My last post was about the evidence that our founders were not Deists; that they believed in a God who governs in the affairs of man and that they did not intend for this nation’s government to be thought of as ‘secular.’  I p[resented evidence from the words of Jefferson, Franklin and John Adams – and even then, I only used a few of the many quote I could have cited to make my point.  However, as these are lies that I feel must be opposed everywhere they are found – and in the most vigorous fashion – I can’t help but feel driven to add to the weight of evidence that speaks – nay, screams out through history in opposition to those voices who claim our founders did not believe in God and, thus, intentionally built a Godless nation.

“Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to wage war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in the cradle…. It [religion] must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests… In this age there can be no Substitute for Christianity; that, in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must reply for the purity and permanence of free institutions.  That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendents.”

–House and Senate Judiciary Committee reports, 1853-1854

“Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of the Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishments, that I had rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mohamed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles.  But the religion I mean to recommend in this place is that of the New Testament…”

—Dr. Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence and father of American medicine

“The real object of the [First A]mendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, of infidelity [Atheism], by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects [denominations].”

–Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1811-1845, from his “Commentaries of the Constitution of the United States”

“But it is objected that the people of America may perhaps choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into office…  But it is never to be supposed the the people of America will trust their dearest rights to persons who have no religion at all, or a religion materially different from their own.”

–Supreme Court Justice James Iredell, nominated to the court by President Washington

“The purest principles of morality are to be taught [in public schools].  Where are they found?  Whoever searches for them must go to the source from which a Christian man derives his faith – the Bible… [T]here is an obligation to teach what the Bible alone teaches, viz. a pure system of morality.”

–United States Supreme Court majority opinion, Vidal v. Girard’s Executors, 1844

“This is a Christian nation.”

–United States Supreme Court majority opinion, Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892

“We are a Christian people…”

United States Supreme Court, United States v. Macintosh, 1931

“The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects that there shall be a separation of Church and State…  Otherwise the State and religion would be aliens to each other – hostile, suspicious, and unfriendly…

We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being…”

–United States Supreme Court, Zorach v. Clauson, 1952

“[T]his is a religious people.  This is historically true…  These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons: they are organic utterances; they speak the voice of the entire people…  These and many other matters which might be noticed, and a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.”

–United States Supreme Court, 1892

I could go on, but why bother.  Those who have eyes and ears will know the truth by now, and those who continue to rebel will never know it.  The more important question is not whether or not our founders were Christian, but how is it that, as a nation, we even question this fact?  And the answer is found in the Spirit of deception.  That spirit which re-writes history and twists what actually was to fit its purpose is the spirit of Satan, the great deceiver.  After all, revisionism is deception, often deceiving both the person who hears as well as spreads the lie.  But all of this can be rendered harmless by simply speaking the truth.  However, before one can speak the truth, one must first take time to learn it.

And That Is Per The Words Of The Men Who Framed It

This is a subject that comes up more and more frequently these days.  If you pay attention, you will hear the claims such as “Our founders were not Christians.”  Or you will hear something like “The founders deliberately designed a secular government.”  And worse, you will hear people saying that they have a right to freedom from religion and that this means the government must be secular.  It is sad that the majority of those who make such claims also think they are grounded in logic and reason.  It is sad because the truth is that none of these claims are true, and that means nothing about them is grounded in reason.  It is sadder still that this is not my opinion; it is the bold and clear assertion of the men whose character is being maligned and whose history is being re-written to push these lies.  And that leads to the most ironic aspect of this issue.  The people pushing these lies are actually doing the very thing they claim they want protection from: using the government to push their religion onto the whole of the American people.

Let me start by sharing just a couple stories that illustrate the problem:

Ron Reagan’s Candid Radio Ad: ‘Not Afraid of Burning in Hell’

“I’m Ron Reagan, an unabashed atheist, and I’m alarmed by the intrusions of religion into our secular government,” he proclaims in the radio spot, which is airing all month on “The Randi Rhodes’ Show,” a progressive radio program.

Atheists Protest Nativity Scene by Erecting a Big Lighted ‘A’ Symbol — and That’s Not All

The banner reads: “At this season of the Winter Solstice, we celebrate the birth of the Unconquered Sun — the TRUE reason for the season. As Americans, let us also honor the birth of our Bill of Rights, which reminds us there can be no freedom OF religion, without having freedom FROM religion in government.”

 

It is fitting that these people should invoke Jefferson, Adams and Franklin and our Bill of Rights, because there can be no better or more damming witnesses against their claim than these three men and the Bill of Rights.  So let’s start here, with the idea that these men did not believe in God and that they wanted a secular government and freedom from religion.

First, it needs to be pointed out that, if these men are correct, then they have no rights and no liberty save that which the government grants them.  And, if the government gives them, the government can take them away which – by definition – means they are neither rights nor liberty at all.  True rights and liberty are found only in God, and Franklin said so:

“Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature.”

–Benjamin Franklin

So did Jefferson:

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.”

–Thomas Jefferson

And so did Adams:

“You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments: rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the universe.”

–John Adams

With those words, all three men testify that they both believe in God and that our rights and liberty come from Him and cannot exist apart from Him.  What’s more, with these words, all three men testify that they were not Deists.  A Deist believes in a ‘watch maker’ god, and a watch maker god has no interest in the affairs of man.  And a god with no interest in the affairs of man cannot and does not grant rights and liberty.  Rights and liberty can only be secured by a God who is involved in the affairs of man and Who will judge us in the next life according to how we treat each other in this life.

This bring us to the second point that we need to understand: that our founders knew a free and self-governing nation can only exist if its people are moral, and that morality is only found in religion.  Here again, all three of the men these Atheist have chosen to represent their cause testify against them:

“Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty.”

–John Adams

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

–Benjamin Franklin

“Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.” 

–Thomas Jefferson

But what did these three men think about Christianity?  Once more, I let them testify for themselves:

“The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”

–John Adams

“[My views on Christianity] are the result of a life of inquiry & reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other.”

–Thomas Jefferson

“Here is my creed.  I believe in one God, the Creator of the universe.  That he governs it by his Providence.  That he ought to be worshiped.  That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children.  That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion.”

 “As to Jesus of Nazareth … I think the system of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see;…”

–Benjamin Franklin

So there remains but one point left to discredit: that the men who said these things would then turn and design a secular government.  That is more difficult to do, not because they wanted a secular government, but because the proof they did not is found in their actions and not their words.  Jefferson started Sunday worship services in the capital building and attended for years.  Perhaps the best evidence that the Bill of Rights was never intended to prevent religion from being a part of our government is found in the words of those who opposed the ratification of the Constitution until the Bill of Rights was added – and even then they warned that it would not be sufficient to stop people such as modern Atheists from destroying the rights and liberty they sought to protect:

“Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is impossible that a nation of infidels or idolaters should be a nation of freemen. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.”

–Patrick Henry

“The only foundation for… a republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.”

–Dr. Benjamin Rush

It was because of men such as Hamilton and Rush that the Bill of Rights was written, and anyone who reads the notes from that time will know the 1^st Amendment was intended to prohibit the federal government from ever doing what the Atheists are now demanding it do: favor one religion over another.  And yes, Atheism is a religion, and has been recognized as such by the Supreme Court.  So they are guilty of advocating a State-sponsored religion in the name of being ‘free from all religion.’  What they want is the government to trample on the rights of the majority so they can appease their conscience, and the founders had a few words about people who do just this sort of thing.  I start with the closest kin to themselves, Thomas Paine:

“An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”

–Thomas Paine

“What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals.”

–Thomas Jefferson

“No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.”

–Thomas Jefferson

“Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”

–Thomas Jefferson

“A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins.”

–Benjamin Franklin

These Atheists are advocating that the rights of others be trampled so they can enjoy something to which they have no right.  There is no ‘right’ to be free of religion, nor of offense or any such thing.  One has the right not to listen, or to walk away, but not to force another to be quiet.  This applies to religion.  The Atheists are not harmed by people living their faith – even in government.  But those who are of a different faith are harmed when the Atheists use government to silence all but their own religion – as they are trying to do.  They are violating Natural Law — and the Constitution.  They are seeking to empower government to do that which they do not have the right to do themselves.  And they are seeking to destroy the rights — not of a minority — but of the majority in this nation.  And it is all in connection to their religion.  This is exactly what Franklin meant when he said:

“It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins.”

Now I ask you — and be honest with yourself — do you really think Jefferson, Adams and Franklin would have supported what these Atheists are trying to do?

[NOTE: I could have easily written ten times the number of pages with quotes just from these men saying the same thing over and over again.  If I expand out to the whole of the founders, I can fill books with words such as these — because the founders believed in God and did not intend for this nation to be ruled by a secular government.  It is the truth, which is why it is so easy to disprove these lies.]

ADDENDUM — ADDED May 8, 2017

TO THOSE WHO FOCUS ONLY ON JEFFERSON AND FRANKLIN

There have been many readers who have objected to my argument in this post.  Inevitably, they seem to want to focus on Jefferson and Franklin to make what they believe are definitive refutations of my argument.  Sadly, they do nothing of the sort.  Instead, all they do is prove to the rational reader that they are — at best — wholly ignorant of what our founders believed in this matter, and of what they clearly and forcefully spoke to it.  But I fear this is far too kind to the majority of people who use Franklin and Jefferson to refute the facts: that our founders were Christians, and that they did not intend to create a secular government.  No, sadly, it would appear that the majority of those making such arguments are not only irrational, but malevolent to the Truth.

Now, I just used harsh words to reject what has become a rather large part of the population.  Fortunately for me, while my sentiment may be opinion, the facts are not.  The Truth on this issue is a matter of public record, and I — not my objectors — happen to be standing with it.  Allow me to demonstrate.

First, there were more than 260 men who — collectively — are referred to as “the founders.”  Franklin and Jefferson are two of 260+, yet — for some irrational reason – they are treated as the only founders who mattered.  Since when does 0.01% of the whole speak for the whole?  It does not!  No, there is a reason that the people who object to the founders ignore everyone but Franklin and Jefferson.  It is because, in one way or another, nearly every one of the other 258+ founders expressly stated that God had a hand in the making of this nation, and that the government our founders created was meant for and would only work for a religious people.  But let’s set all this aside and look at the two men who are constantly singled out as “proof” this nation’s founders were not religious and wanted a secular government..

Franklin is the easiest to deal with.  He flat-out appealed to God, and not a ‘clock-maker’ God, but a God who pays attention to and works His will into the affairs of man.  What’s more, Franklin made this appeal in the Second Constitutional Convention.  More than that, he made this appeal to save the Convention at a time when it appeared it was doomed to fail.  Christian or not, this is absolute, irrefutable evidence that Franklin was not a ‘deist.’  In fact, it is “religion in government.”  Franklin was making an appeal to the God of the Bible when he said these words, and he did so as an official officer of his State (i.e. member of the Pennsylvania government).  This means Franklin not only stated his beliefs, he demonstrated them by his actions.  Anyone who comes along afterword and tries to change the clear meaning of Franklin’s words and deeds is not only a liar, but utterly contemptible: of the same sort as any slave owner in history.  I say that because, by trying to put words contrary to a man’s expressed beliefs into his mouth, a person seeks to seize ownership of the man’s will.  Therefore, by trying to make Franklin into a deist — when Franklin, himself, confessed that his beliefs did not meet that definition — is to seize ownership of Franklin’s will.  Not only is this fallacious (i.e. irrational), but it is utterly despicable: of the sort of action which civilized society should count right along side Hitler, Stalin and Mao!

This brings us to Jefferson.  Jefferson has been elevated to a position among our founders which he did not enjoy in his lifetime.  True, he penned the first draft of the Declaration, and we owe him a fair measure of gratitude for that.  But he did not pen the final draft: the draft that was approved and signed.  That was a collaborative work, a work that had been somewhat modified by Adams, Franklin, Sherman and Livingston even before it was presented for consideration by the entire body!

Next — and most important to the subject at hand — the whole body added the references to God in the second and last paragraphs!  These were not in Jefferson’s original draft:

We hold these truths to be [sacred and undeniable] selfevident, that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive in rights inherent and inalienables,… [Jefferson]

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. [Entire Delegation]

And for the support of this declaration we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor. [Jefferson]

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. [Entire Delegation]

Understand, these references to the Creator are not “deist.”  They are an acknowledgement of a Creator Who pays attention to and acts in the affairs of man.

The body thought that it was important enough that they rejected Jefferson’s draft and added these words to the document.  This is an affirmative declaration that this nation was — at the very least — founded by religious men who looked to, pointed to and depended upon God to favor and aid them in their actions.  This is not “deism,” and that is by definition!  That means is is a fact and not opinion.  And anyone who argues with fact  is — by definition — irrational!

Now, it could be that the people who want to claim our founders were deists do not know the definition of the term — especially as it was understood in the founders’ time.  Unfortunately for these people, ignorance of the meaning of words does not make their objections true, it just adds to the weight of evidence against their argument!

I’ll end with one final note about Jefferson.  I have never stated that he was a Christian — not in the sense that Christ and the Apostles defined the term.  I merely quoted Jefferson saying that — by his understanding — he was a ‘Christian’ in that he (Jefferson) agreed with and tried to live according to the teachings of Jesus Christ.  Furthermore, anyone who bothers to investigate will find that Jefferson’s religious beliefs seemed to vacillate throughout his lifetime.  However, for the majority of his life, Jefferson accepted the prevailing or ‘main stream’ views of Biblical teachings.  Now, what does this all mean?  Who can be sure?  But one thing we can know for sure is this: Jefferson was no deist.  heck, his quote on the Jefferson monument proves this.  Jefferson said he feared for this nation because he knew God was just and would not sit still forever.  That implies a God who watches and acts in the affairs of man, and that is no deist!  This means that Jefferson was — at best — confused as to what he believed or didn’t believe about God.  But the evidence shows that Jefferson did hold a general belief in the God of the Bible.

Now, for those who see with spiritual eyes, this is actually the most telling event of all.  Look at what happened during the formation of this nation.  Jefferson penned a draft of the Declaration which did not mention God, but his fellow countrymen rejected it and added God to the document in at least 2 prominent places.  Then, when the Constitution was being drafted, God saw to it that this religiously confused man was totally absent.  The best he could do was offer opinions — through Madison — from an ocean away (Remember, Jefferson was in France at the time).  That is just another of the many signs of God’s Providential hand acting in the formation of this nation — just as Madison said it did!

“It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it [the Constitution] a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution.”

–James Madison

If You Are Seeing Gray, It Is A Good Sign That You Are On The Wrong Side Of Right

I found this story through a post on The Rio Norte Line: Obamacare and Liberal Cruelty.  Let me start by pointing out that it is not “Liberal” cruelty; it is Collectivist cruelty.  There is a difference, and it is crucial that we understand it and not perpetuate political animosities that might prevent us from reaching the common ground necessary to defeat evil.  That said, the story reminds me of a scene from the Star Trek movie, The Wrath of Khan:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/11/m-obamacare_and_liberal_cruelty.html

There are two paths that people can take here, and it is the difference in these paths that is at hand.  Spock is correct in that serving the needs of the whole or the many should outweigh the needs of the few and the one.  However, it is in how the necessary sacrifices are made that we find either virtue or evil.  In Spock’s case, he willingly sacrificed his life for the lives of others.  Scripture tells us that we can have no greater love than to give our life for that of another, so there is great virtue in what Spock did.  His was the moral action.  On the other hand, when a third party sacrifices one life for another without giving the person to be sacrificed any say in the matter, it is an equally great evil.  It does not matter if it means the extinction of the entire human race: sacrificing one life against that person’s will is not a ‘sacrifice,’ it is murder and it is always wrong and always immoral.  Matters of morality are always this black and white – it’s living with the consequences that often make it the moral one the more difficult choice.

This is one of the central fallacies of all Collectivist ideals, and it is why they always fail (see this related post).  The Collectivist sees humanity as a single being.  Consequently, he does not see the individual, and when one does not see the individual, it is a small step to treating the individual as a mere thing to be disposed as needed in the pursuit of a ‘greater cause.’  In the case of the Collectivist, that greater cause is always an unreachable dream of the perfect society. But morality is a measure of how individuals treat each other.  It is not found in how individuals treat society because society is not real.  Society is an artificial construct; a product of our imagination invented to help us understand and discuss complex concepts and individual interactions on a large scale.  And this means the Collectivist has convinced himself that it is right to dispose of real people in the pursuit of perfecting something that does not exist.  This is among the most immoral things imaginable, and it is behind nearly every mass murder and genocide in the past 100+ years.  If you look, you will find some form of the collective behind every atrocity of the 20^th Century.  Try it sometime, you’ll see.

Remember what we have explained in the tab on Natural Rights; government does not created, it is created.  This means it is not the master, it is the servant.  What’s more, we cannot give any power to the government that we do not have the right to exercise, ourselves.  If we do not have the right to force another person to give their life for others, then we cannot give that right or power to the government.   Either way – whether by our hand or that of the government – forcing a person to do something that is against their will and will directly harm them, and where they have not harmed anyone first, is a violation of Natural Law and – by definition – immoral.  It is that simple, and this blog page is intended to help people understand why it is that simple.

There was an important story on The Blaze this week.  If you do not look to alternative sources to get your news – like The Blaze – then you probably missed it.  Still, if the State-run media covered this story, I would bet they made fun of it rather than treat it like the major issue it was.  In case you are wondering what I am talking about, this past week, a U.S. court of law declared that we are not free people.  In fact, the court claimed that we live only at the pleasure of the State, and that we have no rights save those the State decides to give us. In other words, a U.S. court of law declared open war on the people of America.

Start by reading this story and – by all means – watching all of the video clips in it.  Take this seriously and do not laugh this man off.  Pay attention to what he says and how the court responds, then we’ll discuss what this means for each of us:

‘I Am the Living Man Protected by Natural Law!’: You Are Probably Going to Want to Watch This Epic Court Testimony

First, understand that the same court that took this man’s liberty draws its authority to do so from Natural Law.  Natural Law is what this whole blog page is about.  If you understand the philosophy that created the court, then you know that it has no authority other than that which any individual has, themselves.  This man has no right to keep you from eating, so the court can have no right to keep him from eating.  This man has no Natural Right to claim all fish and all the water in which they swim as no one actually owns the earth.  We just come to agreement over how to manage it while we are here.  This means the court has no right to claim the fish or the water, nor does it have any authority to manage over it if it means it keeps a person from eating.  That would be the same as laying a claim against that person’s life.

What this court did in this story was declare itself above the law; it declared itself to be greater than those who made it.  The court reversed the role of government as a servant of the people and made itself master of the people who it is now forcing to serve government.  In a word, this is tyranny.  When the government becomes tyrannical, it enters into open warfare with the people, which then means the people have every right to alter or abolish it.  Read the Declaration of Independence again.  This is exactly how this nation was born: by a revolt against a tyrannical government that was in violation of Natural Law.

Now, this man may seem strange to most of us, and many of us will laugh at or dismiss his argument, but those who do either demonstrate that they no longer carry the blood of our founders in their veins.  Natural Law is the essence of liberty.  It is the fountainhead of individual rights.  Without it, there would be no American Revolution; and no American Revolution means there is no freedom for mankind.  So, please, do not dismiss the man in this story.  He is in the right.  He is claiming the right to live off the land, as one born into the State of Nature.  So long as he is not harming anyone else, then the State has no claim over him; no authority to do anything to him or force him to do anything against his will.  What the court did in this story is as un-American as anything that has ever happened on American soil.

Before I leave this story, let me try to explain it in a different way.  If you are not allowed to eat without government permission, are you free?  If you are not allowed to work without government permission, are you free?  What rights do you really have if you need government permission just to do those things?  Do you have a right to own a car if you have to have a license, registration and insurance?  Now, before you object to this example, stop.  Do I – not the government, me – have the authority to force you to get a license, registration and insurance from me?  I hope you said no, because I do not have that authority – and neither does the government.  But we have allowed it to create that power, a power it does not have.  Remember, if you do not have the right, then you cannot give it to the government, nor can the government claim to have it after it is created.  Anything the government tries to do that I cannot do to you, personally, is illegitimate.  I cannot tell you that you must buy a license from me to work, or even that you must get a diploma, pass a test, pay for that license to be ‘registered,’ then pay for another ‘business license.’  If I tried, you would ignore me, and rightly so.  So why do we not only let the government do this, we expect it?  We expect it because we have become comfortable in our slavery, and anyone who is comfortable in their slavery to government does not have the blood of our founders coursing through their veins.

Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!

Give me liberty, or give me death!

The Constitutional duty to give advice and consent before confirming Presidential nominations was meant to be a check against Presidential power.  It was never meant to be a rubber stamp.  This is why, for more than 200 years now, the Senate’s rules allowed a nominee to be filibustered if the Senate could not raise a 60% majority to confirm that nominee.  Not too long ago, when the Republicans threatened to do exactly what the Democrats did today, the same Democrats argued like it would be yet another blow to the structure of our governmental system.  They were right then, but they were wrong today.  What they did today was just that: they struck another Progressive blow to the last vestiges of Constitutional constraints.  If we, the people, do not do something about this now, open tyranny is just around the corner.

Senate Passes ‘Nuclear Option’ Fundamentally Changing Filibuster Power — but There Were Three Democrats Who Voted to Stop It

Thursday’s vote marked a major shift in more than 200 years of Senate precedent that required a 60-vote majority to assure a final vote on most presidential nominees.

“They have proven willing to destroy a defining and historic aspect of the Senate in order to distract from their disastrous health care law and the harm it’s inflicting on the American people right now.”

“When Democrats were in the minority they argued strenuously for the very thing they now say we will have to do without, namely the right to extend a debate on lifetime appointments. In other words, they believe that one set of rules should apply to them and another set to everybody else,”

That last line is the very definition of tyranny.  This is about tearing down our system of government because one Party cannot get its way.  This is not the rule of law.  It is not republicanism.  This is pushing direct democracy, something our founders intentionally and wisely rejected.  They called it the tyranny of the majority.  They rejected it because it always results in trampling on the rights of minorities.  In this case, if nothing else, the Democrats are trampling on the rights and duty of the minority Party.  But then, direct democracy has always been the hallmark of the Statist…because the masses are motivated more by emotion and self-interest than duty and statesmanship, and therefore, are easily fooled into acting against their best interest.

Make no mistake here: the Republicans are not innocent in any of this.  Had they been doing their jobs correctly, the President would have been impeached by now – several times.  But, because the Republicans want the power Obama is amassing for the Executive for themselves some day, they are unwilling to do their duty to check the growth of tyranny in the White House.  Well, this vote today is what that sort of cowardice gets them.  The losers here are you and I and the rule of law.  There can be no doubt anymore: the survival of individual rights and liberty on the face of this planet has never been more imperiled.