1

Morality Is Indispensable for Liberty

Written by Becky Akers

Those stodgy Founding Fathers! Not only did they study hard, work harder, and marry one woman for life, they also insisted on – get this – morality. As in obeying the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule, and the basic moral teachings of the Bible in general. So strongly did they venerate morality that they frequently observed its unbreakable link with liberty. They believed that moral people alone remain politically free.

John Adams, for example, claimed, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

“While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued.”His cousin Sam agreed. “Religion and good morals are the only solid foundation of public liberty and happiness.” Indeed, he feared, “A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.”

Singing the same song was Charles Carroll, one of the Declaration’s signers:  “Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time…”

And George Washington considered morality so necessary to freedom that he spoke at length of their connection in the Farewell Address that capped his career: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. … And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.”

Clearly, the generation that overthrew the world’s most powerful – and corrupt – empire to establish a new, freer country considered Biblical morality essential to their endeavor. But why? Exactly how do strong ethics enhance liberty?

Washington mentioned one obvious reason in his Farewell: “Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?” By extension, those in elected or appointed positions might not respect their oaths of office, either.

Reflexive Thievery

If these were the only times morality protected freedom, we might dismiss the Founders’ veneration of the former as overblown. After all, few of us will find ourselves in either political office or court … wait. I forgot that every American commits three felonies per day.

But even with the police-state criminalizing most of our behavior, lying under oath isn’t nearly as widespread as another sin that enslaves formerly free people. By far the worst threat to liberty springs from the reflexive thievery, a.k.a. socialism, permeating modern culture and politics.

The idea that my property belongs to me alone has become as quaint as “Thou shalt not steal.”That admirer of America, Alexis de Tocqueville, shrewdly analyzed socialism in his classic rebuke of it in 1848: along with “an incessant, vigorous and extreme appeal to the material passions of man” (i.e., greed) and “a profound opposition to personal liberty and scorn for individual reason, a complete contempt for the individual,” socialism is “always … an attack, either direct or indirect, on the principle of private property.”

Americans today have so completely converted to socialism that mighty few folks even recognize, let alone condemn, that “attack … on the principle of private property.” Rather, they reason, “I need or want it, and you have it, so you must give it to me.” The idea that my property belongs to me alone, and that no one else has any right to swipe even a penny of it, to restrict my use of it, or to dictate how I employ it has become as quaint as “Thou shalt not steal.”

In fact, Americans have redefined “steal.” It now means, “Acquiring property from another person yourself rather than waiting for government to acquire it on your behalf.” So long as the recipient doesn’t wind up in jail, he will eagerly accept anything politicians “redistribute” to him from his family and friends.

Even folks who would never dream of robbing a man at gunpoint of a third of his income, good Christians who attend church and read their Bibles, see nothing wrong with plundering their neighbors via government. Especially when they favor the loot’s alleged recipients (soup kitchens and other “faith-based” programs, foreign aid to Israel, etc). Few worry any longer whether an act is moral; instead, they assume that if it’s legal, it must be OK.

Policies of Plunder

The predatory and “graduated” tax code that allegedly takes “from each according to his ability” to finance Obamacare, food stamps, Section 8 housing, unemployment, Social Security, etc., is obvious socialism. But many, far more insidious instances abound. And in all of them, American morality is not only dead but so deeply buried that these examples disturb hardly any consciences.

Too many Americans applaud plaintiffs who sue innocent entities as shrewd rather than larcenous.A legal doctrine called “joint-and-several liability … states that damages can be obtained from co-defendants based on who is capable of paying, rather than who was found to be more negligent.” Looking for “deep pockets” so that small inconveniences or even injuries can be parlayed into megabucks often means the wealthiest person or corporation near an accident is held responsible, even if he bears little or no blame. Too many Americans applaud plaintiffs who sue innocent entities as shrewd rather than larcenous.

Since World War II, New York City has compelled landlords to subsidize tenants’ rent through its execrable rent-control laws. This legislation decrees how much rent landlords may charge, the amount – if any – by which they may annually raise it (despite whatever increases in real-estate taxes or in the cost of water and sewage the City has imposed that year), and how long the tenant may inhabit his apartment—even if the building’s owner prefers another renter or wishes to sell or renovate his property. This corruption pits landlords against tenants so thoroughly that occasionally the former plots to murder the latter in the hope of regaining his rights. And though rent-control authorizes tenants to cheat landlords, it bites the swindlers, too, by ensuring that New York’s supply of housing remains dilapidated, scarce, and stunningly expensive.

Once accustomed to living off their landlords – or the taxpayers, via Social Security, Medicare, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, etc., ad nauseam – voters elect socialists to continue their gravy train. They happily sell our liberty for lower rent and free food. Shameless in their thievery, they prove the Founders’ maxim that only a moral people remains free.





Dreams of an America with Only One Worldview

It’s hard to think of a more dangerous threat to First Amendment freedoms than the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) scheme a few months ago to station government “researchers” in newsrooms.

It had all the makings of a 1984-style intimidation of journalists, and it was allegedly abandoned shortly after a public outcry.

I say “allegedly” because our betters never give up their quest to dictate to us what is allowable speech. They wait until they think we’re not paying attention, and try again. A couple of years ago, they floated, but abandoned, the old Fairness Doctrine, which throttled talk radio before the FCC under President Reagan rescinded it in 1987.

In recent days, an even more hare-brained plan has arisen, courtesy of Massachusetts Democratic U.S. Sen. Ed Markey and Democratic New York U.S. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries. They’re sponsoring a bill to have federal researchers comb through broadcast radio and television, cable and public access television, “commercial mobile services and other electronic media” – and get this – the Internet – for any communications that may have prompted violent acts and “hate crimes.”

Given that our ruling elites insist that merely stating that marriage necessarily involves a man and a woman is evidence of “hate,” this is scary stuff.

The bill’s language assures that the eventual report on all this data will include recommendations “consistent with the First Amendment.”

Remember, this crowd thinks the Constitution is a “living document” constructed primarily of judicial silly putty.

The good news is that “The Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014,” introduced in early April, is not going anywhere in the current Congress – we hope.

Even liberal commentator Alan Colmes has raked it over the coals. Noting that Markey and Jeffries tied their companion bills to the deadly shootings on April 13 at a Jewish Center in Kansas, Colmes writes, “no matter how many heinous crimes are committed by deplorable white supremacists, it’s inane to make the case that it’s because [of] something someone said on the radio.”

Besides, there’s more than enough left-wing censorship in the media without the government getting into the act. The Los Angeles Times’ letter editor, for instance, announced last October that he would no longer run letters from people who deny the existence of man-made climate change. As with the 1970s prediction of a coming ice age, the science is apparently settled. Well, okay. At least the Times is out and proud with its suppression of skeptics. Thanks for the warning.

Over on Facebook, the censors are hard at work, removing postings that offend liberal sensibilities. This is not to be confused with Mozilla Firefox’s recent forced resignation of CEO Brendan Eich for donating $1,000 six years ago to a campaign for California’s Proposition 8 marriage amendment.

A few days ago, Facebook removed a posting by Fox News and Commentary radio host Todd Starnes that was slyly critical of former Republican Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

Mr. Bush had said that “many” illegal immigrants came here “because they had no other means to work to be able to provide for their family. Yes, they broke the law, but it’s not a felony. It’s an act of love.”

Using as a platform the news about armed federal agents seizing the cattle of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy (who has since gotten into scalding hot water over his beyond-insensitive racial remarks), Mr. Starnes wrote:

“Rancher Bundy should’ve told the feds that those were Mexican cows—who came across the border illegally to seek better grazing opportunities. It was an act of love.”

Well, they didn’t find this amusing in the Facebook guard tower, where they donned their Ministry of Truth helmets and pushed buttons. Presto, the posting was gone, along with thousands of comments. In a column published on the Christian website CharismaNews.com, Mr. Starnes relates what next transpired:

“‘We removed something your page posted,’ Facebook told me in a rather unpleasant message. ‘We removed the post below because it doesn’t follow the Facebook Community Standards.’”

Mr. Starnes continues: “I reached out to Facebook to find out which part of the message violated their standards. Never heard back. I suspect I should’ve used the term illegal alien cows.

“It’s not the first time my postings have been bleeped by the Facebook Purge Police….I’ve been banished, blocked and censored for writing about Chick-fil-A, God, the Bible, Paula Deen, Cracker Barrel rocking chairs, sweet tea, Jesus, the Gaither Vocal Band, the Gideons, the National Rifle Association and June bugs.”

It’s not possible in one column to chronicle all the ways the political Left is suppressing dissent to turn America into a socialist paradise. They want it to be a place where capitalism is a memory, the U.S. is the military equivalent of Tunisia, everyone is subsistent on the government, three people of any sex can marry, guns are confiscated, Christianity is effectively silenced, Tea Party membership is actionable, and illegal immigrants vote early and often.

It’s up to the rest of us to do what we can to make sure their dream doesn’t become our nightmare.


 

This article was originally posted at the Townhall.com website.


 




U.S. Senator Introduces Big Brother Bill

U.S. Senator Edward J. Markey (D-MA) has introduced legislation for the federal government to monitor and analyze speech on the Internet, television, and radio looking for anything it considers “hate speech.”

The Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014 (S.2219) would capture Internet and other telecommunications that the government interprets as encouraging hate crimes based on gender, race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

This is a bad bill, even to the liberal Boston Herald editorial staffIt mandates that the government monitor and analyze speech and press statements that are protected by the First Amendment. The wording is deliberately fuzzy, so that although it sounds like it only addresses constitutionally unprotected speech, it reaches much further.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to Illinois’ U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Mark Kirk asking them to reject S. 2219.  The federal government has no business monitoring constitutionally protected speech.

The danger of this bill
Although the bill innocuously purports to analyze electronic speech that might “advocate or encourage violent acts or hate crimes,” it gives the government far reaching power to monitor constitutionally protected speech…even yours.

We believe S.2219 is a cloaking device for silencing Christians and advancing the homosexual agenda that Sen. Markey wholeheartedly supports.

For example:

  • Pastors who upload a message promoting God’s word on marriage on the church’s website could be monitored by the government under U.S. Senator Markey’s bill and have the message labeled as “hate speech.”
  • AFA’s Christian radio network and Christian conservative websites will be tracked for promoting natural marriage as between only one man and one woman.
  • Even individuals who post personal beliefs on their Facebook page would be subject to government spies and covert monitoring.