dirt pile of pride but nonetheless sits ready to awaken. And at the end of it all, we as an organization understand that God can walk us through anything and everything.  

Even if the American experiment collapses to the dust and shudders as it exhales its final breath, the people of God will be ready to carry His will. We will walk as ambassadors of the Kingdom of God, no matter whether the borders and government of the nation hold or not. Our earnest prayers are for our nation. But we simply put our faith in God and lean not on our understanding. 

The beauty of America is in its significance on the historical landscape. Much like the words of Solomon, America may only see a season. But it is the American identity, the American spirit that may still live and thrive throughout the darkness.  

As long as the breath of life remains in America’s church, we can rest assured that the deep truth of liberty and rights is encapsulated and preserved for a generation that will unleash them once again. 

Our petitions before the Lord desire that His faithfulness would rest upon our children and our children’s children. We ask Him to give to them the fruits of our sacrifices. We eagerly desire that they would recline beneath the tree of liberty, even if it be nourished by our flesh in a sacrificial gift to secure their blessings for future generations. 

We tell ourselves that if we are in Christ, then we are free. But do we understand what true liberty means? Do we understand that liberty was a gift from God given as a right? 

To show you the development of God-given liberty in Western civilization, I won’t start at the beginning. Instead, we’re going to start with a document that every American should love and cherish. 

The Declaration of Independence 

Our Declaration of Independence makes quite a powerful statement.  

“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.” 

In other words, our government, put in place by men, derives its justified powers from those same men. More importantly, that government was instituted among men to secure our rights. Not to provide us with welfare. Not to give us safety and comfort. Not to do everything for us. Our founder's most fundamental philosophy about government in America is that government is instituted to protect our rights. However, the government does not give those rights. Their only job is to protect the rights GOD GAVE US! 

Following the truth that our inalienable (non-transferable) RIGHTS come from God and are protected by government is a short list of rights laid out by the founders in the Declaration of Independence. Those vital rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

Let’s take a step back and simplify what the preamble means. In summary, it says: 

“There are certain truths that are just ‘duh’ statements.” Those truths include the following: 

1. Men are created equal 
2. God gives men rights that cannot be transferred or stolen 
3. Those rights include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness 
4. Governments were put there to protect rights. 

This means that it should be a duh thing to all of us that men are equal, God gave all those men certain rights that can’t be taken or transferred, those rights include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that governments were put in place by men to protect those rights. 

What is the government for? To protect those RIGHTS.  

Included in those rights is liberty. The idea of truly being free in your person, conscience, and action. The right to liberty is the truest sense of freedom within the self and a person’s expression of themselves. 

But how did they get to this idea that liberty mattered? 

Does the church need to concern itself with liberty? 

What is Liberty? 

Plenty of governments across time have provided some sort of recognition of rights. Usually, those rights were not recognized as being given by God but as a blessing from a government viewing itself as a god. 

However, western civilization had a major moment that changed the landscape of governance for all time. A government, which viewed itself as having a divine right to authority, found itself forced to recognize that the people had value and themselves held some form of rights. 

The History of the Magna Carta 

During the early 1200s, King John of England caused quite a stir by warring and feuding with several kings. He pressed for higher taxes on his subjects to support his wars. This forced his officials to become downright oppressive in collecting such taxes. Unfortunately for King John, his barons despised him due to his oppressive and arrogant nature. 

After losing a battle in 1214, the barons had had enough. They forced a meeting with King John. If he wanted to have their support and resources, then he would have to agree to some demands. This was the formation of the Magna Carta. While the document failed, the fact remains that an agreement about rights had been decided between the people and the king. Prior to the Magna Carta, kings had attempted various charters and agreements with their nobles and clergy. However, those charters were a king’s free will promise. 

The elites may have been the first beneficiaries of individual rights, but they were not the only ones. We, as common people today, benefit from the rights the Magna Carta defined. 

Included in the Magna Carta were issues such as: 

• Right to a fair trial 

• Placing the king under the rule of law 

• The property rights of the barons 

The concept of the rights of all people continued to develop over the next several hundred years. After all, the statement “all men are created equal” was not a foregone conclusion throughout Western civilization. 

By the time that statement was written in our Declaration of Independence, the concept of equality of men had been developed by Enlightenment thinkers. Men such as John Locke explored individual sovereignty and individual rights and liberties. 

John Locke and Liberty

Locke became so influential to our founders that his words inspired the Declaration of Independence we cherish today. 

In Locke’s Second Treatise on Government, he begins by arguing that in the natural law or natural state, all men have equality. Locke viewed natural law as that which was the governing law placed into creation by God. To Locke, men under natural law are endowed by God with a state of liberty. However, that liberty ends when it infringes on another man’s rights and liberties. 

Locke said, “The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.” 

He specifically viewed liberty as the right to steward yourself, what you’ve been given, and what you’ve created. Whatever you think or create, by natural law, is your property. If you take natural resources and mix them with your labor, then you have created private property. Furthermore, liberty is the sovereignty of men over their property, themselves, and their future. 

To protect this concept of liberty, Locke believed governments were put in place to be a protector of our individual rights, which included liberty and possessions. 

Thomas Jefferson said it succinctly by stating, “The policy of American government is to leave its citizens free, neither restraining them nor aiding them in their pursuits.” 

This desire to live under a government that truly protected liberty drove our founders to finally push against the oppressive boot of the British crown. They saw British control of their property as the action of a government no longer concerned with liberty, but the control of its people. 

The Road to Declaring Independence and Liberty 

After 120 years of abuses in which the colonies were continually oppressed with increased restrictions, taxes, and regulations, they finally chose to throw off the yolk of their oppressor. The crown attempted to raise money or control the colonies through their actions which the colonists found extremely offensive. Such gross infringements included (but were not limited to): 

• The Navigation Acts of 1651: Restricted trade for the colonies to only Britain 

• King Charles II: Regulated trade and nullified charters when the colonies opposed 

• Molasses Act of 1733: Forced the colonies to purchase molasses from Britain and not France 

• Sugar Act 1764: Cut duties on foreign molasses, retained high duty on foreign refined sugar, and prohibited foreign rum 

• Stamp Act 1765: Required official stamps to be purchased for lots of common documents. 

• Declaratory Act: Gave full powers over the colonies to parliament 

• Townshend Acts 1767: Placed duties on common useful goods and put in a board of customs in Boston 

• Coercive Acts 1774: 4 Laws used to crush the colonies back into submission 

The colonies pushed back at each turn and argued that their rights as English citizens were being abused. After all, the crown chose to not honor either the British Constitution or the Bill of Rights of 1689. 

These unconstitutional acts perpetrated against the 13 colonies drove them to unite as a single entity, represented by a Continental Congress. The Second Continental Congress sent its final petition to resolve the matter in hopes of staving off a war and restoring peace. However, King George III rejected the Olive Branch Petition, labeled them rebels, and parliament passed the American Prohibitory Act. This banned all trade with the colonies and determined to treat all American ships and cargo as an enemy. 

The colonies knew that the decision had been made for them. They wrote the Declaration of Independence to announce before the world that they were separating from England and establishing their nation in the spirit of liberty. 

The Bill of Rights 

Following the war, America chose to create a constitution for themselves. During these debates, the arguments continually revolved around how to provide a framework for a stable government yet protect the liberties and rights of the people. Do not forget, they saw what a government that did not respect liberty could do politically.  

During those debates, a large discussion regarding the inclusion of a bill of rights boiled over. Some argued that writing down any rights would mean the government felt those were the only rights men had. Others argued that not writing them down would mean a government could then believe men had no rights. After all, men are sinful and wicked. 

Eventually, the Constitution was ratified with the promise that a bill of rights would be written by the first Congress. Our nation’s founders held to their word and drafted the Bill of Rights. This document included the first 10 amendments we know today. These rights are considered to be given to us by the divine authority and were written to ensure the government never attempts to infringe on those rights (as well as others not written.) 

Included in the list of 10 amendments are rights such as: 

• Freedom of religion 

• Freedom of speech 

• Freedom of press 

• Freedom of assembly 

• Right to petition the government 

• Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure 

• Right to speedy trial 

• Right to not self-incriminate 

• and more 

   

Our Role in the Fight for Liberty 

For 248 years, our nation has said it values God-given liberty and the government’s role in protecting that liberty. 

However, what happens if no one actively works to protect against infringement of those rights? While we may believe that our rights are self-evident and therefore will always be protected, the truth is a different matter. We must proactively defend the right to liberty and demand our government do the same. 

Today, our fellow Americans deal with unconstitutional steps from our government at every level. The temptation of new laws, programs, regulations, and personal agendas has rendered the Constitution and the Bill of Rights moot in many situations. People pay lip service to the Constitution as they destroy it. These days, our Bill of Rights seems to be more of an obstacle in the way of government “progress” than it does a bulwark to protect our liberties and rights given to us by our Creator.  

But the church can become the voice upholding our liberties. We as the church should understand freedom and liberty better than any other body or organization. We have the opportunity to uphold God’s law without fear of standing against our nation’s founding documents precisely because the founders wrote the inalienable nature of rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness into our nation’s founding documents. 

This means that we as the church may move forward in our protection of liberty for the defenseless without concern or worry that we may be stepping against a righteous authority. We owe those who are oppressed by men not following our nation’s foundational principles of liberty. We as the church hold the duty to defend liberty, as spelled out by our founding documents and given to us by God. 

You thought the worst of it was over. 

We watched the protests on college campuses and allowed the news of it all to blend in with the noise surrounding our everyday lives. After all, we have a 24/7 news cycle that continually brings things to our attention and then erases that with the next big story. 

However, the college campus protests and colonization (see what I did there?) are not subsiding. Instead, they are growing and spreading as students reach their last days of school before summer break. 

It Gets Worse 

Even though we may hope for a burn-out of this “pro-Palestine” fire, we will be sorely disappointed. Not only will the fire continue to spread and grow in the summer months, but the government is now getting more and more involved. 

This will not end well for the American citizen. 

Antisemitism Monitors 

Within the past few days, Congressman Mike Lawler (R-NY) and Congressman Ritchie Torres (D-NY) introduced legislation that would bring the federal government into the action. In their proposed legislation, the federal government would have the ability to track incidents of antisemitism through the use of monitors on college campuses. 

Any college that refuses to hire the government-mandated monitor would see their federal funding stripped. The bill also requires the colleges to cover any expenses related to the monitor’s work. If they refuse the Department of Education’s requirements, then federal funding will disappear. 

Representative Torres said the bill was written “in response to the ongoing demonstrations at Columbia University that have created an environment that many Jewish students view as hostile to their well-being and safety.” 

“Campus antisemitism is at an all-time high, and American universities are not capable of handling it when left to their own devices,” Torres said. “Jewish students have told my office that they feel completely abandoned by their university administrators and they view Congress as the only avenue for accountability and safety.” 

However, Torres is no stranger to antisemitism bills. In December of 2023, Torres introduced a bill that would have included antisemitism in the DEI Act of 2023. He helped sponsor a resolution recognizing Israel as America’s democratic ally. Not only that, but Torres also sponsored the Antisemitism Awareness Act. Within that act, antisemitism is defined to include “the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.” 

This Isn't the First Time 

House Speaker Mike Johnson energetically came out against the protests and colonization (encampments) on college campuses. He not only condemned antisemitism but also gave credit to the possibility of bringing National Guard troops onto campuses to break up the students. 

Johnson was not done. 

He and other lawmakers met with Columbia University’s president, Minouche Shafik, and shortly after called on her to resign. 

But Johnson still was not done. 

He not only called for the National Guard but also stated the next step during a press conference. Johnson said, “There is a nexus to federal funding. If these campuses cannot get control of this problem, they do not deserve taxpayer dollars. That’s a very serious issue.”  

Bringing it All Together 

On our April 26, 2024 podcast, we discussed the problem with these protests. With names that include things like “People’s Revolution” and “Solidarity”, it’s not hard to recognize the lens through which these students are seeing their role in this mess. 

Some of them probably understand the truth – that a protest will not result in divestment from Israeli companies or the nation of Israel. They most likely get that an encampment on a college campus will not end the war or bring about a ceasefire.  

Then again, that was not the goal of the entire movement. This is revolution. It is agitation. It is passion. The few (who know what they are doing) continue to whip up the useful idiots for their cause of communism/Marxism. The organizers and leaders of these movements know exactly what they are doing. They prey on the college students supporting the cause. 

Most students desire to be a part of something bigger than themselves. They want to make a change. Many of them likely did not know anything about Palestine before the past few months. However, the leaders saw the opportunity. They incited passion, drew in the sold-out believers, and shifted them with subtle moves into a Marxist movement. 

Our Government is not Helping 

Meanwhile, our government never ceases to take advantage of a bad situation to make things worse. We just watched the FISA Section 702 extension get passed, setting up an obliteration of Constitutional protections. Now, they are doubling down on the idea of hate speech by setting up antisemitism monitors. 

The cure will be worse than the sickness. 

While speech and thought control made great gains with the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the war against thought has been raging since this nation was founded. 

A Quick History of Government Speech Control 

Even before the founding, colonists ran into trouble for writing disparaging things about King George III. Their houses were ransacked searched, and all of their personal writings taken. Due to their own opinions, they found themselves at the center of a royal investigation. 

During the tenure of John Adams, American citizens were prosecuted and imprisoned for being critical of the American government’s actions and attitudes during a tenuous time in the relationship between America and France. Adams became so despotic that even the sermons of the clergy were not outside the scope of his dragnet. 

Abraham Lincoln made moves to arrest journalists, politicians, and private citizens if their opinions on the Civil War became too inflammatory for the likes of the American government.  

When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 became law, a whole segment of thought and belief became outlawed. While racism is abhorrent, the government saw fit to force people to act against their conscience in governmental, business, and even private affairs.  

Now, we watch the movement-du-jour attach itself to the Civil Rights Act, inspiring each small collective to glue their identity to the “protected classes” of the Civil Rights Act. Whether gay, transsexual, Israeli, Palestinian, physically disabled, or any of the infinite classes of people: a Civil Rights protection designation is priceless. 

The Results 

By attaching the idea of “hate speech” to “discrimination”, a new level of speech control may make its way around the First Amendment and over every way we communicate. 

Adding antisemitism to this idea of “hate speech” clearly shows the government’s hand. Controlling speech by determining whether it is “hate speech/antisemitism” allows the government to further tighten the noose around the neck of the American citizen. 

Do not forget, after 9/11, we put up with threats of criminalizing “islamophobia” and saw movement in that direction. Now, the government is using our tax dollars as a threat against the college campuses to get them to play along with a tried-and-true system of government control: the government monitor/agent. 

This is Not a Defense of Campuses 

Our college campuses have harbored this type of stuff for decades. For too long, no one lifted a finger as protesting students poured out wrath over the idea of whiteness or even masculinity. Being white became not okay, and the faculty and administration supported it. When universities had the chance to stand up to insanity and tell their students to get back in line, they balked. Some say the universities were afraid of their own customers. 

When men were railroaded before kangaroo courts and their lives were spilled before the world, the universities looked the other way. Prosecuting a drunken hook-up became a blood sport for angry feminist administrators and faculty. 

But plenty of us know the truth. They did not want to stop the students or the movement downhill. The student bodies turned progressive, and we are witnesses to the results. Remember, these people in faculty and administration were steeped in progressive, revolutionary, Marxist thinking. They became the next generation of institutional foot soldiers. They were the next disciples of Karl Marx. 

The funny thing about disciples? They believe in the religion they follow. They dedicate their life to it. So, the universities never batted an eye because they were getting the results they were looking for. 

What About These Protests? 

While some college campuses may make some moves to calm down their students, the overarching motive is not to restore the constitutionalist, liberty-minded approach of the Founders. Instead, the problem is in their wallet. High-level donors do not like the imagery of Hamas-scarf-wearing students chanting things like “From the river to the sea” and talking about death to various peoples. The donors are frustrated and threatening to pull their funding. 

We watched this occur with the TikTok divestment bill. What many do not realize is that the TikTok divestment bill was pushed by wealthy donors who saw the algorithms change in favor of Palestine. All of a sudden, TikTok was flooded with pro-Palestine content while pro-Israel content got swept under the rug. Eager to protect those dollars, democrats began going to bat for divestment. All this, despite them fighting Trump about the idea a few years ago. 

The Columbia Act 

This act, the College Oversight and Legal Updates Mandating Bias Investigations and Accountability Act, does nothing but put more power in the hands of the government to police and control the thoughts of their citizens. While public universities are unfortunately funded by us, they do not need a government monitor assigned to them.  

This act reeks of moves the Chinese Communist Party makes in assigning party observers to ensure the party values are always upheld. 

Here in America, the best disinfectant for bad ideas is sunshine. Let the horrible ideas be put forward, and let the American public decide. 

Not long after, President Biden signed the bill into law. 

Extension of FISA Section 702 

FISA is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which provides the government with the ability to conduct surveillance on foreign actors for national security. It allows the government to use technology and various means to collect information, data, and evidence. 

In 2008, Congress passed Section 702 of the FISA, which gives the intelligence community the green light to “collect, analyze, and appropriately share foreign intelligence information about national security threats.” 

This bill, FISA Section 702 extension, reauthorizes the government to surveil without requiring a warrant. While this bill will be up for another debate in two years, the general consensus of Americans who care about the Constitution is that a two-year extension provides no comfort or respite. 

However, due to some political wrangling and gamesmanship, the bill allows surveillance to continue until April 2025, even if Congress chooses not to reauthorize the law in two years. 

Did Anybody Fight the FISA?

The House chose not to pass an amendment that would have added some needed reforms to the FISA under Section 702. A few days later, six different amendments were defeated in the Senate. Those six amendments would have put some boundaries on the powers to spy. The amendments considered those powers to be “too broad.” The Senate obviously begged to differ. 

Unfortunately, Section 702 allows the NSA to collect all kinds of intelligence on foreign actors. Even though certain restraints are supposedly placed on the intelligence community regarding US citizens, questions are raised about what happens with incidental information. 

However, that is not the greatest concern in this new law. 

What’s The Problem with the FISA 702 Extension? 

Senator Ron Wyden said it best, “If you have access to any communications, the government can force you to help it spy. That means anybody with access to a server, a wire, a cable box, a wi-fi router, a phone, or a computer. … If this provision is enacted, the government can deputize any of these people against their will and force them, in effect, to become what amounts to an agent for Big Brother.” 

While the bill originally was intended to deal with the collection of foreign intelligence through warrantless searches, it collects plenty of American citizen’s private phone calls, emails, texts, and other electronic communications. The Brennan Center reports that over 200,000 warrantless “backdoor” searches happen every year. And those searches are with Americans’ private communications. 

Even though the government may tell us that they follow the rules, the truth bears repeating: they are not following the rules. Declassified documents have proven time and time again that the private communications of anybody from activists to Congressmen have been swept up in FBI backdoor searches. 

Not only that, but the intelligence community routinely gives themselves a nice end-around to the pesky 4th amendment. By using data brokers who sell data lists and information, the FBI and other intelligence agencies can bypass the necessity for a warrant and of course: that whole foreign actor issue. 

Unfortunately, Section 702 is a collection of some of the nastiest attempts to destroy American citizen’s civil liberties. 

When the bevy of amendments was shot down, Congress told us that they A) Didn’t see the need for warrants to protect the citizen’s rights B) Felt it was necessary to force Americans to become impromptu spies on their customers, consumers, patrons, family, and friends C) Saw no reason to stop the brokering of sensitive data to intelligence agencies and D) Had no interest in ACTUALLY protecting the American citizen’s God-given rights. 

This is Unprecedented...Right? 

No, sadly this is not the first time something like this has happened. Even though the typical American can recite plenty of events that curtailed our rights (Patriot Act for one…), we may look to something farther back in history and learn from our founding fathers. 

As far back as at least 1604, the idea of unlimited access to the private materials and communications of a citizen was a questionable practice. 

In 1604, during Semayne’s case, Edward Coke argued, “The house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defense against injury and violence as for his repose.” 

Writs of Assistance 

While English common law continued to make strides in recognizing the danger of unlimited governmental authority, it failed to truly protect the colonist's rights and liberties. 

The British struggled to control smuggling and attempts to get around their regulations and restrictions on trade. By using Writs of Assistance, inspectors could take a general form and use it to search any property or space and seize anything that was a “prohibited and uncustomed” good.  

However, the colonists hated such an open-ended document. Until 1750, the only warrants even defined in the handbooks of the Justices were general warrants. These gave little to no oversight for authorities. 

In 1756, Massachusetts passed a law banning general warrants as a response to the Excise Act of 1754, which gave tax collectors unlimited powers to interrogate colonists over goods subject to customs. 

When King George II died in 1760, all Writs of Assistance expired six months later, as determined by law. This event led to a major case brought forward by 50 merchants. 

James Otis and The Writs Case

James Otis came to the defense of the merchants in the colonies and fought against the idea of general warrants. 

Despite losing, Otis’ involvement in the case was so important that John Adams viewed the case as “The spark in which originated the American Revolution.” 

Otis’ remarks during the case were beautifully and forcefully argued. They provided a strong philosophical foundation for the concept of rights and liberties versus the tyrannical power of an authoritarian government.  

Otis stated, 

“I will to my dying day oppose, with all the powers and faculties God has given me, all such instruments of slavery on the one hand and villainy on the other as this Writ of Assistance is. It appears to me the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law, that ever was found in an English law book” 

“Now, one of the most essential branches of English liberty is the freedom of one's house. A man's house is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege. Custom-house officers may enter our houses when they please; we are commanded to permit their entry. Their menial servants may enter, may break locks, bars, and everything in their way; and whether they break through malice or revenge, no man, no court can inquire. Bare suspicion without oath is sufficient.” 

Even though Otis lost the case, he made such an impact on his fellow colonists that he went on to become a member of the MA legislature and passed legislation requiring special Writs of Assistance be “granted by any judge or justice of the peace upon information under oath by any officer of the customs” and banning all other Writs. However, the governor overturned it, seeing it as contrary to English law. 

Two Years Later 

A case was brought before the English courts involving two political authors who wrote critical materials about King George III. Both John Entick and John Wilkes had their houses searched in the investigation, with all kinds of papers and writings being seized by the authorities. The men sued the government for wrongfully collecting private materials and won. 

While in the Entick affair, the government at least carried a warrant with Entick’s name on it, no such papers existed for Wilkes. His home was involved in a sweep of 49 suspects (without his name being listed as a search target.) 

Chief Justice Pratt, who presided over both Entick and Wilkes cases, said, “Papers are the owner's goods and chattels: they are his dearest property; and are so far from enduring a seizure, that they will hardly bear an inspection; and though the eye cannot by the laws of England be guilty of a trespass, yet where private papers are removed and carried away, the secret nature of those goods will be an aggravation of the trespass, and demand more considerable damages in that respect..” 

He further stated, "[O]ur law holds the property of every man so sacred, that no man can set his foot upon his neighbour's close without his leave.” 

Eventually, Pratt addressed the jury and said, “The defendants claimed a right, under precedents, to force persons' houses, break open escrutores, seize their papers, &c. upon a general warrant, where no inventory is made of the things thus taken away, and where no offenders' names are specified in the warrant, and therefore a discretionary power given to messengers to search wherever their suspicions may chance to fall. If such a power is truly invested in a secretary of state, and he can delegate this power, it certainly may affect the person and property of every man in this kingdom, and is totally subversive of the liberty of the subject.” 

 He saw the danger in a government with unlimited access to the private communications and belongings of its citizens. He also took note of the danger of open-ended warrants and general searches. 

The 4th Amendment 

By 1784, eight state constitutions contained some provisions against general warrants. 

The MA Declaration of Rights stated, “Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions. All warrants, therefore, are contrary to this right, if the cause or foundation of them be not previously supported by oath or affirmation; and if the order in the warrant to a civil officer, to make search in suspected places, or to arrest one or more suspected persons, or to seize their property, be not accompanied with a special designation of the persons or objects of search, arrest, or seizure: and no warrant ought to be issued but in cases, and with the formalities, prescribed by the laws.” 

When the Bill of Rights was ratified, the 4th amendment survived the ratification process. Interestingly enough, a slight language change has provided debate within courts. 

The original version, authored by James Madison, stated, “The rights to be secured in their persons, their houses, their papers, and their other property, from all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized.” 

The phrase “warrants issued without probable cause” was modified to “no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause.” 

In England, there were lawful warrantless searches. However, the language has been read to mean that the only reasonable searches and seizures are those that meet the requirements of issued warrants. 

This has divided courts as to whether searches and seizures can be done without a warrant, or a warrant must be required. The division especially concerned the difference between searching for a suspect incident to arrest vs. searching areas within and without the control of the suspect. 

So Back to Section 702 

The government now has the right to force private citizens to hoover up any information that passes through a wi-fi router, cable box, server, phone, tablet, etc. under threat of punishment. They do not have to worry about the 4th amendment. Instead, we become their spies...much like the Soviet Union did with their own citizenry. 

Sadly, our 4th amendment has lost most of its teeth, and Section 702 is one more punch in the face. The power of the intelligence community (especially the NSA), the power of hidden courts, warrantless searches, oppressive investigations into private citizens, and the chilling effect of the government’s coercive tactics have all laid waste to our rights. 

Our founding fathers, such as Otis, passionately fought the idea that the government had free reign over a private citizen’s personal possessions (which included communications.) The question is: when they recognized such a gross destruction of their rights and liberties...what did they do? 

Most who are even somewhat familiar with apologetics and debate concerning political history may recall the common assertion: “the Founders certainly weren’t Christians! They were only diests!” Such is a phrase often repeated with zealous gusto. It seems the only time the term “deist” even appears in contemporary conversation is in the context of the United States Founders specifically somehow being averse to Christianity. It is interesting that secularists that have pushed this claim do not use the term “theist” as if to intentionally avoid a reference to theism directly. Such a reference to “theism” might imply that the Founders connected the God they spoke of with the God of the Bible, or at the least were inspired by Him. Such would be a reasonable implication and concession, but why stop there? We are after the whole truth. Were the US founders simply “deists”, only vaguely acknowledging a loosely defined and distant “higher power” that set the world in motion than vanished, never again to govern the affairs of men?

The simple definition of what deism actually is simply does not accurately describe the Founders, even those that may have been considered general skeptics at certain points in their life. There is no evidence that most of the Founders were either deists, rejected Christian beliefs, or that “God set the world in motion and then abstained from human affairs”.ⁱ Concerning the civic leadership as a whole at that time in the United States, there are very few occasions, examples, or evidences of them embracing deism or rejecting Christianity.ⁱⁱ Regarding the general populace, there were few non-Christians in late 18^th century America.ⁱⁱⁱ In 1776, each and every colonist, with the exception of approximately two thousand Jews, identified as Christian.^iv About 98 percent of them were protestants, and 2 percent were Roman Catholics.^v During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the vast majority of colonists were Reformed or Calvinist denominations.^vi The “diest” label is frequently applied to only a few of the most famous Founders, treated almost as flags to be captured, while the names of the rest of the Founders are rarely mentioned at all and generally go forgotten in historical discussions. Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, John Jay, Roger Sherman, and John Witherspoon all expressly held orthodox Christian ideas and beliefs.^vii Additional Founders frequently left out of the discussion whom held traditional Christian faith include Elias Boudinot, Eliphalet Dyer, Oliver Ellsworth, Matthew Griswold, John Hancock, Benjamin Huntington, Samuel Huntington, Thomas McKean, William Paterson, Tapping Reeve, Jesse Root, Oliver Wolcott, and Robert Yates.^viii

        Concerning the abundance of evidence related to the Christian faith and religious conviction of none other than George Washington, an entire volume could be written. Here we can examine just a few records of his personal writing that bring his faith to light. A 1790 letter to a Jewish congregation in Newport, Rhode Island alone contained no less than nine scriptural references.^ix The use here of Micah 4:4, which some have called his favorite verse, is further referenced 40 times elsewhere.^x Washington frequently referred to God in invocations of “Providence, Heaven, the Supreme Being, the Great Architect, the Author of all Good, and the Great Ruler of Events”. George Washington referred to “Providence” alone at least 270 times in his writings and thanked Providence for literally saving his life through divine protection.^xi This directly contradicts the assertion that he was simply a vaguely detached diest, whom merely credited a non-benevolent and unknown force that had no divine interference or direction in the affairs of men.^xii Furthermore, in 1791 Washington signed a letter drafted by Jefferson to the emperor of Morocco that offered a prayer by “God...under his holy keeping”. A French friend of his once noted of Washington that “every day of the year, he rises at five in the morning; as soon as he is up, he dresses, then prays reverently to God.” One of his most beautiful expressions of conviction regarding Christianity was made in his General Orders on May 2^nd, 1778. It is recorded as follows: “While we are zealously performing the duties of good Citizens and soldiers we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of Religion—To the distinguished Character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to add the more distinguished Character of Christian—The signal Instances of providential Goodness which we have experienced and which have now almost crowned our labours with complete Success, demand from us in a peculiar manner the warmest returns of Gratitude & Piety to the Supreme Author of all Good.” Washington used the word "God" 146 times in his personal writing and public speeches. A popular secularist myth persists that Washington never mentioned or referenced Jesus Christ specifically, despite having clearly done so several times in his General Orders and in his "Circular Letter to the Governors" of 1783: “…and finally, that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all, to do Justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that Charity, humility and pacific temper of mind, which were the Characteristicks of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation.”

Much has been made of the beliefs of Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson which require their own dedicated article, though even a brief examination of their expressions display an attitude inconsistent with mere deism. Franklin noted during the Constitutional Convention that “in the beginning with the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible with danger, we had daily prayer in this room for divine protection…Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered…the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God governs the affairs of men”^xiii. Jefferson went to significant lengths to keep his opinions of personal faith private in his letters^xiv, however it is clear that he respected the bible’s moral teaching in general (a far cry from new age non-moralism in the vein of Nietzsche) indicated by an 1816 letter where he wrote, “the ten commandments and the Sermon on the Mount contain my Religion”.^xv Jefferson is quoted in his first inaugural address “may the infinite power which rules the destines of the universe lead our councils to what is best, and give them favorable issue for your peace and prosperity.”^xvi

A claim persists that Thomas Paine’s philosophically diest work The Age of Reason provided direct influence on the Founders or was at least a positive contribution to their way of thinking. However, the historical record shows this as patently false. American civil leaders held extremely negative reactions to the book^xvii and Paine was subsequently vilified. When he returned to the US he was abandoned by all his friends with the exception of Jefferson. Samuel Adams, John Adams, John Witherspoon, William Paterson, John Jay, Benjamin Rush, Charles Carroll, Zephaniah Swift, Elias Boudinot, and Patrick Henry openly criticized the book.^xviii  Only six people came to his funeral, in which he was buried on a farm because of the Quakers refusal to allow him a grave with the church cemetery.^xix 

The common deist assertion appears to be primarily used in the past by proudly atheistic secularists as an apologist angle of discrediting Christianity’s heritage. It is as if the bible having a foundational influence on the United States founding was not acceptable. One can understand their reason for zeal- the reality of Christianity’s influence conflicts directly with their insistence that godless atheism, lumped together with the concept of “enlightenment humanism”, produced the freest nation in the world. The fact of the matter is that unrestrained rejection of morality and militancy towards Christianity produced the chaos of the French Revolution and the massacres of the Reign of Terror. In contrast, the Founders typically targeted as being detached deists are on record as either being outright Christians, embracing Christianity’s moral influences, or in the least wrote concerning God’s direct intervention in the affairs of men and the world.^xx The typical rebuttal to all this is usually “well, everyone was religious back then!” Well, if everyone was indeed religious back then (being mostly part of various Christian denominations) then does that not show that religious men built the foundations of the modern world rather than a-religious men?

“It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors.”

-George Washington

Thanksgiving Day Proclamation, Issued by President George Washington, at the request of Congress, on October 3, 1789 

References:

You can take a deep breath, and now you can relax. Or, if weeping and gnashing your teeth is more your thing, then go for it. But, for the next year and a half or so, you can rest and keep your mind on other things than a mid-term election.

I'm glad it's over. I've been waiting for this moment. I understand the importance of an election, and the absolute necessity of getting involved in the whole process, but it brings out the worst in all of us.

The power and influence that flows underneath elections represents a rather wicked sense of control over other people's lives. It entices and draws the worst of our populace into the limelight. The slick smiles (and slicked back hair), the promises to people's most base desires, and the arrogance all culminates on stages, screens and newspapers all over the nation.

These positions are supposed to be held by servants. A man of unique nature is the ultimate statesman. A man who is humble, wise in decision making, who hates ill-gotten gain, who defends against tyranny, limits himself, and defends the defenseless against the powers of corruption. This man brings to the position of representative the necessary qualities. How many people can we honestly say represent such qualities?

Unfortunately, we as humans buy into the King Saul dilemma. Saul was the tallest man, good-looking, and charismatic. But he lacked character. People looked at the physical representation, and wanted a ruler who would look the part, and despite God's warnings that he would become an uncontrolled tyrant and coward, they wanted to go forward.

In America, these positions of “power” are in-fact managerial positions. Each “seat” is one that is there merely to ensure the government runs the way it is supposed to. The tech manual, the rule-book, or the procedure lay-out of the government is written down in the constitutions of our states and nation. Just as the first five books of the Bible lay out the law and how the people should be governed, our constitutions and law structure are there to determine the responsibility of our governments. 

If our elected representatives do not manage our governmental affairs in line with the constitution, they need to be removed. This means we have to actually understand the spirit of our constitution.

Just as the Jewish people got themselves into trouble, we are doing the same thing. They stuck their noses so deep into the law, that they missed the forest for the trees. Christ came and told them repeatedly that they were missing the bigger picture. His sermon on the mount amounted to, “You think you're following the law, but you're missing the more important piece: the spirit of it!” When we say, “I didn't murder someone today!” we think we're being lawful citizens. But our heart murders constantly with hatred.

It's the same way today with our government structure. We say, “We stopped the deficit from rising even more!” When the spirit of the constitution was, “Government should balance costs at all times, because people should only pay taxes for the government to keep the lights on.” We look at our representatives, and we want them to tell us what they can do for us, and how they're going to solve a problem.

In all actuality, their job is to tell us, “I can't do that. That's not how government works.”

Government is a tool. It manages the fabric of society, and that's why it's such a contentious issue. We all view society and how it should run in varying ways. But our laws and constitutions determine how we all interact in our society, and what the society will tolerate, how it functions, and what will not be tolerated.

Our officials unfortunately must be otherwordly men. They must recognize the power that is available in such a position, shirk that power, and yet uphold justice and the laws in order to keep society functioning. 

This is a pipe dream. A true utopia (which means in the Greek, “No place.”)

But, a standard remains vital. Having a perfect standard helps us aim our sights on something, and gives us feedback on where we need to correct. When we hold that standard, such as the concept of liberty in America, our decisions become easier.

A similar idea is found in the mission statement of a business. A great mission statement becomes easily accessible at all times to all employees. A great mission statement gives the employee a clear answer in the times of a difficult decision. 

For instance: Let's say our mission statement is, “Customer experience, at all costs.” A customer comes in, and they truly need something, but it's going to cost the company to the point of a loss on the sale or service. Immediately, your employee knows the answer, “If a customer's experience conflicts with costs, and I have to choose to prioritize one or the other, I'll always prioritize the customer's experience.”

It's the same with the standard of liberty. If the question becomes, “Does this improve safety at the risk of liberty?” Then it's much easier to say, “I must defer to liberty.”

Today, we chafe at believing such a difficult conflict of convictions could show up in our lives. These dangerous conflicts show up because deep down we believe we can have it all. We tell ourselves we can enjoy freedom and liberty, WHILE being safe and protected. Rarely do we truly give ourselves an accurate accounting, and determine how much liberty and freedom that safety will really cost. If America were to truly believe in liberty (at all costs?), probably 75% of the laws, ordinances and regulations would be toast in a matter of hours.

This is why, when Christ is asked what the greatest commandment is in the law, He responds, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Why are those the greatest? Why do the law and the prophets hang on those two? Because they answer all of the conflicts that could arise from the law. Whenever a conflict happens, we look to love. Love of God first, and then love for our neighbor. And guess what, our neighbor includes our enemy, considering we're called to love our enemies.

The mission statement of Judaism and Christianity is such, “Love God with everything you are, and love your neighbor as yourself.” And you want to know how to love God with everything you are? Accept Christ. (There, now no one can say I'm not putting the gospel as vital.)

The mission statement of America is liberty. And while it's never upheld the ideal, we must present to ourselves the measurement stick in each and every scenario. Does this improve or hinder liberty? Will allowing this infringe on another's rights, therefore infringing on their liberty?

If America can use this scale in our voting, our legislation, our ethics and our social interactions, we will instantly create a more cohesive society. Our valuing of liberty creates more love for our neighbor, not less.

As I stood in the line waiting to vote, I played a game of wondering how people were going to vote. I recognized a couple of women who seemed to be a lesbian couple, and of course the assumption was that they would vote straight democrat. Intriguingly, I was not offended by the thought of their vote. I honored their difference in point of view, and celebrated that they were acting out the responsibility of choosing our leaders.

I vehemently disagree with the democrat position to infringe on liberties, and disagree with the democrat view of the role of government, but I never wish to restrict the participation of those who vote differently from me.

Sadly, I hold the hardest position to hold. I honor the right of others to hold views that would oppress and crush my own. I play by my rules that hold me to a high standard, while others won't agree to those rules, and therefore could crush me.

At the end of the day, however, my conscience is clean. I have faith in the Lord, in the truth, and the final truth that all of this will end someday anyways. So my participation is my stewardship and my responsibility, but the outcome is not my responsibility. I steward what I'm given, and will fight back those who infringe on my rights and liberties, but I will do it with a clean conscience and conviction.

I refuse to break the greater law, my morals and my convictions, in order to uphold such things that I hold dear. For if I attempt such a feat, I have defeated them myself. I have laid waste to their validity in my desperate act of protecting them. I've proven they hold no value while professing their immense values at all costs. The man who has no morals and convictions, holds his power and tyranny as the ultimate reward. He will crush all who stand in his path and will decimate the entire world to achieve his desire. What that man doesn't realize is he will ultimately destroy that which he prizes. When he finally achieves ultimate control, he will find his hands are full of ashes, as he cannot but burn it all in order to win it.

The desire of the tyrant is power. He can achieve it, but the more he achieves, the more ultimate control eludes him. In essence, he is cutting the branch that he sits on. As the nation he rules over compresses under the weight of his tyranny, the people lose spirit, and some revolt. He must then press harder with his thumb, attempting to stamp out the reaction to his tyranny. At some moment, his strength, resolve and abilities will waver against the onslaught of attack from the opposing reaction. Remember, every action has an opposing reaction.

Eventually, the tyrant can't help but crumble (or straight up die). His life is fleeting, and even if he reaches old age, he will clutch the sheets of his deathbed, and raise a fist at the sky, cursing God. The tyrant can never conquer God, and can never conquer himself. The destruction of truth within him leaves him decimated, and there is no peace to be had. Untold amounts of pleasure can be consumed, but never true peace.

And that is why the nun can sit in the gulag with utter peace and contentment on her face as she starves to death, while Stalin shakes his fist at the sky as he dies and curses God. The nun held her conviction to the death, and her conscience remained fast in God. She wasn't running from God, she was embracing Him.

The tyrant runs from God, and never escapes. Truth compounds within his breast, until he bursts...whether in this world or the next.

The point of it all? Your convictions are tantamount, and reject any man who will compromise his convictions for the sake of a temporal win. The men of highest conviction cannot be bought, and when liberty is their conviction, they will never attempt to buy your conviction from you.

Uphold the mission statement, and never compromise.

I do not know if enough storage is available on Earth to contain all of the records of the massive corruption, bias, civil rights violations, incompetence, and criminal activity of the US FBI.  This post only intends to provide a small buffet for consumption showing sufficient evidence to the reasoned mind that they cannot be trusted.  

Corruption and Political Bias runs strong in this agency.

Just this week the FBI raided President Trump's home in Florida seeking classified documents and publicly suggesting that he might be indicted under the Espionage act of 1917. Trump has asserted that no such classified documents exist because as President he had full authority to declassify them under the Constitution.  Clearly the Dept of Justice and the FBI are acting as henchmen for the Democratic party leaders doing their bidding in a politically partisan manner. 

The FBI has been slow to investigate Hunter Biden as the current President's son and even before his father was elected. They have denied having a certain laptop belonging to Hunter Biden and then asserted that there was nothing worth investigating on this laptop.  They have declined to investigate the activities of Joe Biden while he was Vice President in relationship with the legal system of Ukraine.  He blackmailed the President of Ukraine with US aid to fire a prosecutor looking into his son's business dealings.  

According to Special Counsel John Durham, hired to investigate the FBI's role in the Russian Collusion Hoax, "The FBI knew the Trump-Russia collusion narrative was utter bunk even as it suggested otherwise to Congress, the courts and the public early in 2017."  "A seven-page internal FBI memo dated March 8, 2017, shows that "talking points" prepared for then-FBI Director James Comey for his meeting the next day with the congressional leadership were riddled with half-truths, outright falsehoods, and critical omissions. Both the Senate and the House opened investigations and held hearings based in part on the misrepresentations made in those FBI briefings, one of which was held in the Senate that morning and the other in the House later that afternoon."  

"Quoting from the reports, Comey told congressional leaders that the unidentified informant told the FBI that Manafort "initially 'managed' the relationship between Russian government officials and the Trump campaign, using Carter Page as an intermediary." He also told them that "Page was reported to have had 'secret meetings' in early July 2016 with a named individual in Russia's presidential administration during which they discussed Russia's release of damaging information on Hillary Clinton in exchange for alterations to the GOP platform regarding U.S. policy towards Ukraine."  But previous FBI interviews with Carter Page and other key sources indicated that none of that was true – and the FBI knew it at the time of the congressional briefings.

Now 6 years later no one in the leadership of the FBI has suffered any consequences for their actions.  In fact, while Andrew McCabe was fired by the FBI losing his pension, a Federal Judge ordered the FBI to reinstate his pension.  Comey was fired by President Trump but has not been prosecuted for lying to Congress and to a Federal judge. 

The FBI was spying on Carter Page, a former campaign advisor to President Trump, in hopes of catching him giving national secrets to the Russians.  They had no evidence. They were fishing for dirt on Trump associates to discredit him. 

The FBI doctored an email to submit to a Federal judge to extend a wiretap on Carter Page, a campaign advisor to President Trump.  When this was discovered, another Federal judge stated that he did not believe that the FBI lawyer acted with political bias but rather to save himself some work.  I'm not sure suggesting that a lawyer is lazy, or incompetent is really better than political bias.  In any case, the lawyer confessed to what could have been 6 months in jail but instead received a sentenced to community service.  

The FBI lied to General Michael Flynn when he was nominated as President Trump's National Security Advisor.  They lied in an attempt to get him to lie about his involvement as a consultant to Russia and Ukraine.  It is a heinous miscarriage of justice that it is a felony to lie to the FBI, but it is legal for them to lie to a citizen of the US with impunity.  Nevertheless, the FBI uses this method often with the strategy of getting a suspect to incriminate themselves for lying then negotiate a plea to some other charges.  This is what happened with the FBI and General Flynn.  This prevented him from taking the job that President Trump nominated him to.  This was entirely predicated on the bias of Director James Comey. 

In 2018, Robert Mueller, the special counsel looking into the Russia collusion matter found zero evidence to support the allegations by the FBI.

I could go on about Hillary Clinton's emails and other ways that the FBI protected her obvious criminal behavior and role in paying the source for fake information on Trump, but this could go on too long for this post.  

Origins

Founded in 1908 as the Bureau of Investigation by President Roosevelt.  They were initially commissioned to investigate corporations for abuse of their monopoly power.  Roosevelt used them as tool of his Anti-Trust campaign.  The FBI's roots were always in partisan political power. 

From there the bureau's authority and power extended to prostitution and interstate car theft.  As WWI commenced, they expanded into domestic security.  In 1917-18, President Wilson pressured Congress into passing the Acts authorizing the Committee on Public Information and the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act.  All of these were designed to issue propaganda to the people about the Government's involvement in the war and to punish anyone who spoke out against the war.  Fines and imprisonment were the punishments.  The FBI was the tool of the government to enforce these laws.  

After the war, President Wilson and his FBI continued to focus on dissenters, suspected communists, radicals, and other undesirable elements in society. All were Americans. Wilson's Attorney General, Mitchell Palmer, used the FBI to round up these undesirables. The largest of these raids happened on Jan 2-3, 1920.  Four thousand Americans were caught up in these raids on a single night with the help of his deputy, J. Edgar Hoover.  Beatings and abuse of suspects in custody was common in those days.  There was no Miranda reading advising them of their rights. Many were detained for extended periods without being charged, a violation of the fourth amendment.  Many were starved and tortured including watching their family members beaten in front of them.  This was all done by the FBI.

The first Director of the FBI to hold that title was William J Burns.  Under President Warren Harding's administration occurred the "Teapot Dome Scandal" where Harding's Interior Secretary was accepting kickbacks from oil companies for allowing them to tap into the emergency oil reserves of the US Navy.  Senator Burton Wheeler discovered this and began investigating.  At the request of Harding's Atty General, FBI director Burns was requested to stop the Senate investigation.  He sent agents to find dirt on the Senator.  Failing that he invented corruption charges against Senator Wheeler. This backfired and Burns was fired and replaced by J Edgar Hoover in 1924.

Hoover presided over a vast growth in power and scope of the FBI from 1924 to 1972.  He focused heavily on intelligence gathering, i.e., spying.  Spying on everyone.  All Americans from Presidents to street sweepers and housewives were swept up in his agents' surveillance. Files were compiled of the details.  

Hoover was convinced Martin Luther King, Jr was the “most notorious liar in the country.”  He intended to gather intelligence on King that would force him to step down as leader of the civil rights movement. He used illegal wiretaps on King's phones and had him followed everywhere.  The FBI’s file on King is full of hostility, sexual innuendo, and gossip, with plenty of references to King’s numerous extramarital affairs. 

Hoover used his intelligence gathering on elected officials to blackmail them into cooperating with his agenda, funding and to keep his job.  He informed President Kennedy that he knew about Kennedy's affair with Judith Exner who was also sleeping with Mafia boss Sam Giancana.  Such information certainly helped Hoover keep his job.  President Kennedy had discussed with his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy about firing Hoover. 

This collection of intelligence by Hoover and the FBI was often not used for prosecution of corrupt politicians and gangsters.  It was used to keep them in line with Hoover's agenda which was mostly about keeping his job. He allowed corrupt politicians and members to operate without interference from the FBI to preserve his edge in controlling them.

Hoover died with an estate valued in today's dollars at $2.9 million. He maintained and remodeled his home over his years as director through the use of FBI staff. He ruled over politicians and criminals and staff like a king.  

In 1972 L Patrick Gray replaced Hoover as acting director and was nominated by Nixon to serve as permanent director.  He resigned after admitting that he had destroyed Watergate files to protect Nixon.

In 1987, William Sessions, became director.  He used FBI resources for personal trips and home improvements.  He refused to resign during the 6-month ethics investigation.  Finally, President Clinton has to fire him in 1993.

In 2017, Director James Comey was fired.   

Incompetence

* The FBI made “fundamental” errors in investigating sexual abuse allegations against former USA Gymnastics national team doctor Larry Nassar and did not treat the case with the “utmost seriousness,” the Justice Department's inspector general said Wednesday. More athletes said they were molested before the FBI swung into action.

The long-awaited watchdog report raises troubling questions about how the department and the FBI handled the case and it highlights major missteps at the FBI between the time the allegations were first reported and Nassar’s arrest.

The inspector general’s investigation was spurred by allegations that the FBI failed to promptly address complaints made in 2015 against Nassar. USA Gymnastics had conducted its own internal investigation and then the organization's then-president, Stephen Penny, reported the allegations to the FBI's field office in Indianapolis. But it took months before the bureau opened a formal investigation.

A total of 265 girls and women were ultimately found to have been abused by Nassar.

* The federal government will pay a $127.5 million settlement over the Parkland, Fla. school massacre — after it admitted the FBI didn’t follow up on two tips that could have prevented the massacre.  17 school children were murdered.

* Internally, the department has documented issues with workplace sexual assault and harassment — problems that have also, like the rape cases that come across an FBI agent's desk, been largely ignored. A 2020 investigation conducted by the Associated Press identified at least six sexual misconduct allegations involving senior FBI officials that occurred in the past five years — none of the officials were disciplined. Instead, several were "quietly transferred or retired, keeping their full pensions." Following the report, FBI Director Wray reassured agents that the bureau won't tolerate sexual misconduct in the workplace, "regardless of rank or title."

Conclusion

No one should trust the FBI.  There may be people of integrity in the bureau, but you will never know who they are.  Everyone of them is legally allowed to lie to you about anything.  You will go to prison for lying to them if they don’t successfully intimidate you to confess to something.  They have been a completely politically biased agency for their entire history.  They have been tools of the government and special interests to silence or even destroy you.  They will never suffer negative consequences for their behavior. They effectively operate above and outside the law. 

Sources: 

• Kessler, Ronald.  Hoover's Secret Files

• Garner, Paul.  Yearning to Breathe Free

• https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2022/06/09/fbi_chief_comey_misled_congresss_gang_of_8_over_russiagate_lisa_page_memo_reveals_836434.html

• https://nypost.com/2022/06/11/the-fbi-knew-russiagate-was-a-lie-but-hid-that-truth/

• https://nypost.com/2018/05/26/carter-page-the-fbi-ruined-my-life/

• https://nypost.com/2020/04/30/fbi-agents-tried-to-get-flynn-to-lie-to-get-him-fired-report/

• https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2021/07/10582933/larry-nassar-fbi-sexual-assault-claims-ignored-history