Thursday, May 12, 2011
“Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy of (t)his country."
John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, May 17, 1776
Osama bin Laden was an enemy of the USA. Americans are safer with his demise and it is not the first time in our history an enemy to our way of life has been defeated. We have had and still have many such adversaries to our republic but when it is so uncomplicatedly obvious to most of us, such as terrorism, “we the people” easily applaud the results. I know there are some who would use the opportunity to try and point out our founding fathers were terrorist and others who don’t agree with the methods used, but I don’t wish to address such divisive counterpoints to an obvious win for freedoms we hold dear and true as Americans.
It’s the more subversive enemy we struggle to decipher. As a matter of fact, besides the aforementioned Osama type, the term “enemy” might only apply relevant to the very far fringes (left or right) of the political spectrum. Otherwise it might better be explained as a misguided or dissimilar goal oriented brother or sister. Not that they are the enemy but rather their path and aspiration is the antagonist to the founding principals of the American republic. We see it played out in the infancy of our nation as the Federalist verses the anti-Federalist. Then the ambitions seemed similar but the path to it different. Now it is not always the same objective we strive for. And in that respect we might label some as enemies of our republic by virtue of directions that chip away or blast destructively at the foundation our nation was created upon.
Today, I would label the opposing political philosophical viewpoints as progressive liberal (left) and conservative constitutionalist (right). Both have extremists that are enemies of our republic but not always evident because whether intentionally (enemy) or unintentionally (misguided) they work against our founding principals in veiled pretense of the “American Way” but is not the case when examined. Most of these people do not agree, believe or comprehend the full vision our founders used to give direction our republic is meant to be. It is with these religious, I dare say, Judean-Christian principals and philosophies the framers all agreed necessary for the common people to govern themselves. It has always been fundamentally recognized as the government is to assist the people (small and less control) and not government to rule the people.
So when John Witherspoon, John Hancock, the other signers of the Declaration of Independence and founding statesmen refer to Americans enemies, Osama bin Laden and other terrorists are easily identified. Others, such as Cass Sunstein, Suzanna Sherry, George Lincoln Rockwell or Elijah Muhammad we need to study and understand their platforms but could easily argue they too are enemies from both polarized spectrums of the political arena. It is a debate people more in the middle could have and find some common ground, which leads me to question how you might feel about what Acting Solicitor General, defender of ObamaCare, had to say yesterday (May 11th, 2011). He “admitted that he believed Congress could force individuals to buy certain foods, like wheat” in an oral argument on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, signed into law on March 23, 2010. Would he be considered an enemy of our American Republic way of life?
"Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. ... Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us."
John Hancock, 1st Signer of the Declaration of Independence