By God’s grace, the American experiment has lasted for 232 years now, since the Constitution went into effect on April 30, 1789. Every political leader that is sworn in agrees to uphold the Constitution.

But now in our day of rampant political correctness, of Marxist revisionism, of “egg shell plaintiffs,” of “safe spaces,” of “hate speech” (which is often just the other guy’s opinion), even the Constitution has recently been labeled as “harmful.” It might offend someone.

Case in point. Recently, Ophelie Jacobson of Campus Reform approached students at the University of Florida to ask them what they think about the Constitution. Their responses, as seen in this video, were mostly negative.

Here were some of their comments on the U.S. Constitution:

• “Absolutely terrible. Needs to be redone immediately.”
• “I think it needs a lot more reform for the changes that happened since then.”
• “I think we just need to update it on like—more equality, equity, stuff like that.”
• It’s the product of “all old white men.”
• “It should have been made by a group of diverse people.”
• “The time period, you know, was rich, old white men; and that’s exactly what that document says and stands for and vouches for.”

No wonder so many of them were willing to sign a petition to abolish the Constitution!

Furthermore, even the keepers of the Constitution in Washington, D.C. have contributed to this negative view. On 9/24/21, The Federalist reported: “Over the summer, the National Archives issued ‘harmful content’ warnings on all its collections of online documents, including Founding-era documents like the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence.”

Why would they do this? The Federalist explains that the warnings “allegedly protect against documents that ‘reflect racist, sexist, ableist, misogynistic/misogynoir, and xenophobic opinions and attitudes; be discriminatory towards or exclude diverse views on sexuality, gender, religion, and more.’”

U.S. Representative Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) and U.S. Senator James Lankford (R-Oklahoma) want the National Archives to remove these “harmful negative alerts” from our founding documents.

This is getting ridiculous. If these views prevail, the Marxist attempt in America to “tear it all down” and start over might well succeed. May it never be.

The Constitution has brought unparalleled political freedom and prosperity. Marxism has brought unparalleled misery and death. People don’t clamor to get into the Marxist countries like China or Cuba or Venezuela. But they do risk their lives to get into the United States. That’s not despite the Constitution and what it represents. It’s because of it.

But many forces today, because they love power (and often the perks that come with that power) are willing to undermine the Constitution, so they may gather unto themselves more control. This does not bode well for the future of our republic.

Thomas Sowell warns, “It doesn’t matter what rights you have under the Constitution, if the government can punish you for exercising those rights. And it doesn’t matter what limits the Constitution puts on government officials’ power, if they can exceed those limits without any adverse consequences.”

This point is reminiscent of a warning from the father of our country.

As Dr. Peter Lillback and I noted in our 2006 book, George Washington’s Sacred Fire, “Washington asserted that human depravity could ultimately destroy the Constitution, even with the checks and balances it possessed. In his proposed Address to Congress in April 1789, he described how the Constitution, with all of its wisdom, could ultimately come to naught by the depravity of the people and those who govern them, since the Constitution in the hands of a corrupt people was a mere ‘wall of words’ or a ‘mound of parchment.’”  (p. 220).

One of the geniuses of the Constitution is the way its principles were built by men who acknowledged the sinful nature of man. I believe that because it was based on a correct anthropology—one that recognizes our innate selfishness—that the Constitution has been so durable.

James Madison, a key driving force behind the Constitution, learned well from his teacher, Rev. Dr. John Witherspoon, the devout Presbyterian who was the president of Princeton, who taught Madison what the Bible says about man’s corrupt nature.

Madison said, “All men having power ought to be distrusted.” Therefore, the founders separated power, explicitly, so that we would have liberty rather than tyranny.

I agree with William Gladstone, the distinguished 19th century Prime Minister of England, who declared, “The American Constitution is, so far as I can see, the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.”

Why this constant attempt to tear down those things which are right in our world? The Constitution of the United States is one of them. We have our work cut out for us to convince many fellow Americans of that truth.

This article was originally posted at JerryNewcombe.com.

We all know about the leftist leanings of the so-called masters of the universe, the internet giants. We all know about the discriminatory treatment that many of us on the right are experiencing. The question is: How do we respond? Do we pick up our marbles and leave? Do we build our own platforms? Do we stand up and fight? Or perhaps it’s a combination of all of the above?

Recently, Lawrence Jones, editor-in-chief for Campus Reform, opined that conservatives are being lazy here. In his words, “Go create your own platforms.”

Jones, who is a libertarian, believes that the social media giants are free to run their companies however they want to, and if we don’t like it, we should go elsewhere.

In the end, we may have no choice but to do that very thing, and at this moment, millions of dollars are being invested in the development of new platforms.

As for Campus Reform, it is one of the most important voices today when it comes to exposing the radical leftist agenda on our college and university campuses.

That being said, I take issue with Jones’ assessment for a few reasons.

First, we helped build these very platforms. Conservatives like you and me helped build YouTube and Facebook and Twitter and Google.

Some of us have spent thousands of hours developing videos or posting blogs or making comments, getting our message out with regularity and interacting with millions of others in the process.

Why should we simply walk away without pushing back? Why should we concede defeat when we have hardly begun to stand?

Second, when we came on board, no one told us that these platforms would be biased against us.

Had we known this up front, many of us would not have gotten involved in the first place.

Instead, what we understood was that these were neutral platforms. These were networks where we could connect with our friends. These were accessible places where we could share our videos. These were settings where we could intersect with people from all backgrounds.

It would be akin to a new bank opening in our city, offering the most attractive interest rates and the best customer options. So, we gladly switch our accounts to that bank.

It is only then, once the bank has our money, that we find out they are using the profits to fund radical, anti-Christian causes. And to add insult to injury, in the fine print, there’s a severe penalty for early withdrawal.

Obviously, the analogy is not meant to be exact. (So, please back off, dear critics.) But it is meant to convey a point: Had we known the facts at the outset, we would not have put our money in that bank.

At this point, having made substantial investments of time and energy, building our audiences and our platforms, we’re not ready to simply walk away.

Third, for some of us, the whole goal is reach and impact. In my case, AskDrBrown is a non-profit ministry, so we live and breathe to reach others with our message. We’re here to make the maximum impact on the maximum number of people, and that means not just preaching to the choir.

So, as long as YouTube allows us to post our videos, we will continue to use that platform, since we reach millions of people who otherwise would not know about us.

Day and night, we receive hateful, ugly comments from critics and bashers. Day and night, quite literally 24/7, we receive comments from dissenters and from seekers.

So, since it is one of our goals to shine God’s light in dark places, we’re not prepared to walk away just because we are being unfairly treated.

I’m sure many other conservatives, be it for moral or spiritual or ideological reasons, feel the same way.

Fourth, there is something that everyone can do, and it’s quite simple.

Focusing on YouTube in particular, if you like the content you’re watching and the channel has been demonetized, then support that channel directly.

At present, the moment one of our videos goes live, it gets flagged by YouTube as not suitable for all advertisers, forcing us to request a manual review. In some cases, the videos are approved; in other cases, not. (So, to be clear, the videos are not being blocked or removed. They’re being demonetized.)

As much as possible, we are challenging YouTube to be fair and consistent. That’s all we’re asking for.

Again, the day might come when these doors will close to us entirely. Or new and better platforms might be developed. Or the whole face of the internet might take a dramatic new turn.

But for now, let’s stand up and speak out and push back. The door is not yet slammed in our face.

This article was initially published on AskDrBrown.org