The Constitution of the United States is apparently a revered historical document that is nearly held as sacred. At least it would appear that way if all we did was listen to words and ignored actions. Both Republicans and Democrats say they revere the constitution, but does that reverence include defending the constitution? If a person, or party, is not willing to defend what they say they hold in high esteem, then it’s safe to conclude they don’t give it much value.
There are some people that talk a big game, but in the end, do the opposite of what they say. I once attended a church where the pastor insisted I be a deacon. After a few years, I relented because he said he needed someone on the deacon board who wasn’t afraid to do the right thing. The church had an employee that we both agreed needed to be fired, so he asked me to make the motion and then he would back me if the other deacons objected. I made the motion and then he joined the other deacons in attacking me for having the audacity for even entertaining such a thought.
The pastor had said he believed the employee was hurting the church and that as stewards of God’s money, we needed to let the offending employee go. However, when it came time to actually defend the church and use God’s money wisely, the pastor feared upsetting people in the church to the point they might leave. In other words, he cared more for what people thought than what God thought. He cared more about keeping people giving to the church than he did in spending the money of the church wisely.
In my opinion, that pastor was a coward, but not a wolf in sheep’s clothing. What do we do when we encounter a real wolf in sheep’s clothing? That is a person who says all the right things, but has as their goal the destruction of the church? I’m not talking about a Christian who sins, since we all continue to sin because of our sinful nature. I’m talking about the non-believer who comes into the church simply to cause problems because they don’t really believe in God or his church.
God tells us to beware of such people. The Bible tells us we will know such people by their fruits. In other words, what are the results of their actions?
Let’s apply this principle to the constitution as it applies to the political parties. Both parties say the right thing, so let’s look at their fruit or actions.
The constitution is a very conservative document that limits the power of government. Therefore, let’s look to see which party stands for limited government and which calls for government expansion? Honestly, both parties fail too often to keep the power of government limited, but one party actually practices government expansion as a policy. The party which supports government expansion, because they believe the government is the highest power, is the Democrat Party.
Generally, Republicans believe in God and individual rights. Meaning, the highest power known to man is God. The Declaration of Independence says the following, “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,…”
Can a political party that denies God, or at least his power, truly believe that our rights come from God? If they don’t believe in God, or his power, then our rights cannot then come from God. If our rights do not come from God, then where do they come from?
If a party believes the government is the highest power known to man, then rights come from the government, and therefore, the government can take those rights away. If the governed consents to the loss of liberty, then our God-given rights are taken away. However, the Declaration of Independence says our rights come from God. That means neither the government nor the people, can consent to have those rights taken away. The Declaration goes on to say that if the government were to try to take away our rights, then we have the right to overthrow that government.
The rights I am speaking of are defined in both the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights.
Let’s take a look at how some of our rights are currently being attacked and who is attacking those rights. The First Amendment protects political speech. The Democrat Party is currently censoring political speech they disagree with through big tech companies like Facebook and Twitter who have aligned themselves with the Democrats.
There are numerous examples of how they are censoring political speech, but the best example is what they have done to the former President of the United States who they have banned from their sites. If they can justify banning the political speech of the former President, no matter how you feel about him, do they have the power to ban your speech? Have the Democrats cried out he be reinstated, or do they support Big Tech? They are in favor of banning free speech, including anyone who disagrees with their fact-checkers.
Those are the same fact-checkers that banned doctors and others, including political opponents of the left, that said Hydroxychloroquine was an effective treatment for Covid-19. President Trump said it was effective and their hatred of Trump and his policies caused them to take the opposite tact on everything he said. As a result, thousands of people died who could have been saved by the drug the Democrats censored.
Which party defends the second amendment? Without the second amendment, there is no first amendment. The purpose of the second amendment is to ensure the people can protect themselves from government, should it ever reach that point.
For years the Democrats have been attacking the second amendment through gun control legislation and the illogical belief that guns are responsible for the action of their owners. How can Democrats say they support your God-given right to self-defense when in the same breath they are openly attempting to take away your ability to defend yourself?!
Which party supports judges that broadly interpret the constitution and which supports judges that understand that the constitution limits the power of government? It is common knowledge that the Democrats support judges that believe in a broad interpretation of the constitution while Republicans support judges that believe in a strict interpretation of the constitution.
For example, wherein the constitution do you find the phrase, “Separation of Church and State?” Democrats use that phrase, which isn’t in the constitution, to justify limiting the freedom of speech of Christians through the threat of losing their tax-exempt status or implying that religion is not to influence government.
The right to privacy is nowhere to be found in the constitution, but Democrats use that constitutionally non-existent language to justify the murder of millions of unborn babies.
When the Supreme Court declared Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal programs to be unconstitutional, he simply threatened to expand the number of justices on the court by adding enough new judges that believed in expanding the power of government.
Today, the Democrat Party is making that same threat because, in their view, too many of the justices believe government power is limited by the constitution. Therefore, they are threatening to “pack the court” with like-minded judges who have a broad interpretation of the constitution.
Finally, and most telling, Which party would gain if our constitution was scrapped and replaced by another that allowed for the massive increase of government power? This kind of government power is commonly known as socialism. Since the Democrat Party has finally come out of the closet and embraced socialism, then they would gain from the destruction of the constitution. After all, socialism and the constitution are not compatible.
The Democrat goal is globalist in nature because they believe our future hinges on world cooperation and that only government can solve problems on a global scale. Since government solves problems, then the power of government must be expanded in order for the leaders of government to have a sufficient amount of power to force people who oppose globalism to submit to the ultimate authority of government.
If that means the constitution must be scrapped to make way for a new world order where America becomes subservient to a government on a global scale then so be it. Why else do you think the Democrats were so offended by the term, “America First”? In reality, when it comes to the Constitution of the United States, the Democrats are wolves in sheep’s clothing.