“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 ….” – Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.
This is directed at all law enforcement officers – city police, State police, Sheriff’s departments, State bureaus of investigation.
The above passage from the Declaration of Independence tells Americans everything they need to know about their freedom and liberty and government’s role in that freedom and liberty. It is a passage that law enforcement has forgotten and needs a refresher course on the definition of words and meaning of this passage. You may think you don’t need any instruction because “you know it already”. Well, if you knew it, then you would not be infringing upon the people and violating the people using excessive violence because someone in government said so. You are not a “brown shirt”. As it has been established, you have your brain in someone else’s head. It’s time to remove it.
Most law enforcement officers take an oath to the State Constitution and the US Constitution. In the US and State Constitutions, there are a set of “rights”, which are not all-inclusive, that government does not possess the authority to violate. The Declaration of Independence is part of our founding documents because it established the authority of the people to proclaim their independence from an oppressive, tyrannical, despotic government – the right of the people to alter or abolish current government in favor of a new government.
Words have meaning and when put together convey a meaning. To understand what the meanings of words meant during the time of the writing of the Declaration of Independence, as well as the US Constitution, Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language 1828 edition is used. Let’s start with “truth”. Truth, as defined, is “conformity to fact or reality; exact accordance with that which is, or has been, or shall be”. The passage is directed at “self-evident” truth. Self-evident, as defined, is “Evident without proof or reasoning; that produces certainty or clear conviction upon a bare presentation to the mind”. So, a “self-evident truth” is an indisputable, obvious accepted fact/truism that is in itself evident without proof or demonstration”. In other words, everyone knows what it is.
The writers of the Declaration of Independence listed the self-evident truths – all men are created equal; they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; men institute government to secure those rights; government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed; and, when the form of government becomes destructive in its duty, the people have the right to alter or abolish it and institute new government.
Granted, that is a lot to process, but it is quite simple. All men are created equal. “Created” is defined as “Formed from nothing; caused to exist; produced; generated; invested with a new character; formed into new combinations, with a peculiar shape, constitution and properties; renewed”. Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines “Equal” (noun) as “one not inferior or superior to another; having the same or similar age, rank, station, office, talents, strength, etc.” As an FYI, speech is the great equalizer of men. The framers defined the “Creator” as the one true living God because only He is known as the “creator”. So, God created men so that men were not inferior or superior to another – they were equal. God, the Creator, endowed (enriched or furnished with any gift, quality or faculty; indued) His creation, man, with “certain unalienable rights.” These “rights” (just claim; immunity; privilege; authority; legal power) are natural, civil, political, religious, personal and public preceding government. Man’s rights are also “unalienable” (cannot be alienated; may not be transferred) or “inalienable” meaning “cannot be legally or justly alienated or transferred to another”.
Does it seem ridiculous to have to define words? It might if those who are supposed to know the definitions actually knew them. Maybe the definitions are known, but those who know them refuse to acknowledge those definitions and apply those definitions appropriately. Either way, tyranny is being enforced by those who dress in uniforms, wear badges, and carry guns – enforcement of “orders” outside of law or unlawful “orders” is tyranny. While Hitler’s Nazi Germany legalized the murder of millions, that “law” was not lawful, nor was it ethical or moral. And, yes, you law enforcement officers enforcing pretend “laws” that are merely executive orders in violation of actual law and unalienable rights are no better than Hitler Nazi’s and the “brown shirts”.
While many women and politicians have embraced a “my body, my choice” to advocate for the murder of babies in the womb, against the law, and advocates for euthanasia or legalized murder by physician tout “dying with dignity” to push an immoral, unethical, unlawful agenda, the federal, State, and local governments are trampling the “rights” and freedoms of the people by restricting movement through unlawful “house arrest” social isolation executive orders, which have no force unless politicians convince law enforcement to use intimidation tactics, threats of punishment and/or the barrel of a gun to get people to comply. Ask yourself this – “under what moral authority does government obtain its power to infringe upon the rights of the people?”
Remember the definition of “rights”. Government is created by men to protect the rights of the people. Just as God created man and endowed man with unalienable rights, man created government extending government limited authority, which does not include trampling of unalienable rights. Government protects the rights of the people by prosecuting murderers, rapists, thieves, etc. because no one possesses the right to take rights away from another. Ask yourself this – would you want someone putting a gun in your face and forcing you to stay home if you were not sick or inflict punishment in the form of fines and jail time if you were not sick? If you said no, then why are you following mere “orders”? If you said yes, God have mercy on your soul because you are no better than a brown shirt full-fledged Nazi. If you are attempting to qualify your answer, you need to sit down and take a long look at your principles and values.
While governmental authority may suggest that individuals who are sick to remain at home or seek medical treatment, government has not the moral authority nor the consent of the people to force healthy, non-ill individuals to remain at home. When you attempt to enforce these “pretend” laws that are merely orders from people who put their pants on one leg at a time as yourself (men are not created to be inferior or superior to one another), you have become the enemy, not the ones who protect the rights of the people through enforcement of just and righteous law. You become the enforcer of tyranny and despotism. No tyrant or despot ever pulled the trigger, dropped a can of Zyklon gas, or exacted atrocities against the people; they got someone else to do it for them – military, police, and/or assigned citizens.
It boggles the mind that someone who is no more important than anyone else can assume he/she can exert forceful authority over others just because of clothing and a piece of metal. It’s even worse when those exerting forceful authority follow individuals just because of their position in government.
How far are you willing to go to enforce “pretend” orders as though those “orders” are law?
That’s a question each law enforcement officer will have to answer for himself. Ask yourself another question, “would you defend your family member if they exercised their right to attend church, go for a walk in the park, or go to work when a despot, with zero authority to do so, forbade it”? If you said yes, then why are you unwilling to do it for those who pay your salary? And, what would you do if your fellow officers exerted “force” against YOUR family member for exercising their rights?
It’s really quite simple – do not do to others what you would not want done to you or your family.
Become an insider!
Sign up to get breaking alerts from Sons of Liberty Media.