Sam Weaver
January 10, 2007
Speaking truth to power
By Sam Weaver

If a thing is to be revered, then the very essence of that thing must be understood, admired and respected. If any part or essential element of a thing is misconstrued, disregarded, held in contempt or denied, then that thing is not — cannot be — revered. Worse, to claim reverence for something, while at the same time disregarding or even manipulating its very purpose for reasons of personal, political or economic gain, is the height of hypocrisy.

In the New Testament, Jesus Christ famously exposed the hypocrites. By-and-large, those hypocrites were Scribes and Pharisees who claimed "enlightened" reverence for Mosaic/Levitical Law, but who used elements and/or distortions of the Law for their own personal gain. The Scribes and the Pharisees — hypocrites — whom Jesus rebuked either willfully, or through ignorance, failed to understand the purpose of the Law.

Let us take a look, clause-by-clause, at the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

1) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

2) or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

3) or abridging the freedom of speech,

4) or of the press,

5) or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,

6) and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

At first glance, it is obvious to any informed person — especially at this time of the year — that modern liberals have a great deal of trouble with the second clause. Do you feel totally free to exercise your Christian faith? Not in public, you don't! Offend the sensibilities of a non-Christian and the ACLU will come down upon you like a ton of bricks!

Ask any Boy Scout or any member of a Christian or conservative group that has attempted to set up a peaceful assembly on a public school or university campus, and I'm sure they will tell you how modern liberals generally feel about the fifth clause of the First Amendment. Look at the very first word of the First Amendment. "Congress," meaning the United States Congress — and, by extension, the federal government — "shall make no law..." First, consider this in context with the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The Bill of Rights was designed and intended to keep the legislative power and authority of the federal government in check while giving virtually absolute free reign over domestic policy to the states and the people. Second, understand that the pseudo-legislative, "social engineering" powers that the courts have accrued in modern America were never anticipated nor intended by the Founders and Framers.

Modern liberals claim reverence for the Constitution, especially the First Amendment, but they tend to pick and choose certain essential elements that fit their ideological purposes while denying or distorting others. How many modern liberals understand, admire and appreciate the Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendments? How many understand the fundamental purpose of both the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

The very essence of the U.S. Constitution is the protection and defense of individual human liberty. What is individual human liberty? It is the near absolute right of every human being to think, to say and to do anything he pleases as long as he is responsible to the Law(s) of Nature and of Nature's God and is held accountable for any dereliction of that responsibility. [Those modern liberals who do specifically claim reverence for the Ninth Amendment tend to overlook this vital understanding of true American Liberty!]

In twenty-first century America, we have largely abandoned not only the protection and defense of individual liberty, but also the pursuit and even the very concept of individual human liberty. We are replacing, by-and-large, this original American idea with the modern liberal notion of collectivism. Also, click here.

The First Amendment (like all ten of the Bill of Rights) was designed to protect and defend individual liberty. The purpose of the First Amendment was to make Congress utterly powerless to dictate — or even to propagandize — its will arbitrarily upon the American people. A vital component of the First Amendment is a free press. However, with every freedom comes both responsibility and accountability. Absent either responsibility or accountability, liberty deteriorates into license. Without a Uniform Standard of Truth, there can be no liberty.

Along with the freedom of speech, and of the press, comes the responsibility of those who exercise these indispensable freedoms to understand the very purpose of those freedoms. Equally important is the responsibility to comprehend, revere and defend the moral, ethical, fiscal and physical (i.e., cultural) principles, ideas and values upon which the United States of America was founded. Anyone who would claim freedom of the press, or of speech, must be held accountable whenever he shirks these requisite responsibilities.

Chattering heads in the free (read: licentious) press often laud their right and their duty to "speak truth to power." Huge egos are wildly inflated and awards are won whenever some "intrepid" reporter exposes some politician, some powerful leader, or some policy that does not comport with the conventional concept of truth. At least three things must be said here.

First, the "'conventional' concept of truth (i.e., conventional wisdom) is relativism. The only "absolute" inherent in relativism is that it absolutely denies any uniform Standard of Truth. Relativism, by its very definition, rejects the existence of a Supreme Creator and Author of Law. Therefore, it rejects the Source of human rights — the very Source mentioned specifically by America's Founders in the Declaration of Independence. Relativists defy — either willfully or ignorantly — both the Source and the meaning of human liberty and justice which the U.S. Constitution was meant to protect, defend and uphold. Relativism denies or distorts the very purpose of the First Amendment.

Relativists cannot handle the Truth! They would not recognize Truth if she materialized before their very eyes. "Truth," to them, is little more than a means toward power and control; or, at the very least, the accolades of their colleagues.

Second, we are at war! This war began at least as early as 1979, when enemy combatants invaded sovereign American soil (the U.S. embassy in Tehran, Iran) and took 52 American citizens hostage, holding them for 444 days. This war was formally declared by Osama bin-Laden on 23 FEB 1998. We were forced into this war on 11 SEP 2001! Anyone who would deny the fact that the United States of America is now — and has been for some time — at war with radical Islamist fascists is delusional; or a coward — too frightened to face the truth!

Some claim that Congress never "officially" declared this War on Terror; much less the war against the regime in Iraq. "This is Bush's war!" they screech. It is true that Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the sole power to declare war. The president cannot constitutionally declare war. However, the Constitution does not spell out a procedure for an "official" declaration of war. The War Powers Act of 1973 was an attempt by Congress to rectify this. Since then (if not even before then), Congress has "officially" declared war by passing resolutions giving broad — vague? — powers to the president to use military force as he deems necessary.

Such a resolution was passed overwhelmingly by Congress shortly after 11 SEP 2001. If you will recall, a subsequent resolution, specific to actions against Saddam Hussein's regime, was demanded by Democrats in Congress to "show unity" in the wake of strong public opinion in favor of such actions. Constitutionally, those resolutions may and should be understood by the American people as an official declaration of war; not only against al-Qaeda, but also against Saddam's regime in Iraq and any other regime which sponsors terrorism and/or harbors terrorists.

America's Founders and Framers were keenly aware of the power of propaganda as a vital weapon of war. Ever heard of Samuel Adams, the Sons of Liberty; Thomas Paine and Common Sense? Would truly wise men such as our Founders and Framers have overlooked the critical necessity of propaganda during time of war when they witnessed it with their own eyes? Our enemies certainly understand the power of propaganda and are using it — along with a clueless world press — in a brilliant and very effective campaign to demoralize the American people!

Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution makes the president of the United States the Commander in Chief of all the military forces of the U.S. Throughout our history, presidents — acting as commander-in-chief during times of war — have made controversial decisions that, at times, have seemed to defy the principles and ideas of the Constitution. I cannot recall a single historical instance during any of our previous wars in which the courts — in the final analysis — have found any president guilty of violating the Constitution while carrying out his duties as commander-in-chief.

This is so because, traditionally, both the courts and the American people have understood the purpose of the Constitution. The Constitution was written to protect and defend the American people against enemies — both foreign and domestic — who would rob them of their individual liberty. The federal government protects us against foreign enemies. The state and local governments protect us against domestic foes (namely criminals, charlatans and unscrupulous businessmen). During times of war versus powerful, aggressive, crafty and/or ubiquitous enemies, the president must have broad and, perhaps even extraordinary powers to do what is necessary to defeat the enemy. And he must have broad and strong support for his actions.

Is it righteous to speak truth to the power of the commander-in-chief during time of war? Absolutely, if you are unequivocally speaking Truth! But if you are spewing your own relativistic or narcissistic perception of "truth" and it is undermining the commander-in-chief's war effort, if it is threatening the unity and the resolve of the people or if it is in any way giving aid and comfort to the enemy; then you are no hero. You are at best a charlatan and at worst a traitor — plain and simple!

In Lincoln's day, and probably even in FDR's time, both the leakers of the NSA & the SWIFT "stories" and the publishers of those "stories" would have been put on trial for treason and summarily executed for their heinous treachery. This may sound cold, cruel and heartless to you. Back then, Americans — as a people — completely understood the Biblical concept of Judgment vs. Mercy. Back then, America never fought a war that she failed to win. Back then, the American people — as a whole — stood firm on the Judeo-Christian principles, ideas and values that made America great. In those days, the American electorate, generally, held firm to the Uniform Standard of Truth.

Third, and most important, who has all the power in this day and age to control the hearts and minds of the people? By the sagacious design of the Founders and Framers, and through the very purpose of the First Amendment, it is certainly not the federal government! In the modern era of ubiquitous, 24-hour electronic media, it is the "free" (i.e., licentious, relativistic, collectivist) press/electronic media that holds virtually all the power of propaganda in the palm of its hand.

The "'free' press" is not interested in speaking truth to power. They have the power; and they have no concept of Truth! They are only interested in achieving the love, admiration and respect of their fellow travelers of the world. Have you noticed, lately, that the winners of the prestigious Pulitzer Prize are almost always those who make the Bush Administration look bad? Accolades go to those who are willing and able to forward the relativistic/socialist/collectivist agenda — to those who effectively promote and disseminate "conventional wisdom."

The Old Media, along with the "progressive," government-controlled schools and universities in the United States of America hold all of the power of propaganda over the American people. Their concept of truth is based upon the lie of relativism, socialism and collectivism. They cannot understand the very purpose of the First Amendment to which they so "reverently" — hypocritically! — claim near absolute allegiance. The purpose of the First Amendment is to keep a powerful entity from imposing its dogma — via fiat or via propaganda — upon the people of the United States of America.

Who is truly — and courageously — speaking Truth to power in today's America? Praise God for the New Media! The Old Media — the world press — holds the power — and is the source — of propaganda in the modern world. The Old Media is the purveyor of collectivist "conventional wisdom."

If you love America and revere the principles, ideas and values — and, especially, the Source of those principles, ideas and values — upon which she was established, then pray for the growth, the success and the effectiveness of the New Media. Pray not only for the New Media's ability to speak the Truth to the power of the Old Media, but also for its effectiveness in overcoming the lies, the false notions, and the vain imaginings and the outright treachery of those in media and academia who have a virtual monopoly of control on the hearts and minds of the American people.

© Sam Weaver

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

Click to enlarge

Sam Weaver

Sam Weaver is a native Texan. Lively discussions back in 1984--first with his very liberal girlfriend, and then with several college instructors--made him question his beliefs and his belief system... (more)

Subscribe

Receive future articles by Sam Weaver: Click here

Latest articles