The following is an edited transcript of an interview on an <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/morning-wire/exclusive-babylon-bee-sues-california-over-deepfake-laws" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Exclusive edition of Morning Wire</a>. Daily Wire editor-in-chief John Bickley sits down with CEO, president, and general counsel of Alliance Defending Freedom, Kristen Waggoner, and Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon about a new lawsuit over censorship.
Earlier this month, California’s <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/democrats-set-out-to-ban-memes-to-protect-their-power" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gavin Newsom signed</a> first-in-the-nation “deepfake” laws – a move that came just weeks after he said a Kamala Harris online parody video should be “illegal.” While the Democrat governor’s office is celebrating the laws as a “safeguard” against the use of “deceptive” digital content, conservatives say this is a massive violation of free speech.
* * *
JOHN: Joining us now to discuss for the first time the lawsuit they have just filed today against the state of California is Seth Dillon, CEO of the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/babylon-bee">Babylon Bee</a>, and Kristen Waggoner, president of the Alliance Defending Freedom. Seth and Kristen, thank you so much for joining us. Now you’ve partnered to sue over these new laws just recently signed by Governor Newsom. First, Seth, I’d like to ask you, why did you feel compelled to bring this lawsuit?
SETH: Well, I guess a number of things. We started out the Bee as a comedy site that&#8217;s mission was just to tell jokes on the internet. And over the course of the last several years – you know, the Bee’s been around for eight years now, if you can believe that – and for most of that time for the last six years, we&#8217;ve been battling either big state, big tech censorship or state laws that clamp down on speech with either rules against misinformation, rules against hate speech, laws now that we see popping up trying to prevent parody, the use of deep fakes, memes, things of that nature. And so we&#8217;re concerned about freedom of speech first and foremost, but we&#8217;re also concerned about our business, and when you&#8217;re doing satire, when you&#8217;re parodying people, you&#8217;re adopting their voice, you&#8217;re adopting their likeness. Satirical articles are meant to look like real articles and that&#8217;s the hook that pulls you in and then you hit them with a punchline. So, Babylon Bee&#8217;s content requires that we engage in this satire, where we&#8217;re adopting a voice and a viewpoint and using that to mock and ridicule a subject. And this law in particular – well, there are a couple of laws in play here – but one of them affects content creators, specifically satirists and people doing parody by requiring them to put disclaimers to let you know that this is parody that you&#8217;re reading right now – which completely stifles and kills the joke. It disrupts our ability to do what we do the way that we do it, in the voice we do it in. And so that&#8217;s very problematic for us. If we&#8217;re unable to publish satire without putting disclaimers all over it, and we&#8217;re going to face potentially penalties if we don&#8217;t do that, then that&#8217;s a very serious issue too. So we&#8217;re fighting back in every way we can against laws that clamp down on speech. So this is just one more, this is just the latest example of an effort where the state is now basically turning these social platforms into an arm of their censorship apparatus and coming after satirists like us very aggressively. So, we see that as an important thing that needs to be pushed back on.
JOHN: Right – and this brings us to the legal arguments here. Kristen, can you lay out the legal case that you&#8217;re bringing against California?
KRISTEN: I can. These laws that were passed in California target core political speech. These laws were passed by politicians to protect politicians from speech that they don&#8217;t like. I&#8217;ll point to two in particular. The first law is used to punish speakers for posting political commentary online that the government doesn&#8217;t like, decides is materially deceptive content, and it is targeting that content that affects candidates or election officials and what they say might harm their chances of getting elected. It also allows anybody to file a lawsuit if they want to file a lawsuit regarding a post. So in addition to what Seth talked about with regard to these disclaimers that actually defeat the whole point of the joke, they also subject all kinds of people – me and you – to saying, ”Well, should I repost this or not? Because what if it gets me sued?” It&#8217;s deeply disturbing and sets a roadmap for widespread censorship across the nation.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/morning-wire/exclusive-babylon-bee-sues-california-over-deepfake-laws">LISTEN: Catch the full interview with Seth Dillon and Kristen Waggoner on Morning Wire</a></h3>
JOHN: So this isn&#8217;t just for companies. This is for individuals. This applies to individuals posting any content online, even reposting content. Is that correct?
KRISTEN: Yes, that&#8217;s correct.
JOHN: So this really opens the floodgates legally. Have we seen anything similar to this in any other states?
KRISTEN: We&#8217;ve seen censorship writ large in Western democracies now outside of the United States. And I think it&#8217;s important for Americans to understand that the United States is the last country in the Western world, among Western democracies, to protect free speech, to protect core political speech. The last people who should be doing the fact-checking are the political candidates and Gavin Newsom – and that&#8217;s what these laws do. They&#8217;re incompatible with self-government and democracy.
JOHN: How much of a burden is this to the platforms – this is a threat to the platforms as well if the state decides they&#8217;re not properly policing content, correct? 
KRISTEN: It&#8217;s absolutely a threat. It is a roadmap to widespread censorship. There&#8217;s no question about it, and there is no law that has gone this far. If we want to maintain a free society, if we want self-government, if we want democracy, then we can&#8217;t allow Gavin Newsom to tell us what we can post and what we can&#8217;t post.
JOHN: Elon Musk’s platform X is obviously fighting against censorship laws. Are any other platforms pushing back on these new laws? 
KRISTEN: Yes, I believe there will be more platforms that will push back on it. One of the problems with this law is that it&#8217;s so vague. In certain parts, it&#8217;s even hard to know what it says. And if the lawyers are having trouble explaining it, imagine what the average person is going to have to do to be able to repost something and feel like they won&#8217;t get sued for it. So there is one lawsuit that&#8217;s pending right now related to a post, and this is the second lawsuit. And I expect you&#8217;ll see more. I hope you will see more.
JOHN: Now you brought up fact-checking. I know this is something that Seth has talked about a lot, and here at The Daily Wire, obviously, we&#8217;ve dealt with this firsthand. We have a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/federal-judge-slaps-down-biden-administrations-attempt-to-dismiss-daily-wire-censorship-lawsuit" target="_blank" rel="noopener">current lawsuit</a> related to the Biden administration’s collusion with fact-checking groups. Central to this is the idea that the state can actually identify what is true or not true, and that they are the arbiters of that. What is the legal case against that kind of suppression via “fact-checking”?
KRISTEN: The legal case is that the free speech clause of the First Amendment in the United States Constitution — as well as a number of state constitutions — protects our right as Americans to be able to decide what is true, what is false, what is worthy of being said in the public square. We necessarily understand that if you allow the government to decide what speech is worthy of being given voice to, you are not only impairing the right to self-government and to impose a check on government officials, but you&#8217;re also impairing the pursuit of truth and social progress. We know in particular satire and parody have been used since the days of Voltaire and George Washington and Aristotle. Political satire has been used to reveal truth, to shock people into considering things in a new way. It serves a vibrant purpose, particularly in public debate.
JOHN: Now the argument presented by advocates of these censorship laws often focuses on “misinformation” – that “misinformation” is dangerous for the public. We saw a lot of this during the COVID era. But you see this really highlighted in satirical content, in particular. The Babylon Bee has really led the way on this issue, highlighting the fact that this distinction between satire and straight news is not made – often in a very disingenuous way by the people that have the authority to block content on social media platforms. Seth, how have you seen this play out writ large in the last few years?
SETH: Well, it&#8217;s funny you mentioned COVID. That whole scenario seemed like satire to me as I was watching it, and then watching the excuses they were making for the censorship. You remember they were telling you what you were and weren&#8217;t allowed to say based on whatever the prevailing narrative was. Whatever the CDC says you&#8217;re allowed to say or whatever Fauci says you&#8217;re allowed to say, that&#8217;s permitted, but you can&#8217;t challenge that. Then, later on, as the facts changed and people realized some of the things that they were saying were wrong— it was actually the case that many people had been speaking the truth and had been censored. And it just really highlights the fundamental problem with trying to decide up front what the truth is. Kristen mentioned a moment ago the utility of being able to speak freely. Part of that is truth seeking. You have to be able to debate ideas and challenge ideas rather than just arbitrarily deciding at any given moment in time what&#8217;s true. If knowledge changes over time, then it may turn out that you&#8217;re censoring people who are speaking the truth today. And that&#8217;s exactly what we saw with COVID. That is actually a knockdown argument against censorship for what they were doing with COVID and the way that the facts actually played out and disrupted some of those narratives. And so with “misinformation,” we&#8217;ve seen our jokes fact-checked so many times and we&#8217;ve been threatened with de-platforming and demonetization so many times by a number of these different platforms.There are state laws that are trying to clamp down on the spread of misinformation or on hate speech. And so, on the one hand we want to just kind of mock and make fun of that stuff, and on the other, we have to take it very seriously and push back with legal challenges when necessary.
JOHN: ADF is really leading the charge on those challenges. Kristen, what other kinds of cases are related to this that your team has been a part of? 
KRISTEN: Well, we&#8217;ve seen government censorship play out here in the United States. First of all, in cases like Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cake Shop, where laws have been weaponized to force people to say things that they don&#8217;t believe and to face severe punishment in some states, even jail time for declining to speak messages about marriage and other topics. Then, we have moved to instances where pregnancy resource centers, for example, are facing assaults right now to have to refer to abortion — or to essentially express speech that violates their pro-life beliefs. We have a case right now at the US Supreme Court that we&#8217;re asking the Court to hear involving the right of a young boy in school who simply wants to say that there are two genders on his T-shirt when all of his colleagues are wearing things that suggest otherwise. So we are seeing this across the spectrum. We litigate more cases in this area than anyone else. But I also want to highlight the international perspective right now, because we have cases on five continents. We have congressmen in Mexico we&#8217;re defending; someone on death row in Nigeria. We had a trial this week in the UK for someone who engaged in silent prayer. Peru just had a criminal conviction, a case that we won this last week. So this is an all out assault by government officials. The World Economic Forum right now says its greatest threat is “misinformation” and “disinformation.” And when the public hears those words, they should understand what that means is government censorship. Someone who wants control will first take away the right to speak freely, and our First Amendment says that it&#8217;s up to the American people to decide and to think for themselves in the context, particularly of political debates. And we need to make sure that stays the same way and that those laws are upheld, despite what California&#8217;s trying to do here. One last thing on this that we haven&#8217;t even touched on is that this California law actually sets up social media platforms to be snitches on people. A second law actually requires these platforms to accept complaints and then to censor speech, even when they don&#8217;t want to censor speech. So it is Orwellian in nature.
JOHN: So this California law turns Americans against each other, sort of weaponizing them with this “misinformation” clause. Now this case focuses on satire. Is this an original case in some ways? How much has satire played into the legal history of censorship laws?
KRISTEN: We have not seen any law like this in the United States. Now perhaps there&#8217;s some that I&#8217;m unaware of, but we&#8217;ve seen no similar law where it has been targeted in this way through a state law. And frankly, in terms of the Western democracy and the laws that we&#8217;re seeing, they&#8217;re far more draconian. We can look at Brazil right now, where we have a petition before the Inter-American Commission — they&#8217;re just simply taking X down altogether. But this is the way it starts. These are code words that allow government officials and political opponents to sue over speech that they just don&#8217;t like.
SETH: Yes.What she said a minute ago was right on point. It&#8217;s when they use words like trying to crack down on “misinformation” and “hate speech,” these attempts at content moderation, they are euphemisms for censorship. What they&#8217;re trying to do is guard certain narratives, not the truth. And they often end up guarding those narratives at the expense of the truth.
JOHN: Final question, to return to California. What&#8217;s next for this case? And do you think these laws have any chance of standing up in court?
KRISTEN: We will be filing the case that will go up through the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. We will be asking the trial court for a preliminary injunction and then a permanent injunction to stop these laws from going into effect. It&#8217;s difficult to say what will happen in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals up through the federal system in California, but I do believe, I am optimistic that the United States Supreme Court will stand up for free speech. But time will tell. It takes a lot of time, a lot of resources, and courage by groups and people like Seth and the Babylon Bee to stand up, because again, under this law, you and I can get sued for posting a parody or a satire, some type of joke – and that&#8217;s chilling.
JOHN: Well, we certainly will be tracking your lawsuit, as its outcome impacts, well, all of us. Seth and Kristen, thank you so much for joining us. 
SETH: Thank you for having us.
KRISTEN: Thank you.
JOHN: That was Seth Dillon, CEO of the Babylon Bee, and Kristen Waggoner, president of Alliance Defending Freedom – and this has been an Exclusive edition of Morning Wire. 
***
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/morning-wire/exclusive-babylon-bee-sues-california-over-deepfake-laws">LISTEN: Catch the full interview with Seth Dillon and Kristen Waggoner on Morning Wire</a></h4>

MixCollage-30-Sep-2024-08-55-AM-7648

Babylon Bee CEO Lays Out His Lawsuit Against California: Parody Restrictions Are ‘Censorship’

Babylon Bee CEO Lays Out His Lawsuit Against California: Parody Restrictions Are 'Censorship'

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

Babylon Bee

Bill of Rights

California

Censorship

Constitution

Free Speech

Gavin Newsom

interview

Morning Wire

Satire

Last July 4th seemed like the least patriotic birthday America has ever had. In many cities, parades were dismal or non-existent, fireworks were banned, and the American flag was hard to find. 
Once the world’s most powerful symbol of triumph, it has been torn down by Americans who believe it is instead a bigoted reminder of a hateful history. With the immense power that 2024 holds on the future of this national divide, it is imperative to remind each American citizen why the colors of our flag are still worth celebrating.
America has defined freedom for 248 years. She has fought against oppression and regulation, against tyranny and evil. She has defended the liberties of speech and religion, the gifts of open trade and innovation, the rights of life and innocence, and the ability to not only pursue happiness, but to define it for oneself. America has sent her own men to fight for not only the freedom of her citizens, but also for that of strangers.
Freedom is the American identity. It is the pride in this identity which wraps itself in another word: Patriotism. This spirit has endured every challenge of our nation’s lifetime. Patriotism fortifies delicate liberty. “A republic, if you can keep it;” her strength must be ceaselessly reinforced.
But patriotism, it seems, has gone out of style. In its place has emerged a form of tyranny disguised in a quintessentially American shade of blue. A record low number of Americans are proud to be American.
The so-called ‘fight for freedom’ has begun to rot its own definition.
The misuse of these words is changing our national identity. A fight for freedom is not a fight for rights, as the Left has decided to define it. Many aspects of the American life are freedoms, not rights. Education is a freedom, not a right. The ability to choose which doctor to go to is a freedom, not a right. When the government tries to make something a right, it steals whatever freedom it began with. Forcing businesses to hire people based on their skin color takes away the mechanisms which allow them to thrive and grow. No one has a right to be hired. Rather, everyone has the freedom to seek out employment and do whatever is so required to be a desirable employee. The excellence of America lies where these freedoms meet. The freedom to pursue excellence is what it means to be an American.
To risk true freedom in an effort to establish the rights of some is a step proven dangerous by history. French philosopher and judge Montesquieu declared that “the liberty of one citizen is of greater importance to the public than the ease or prosperity of another.”
If we preserve special treatment for some, we take it away from others. Montesquieu reminds us that the only true freedom comes from liberty. No one has a right to success or special privilege, but true freedom provides everyone with the chance to try. Patriotism has always been the glue of America, and it still comes in all three colors. Neither red, nor white, nor blue is more important than the others. Together, they preserve freedom. Divided, they cannot stand. Today, our flag is still flying. That is enough to invoke celebration and pride. Every casket it has ever draped demands as much.
America is the only country in the world to which people choose to move. They risk their lives and leave their families in a bid to buy into the world’s greatest pursuit of liberty. To live as an American is to live with the freedom to become anything. That is a freedom worth celebrating.
For all the talk about privilege in this country — white privilege, male privilege, hetero-privilege — let us not forget that being an American is the greatest privilege of all.
* * *
Elsie Halvorsen is a recent graduate of Harvard College, class of 2024.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Usa Celebration With Hands Holding Sparklers And American Flag At Sunset With Fireworks

The Greatest Privilege Of All

4th of July

Founding Fathers

Freedom

Opinion

Patriotism

Readers Pass

White Privilege

The Louisiana governor signed into law legislation that requires a poster-sized display of the Ten Commandments in all public classrooms. 
And the Left absolutely lost its mind. 
The ACLU, who used to stand for free speech but now stands for radical leftism, immediately announced this was unconstitutional and they were going to stand up against it. 
CNN&#8217;s Elie Honig was asked if the display violated the First Amendment. He replied: 
<blockquote>Yes, flagrantly, in my view. If you wanted a perfect example of what the First Amendment prohibits, I think this is it. The First Amendment says Congress, government, shall make no law respecting establishment of religion, meaning state entities can&#8217;t do things that endorse any particular religion or religiosity in general. 
 
And if you look at those 10, there are some — I know one of the defenses is, well, these are themes that are consistent throughout civilized society and throughout religion. Shall not kill, number six, I&#8217;m cheating, because I&#8217;m looking. But you know, don&#8217;t kill, don&#8217;t rob, don&#8217;t steal, that kind of thing. But there are some Commandments that are inherently religious. Observe the Sabbath day. I&#8217;m the only God that you may worship. So, it&#8217;s an inherently religious document.</blockquote>
Here is the problem with this particular argument: The United States is not a fundamentally secular country. 
The First Amendment was designed to guarantee the practice of religion against the federal government. The idea that there is a separation wall between church and state in the sense that religion was never supposed to impact people&#8217;s values in how they vote, or religion could never be promoted in the public square, or religion could never be promoted against irreligion generally by the government is also untrue. There is no historical basis for this. 
The First Amendment specifically says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This was never originally supposed to be implemented in the states. It took all the way until the 1940s for the Supreme Court to declare that this was now going to be applied at the state level.
In fact, nine of the 13 colonies had established churches at the time of the Revolutionary War. Connecticut maintained its Congregationalist church, a state-sponsored church, until 1818. New Hampshire had one until 1819. Massachusetts had one until 1833.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1988-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h4>
Well past the establishment of the First Amendment, there were states in the United States that established religions. Why? Because the goal here was to stop the federal government from establishing its own generalized religion that would prohibit people at the state level from having their own religions.
The idea that secularism was supposed to predominate in the United States is obviously untrue; none of the Founders believed that. Even the Founders who leaned toward atheism tended to believe religion had an extraordinarily positive effect on the body politic. The promotion of religion generally was considered a good thing by the Founding Fathers.
As President, John Adams wrote <a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-3102" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a letter</a> to the Massachusetts militia, saying: 
<blockquote>We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Gallantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government for any other.</blockquote>
George Washington <a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/george-washington-first-inaugural-address-1789" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> in his first inaugural address: 
<blockquote>The foundations of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality … there is no truth more thoroughly established, than that there exists in the economy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness. </blockquote>
Thomas Jefferson, the guy everyone talks about in terms of coining the phrase “separation between church and state,” <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/jefferson/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">recognized</a> “the moral branch of religion” as “how to live well and worthily in society.”
But for the last several decades, the courts have done something that is completely unprecedented and stupid: They have read the establishment clause and the free exercise clause as being opposed to one another.
The Constitution says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
There are two ways to read that, and the Supreme Court has read this in the dumbest possible way. One way is that Congress shall not prohibit you from freely exercising a religion. The second way is that Congress shall not establish any religion. And the Court has read them completely separately.
What that&#8217;s done is put them in conflict with one another because it turns out that if you express your religion freely in the public square, then the Supreme Court might say you&#8217;re violating the establishment clause.
But that&#8217;s never how these provisions were meant to be read. They were meant to be read in tandem. The basic idea was that you couldn&#8217;t establish any religion as the official religion of the United States, because in doing so, you would quash the free exercise of people of other religions via compulsion.
That is what the Constitution was designed to prohibit: compulsion in religion.
But there&#8217;s nothing compulsory about a sign on a classroom wall. If there were something compulsory about a sign on a classroom wall, there&#8217;d be all sorts of serious free speech issues in a classroom because it turns out classroom walls are filled with all sorts of stuff.
The argument is made that if I walk into a public school and there is a sign that quotes the Bible in a nondenominational way, it still violates my free speech. And the Ten Commandments are nondenominational because Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all agree that the Ten Commandments were given to Moses, and they agree on the content of the Ten Commandments. 
In 1971, the Supreme Court took up the case Lemon v. Kurtzman. And they came up with an incredibly stupid test to determine whether some sort of government action violated the separation of church and state. They said that any law had to fulfill three conditions. One, it had to have a secular purpose. Two, it had to have a predominantly secular effect. And three, it had to not foster excessive entanglement between government and religion.
When you read that, it is, on its face, nonsensical. It basically doesn&#8217;t set any standard at all because you can make an argument for virtually any religious display that it both violates the Lemon test and also does not violate the Lemon test.
In 1980, when the Supreme Court ruled in Stone v. Graham, there was a law that required classrooms to display the Ten Commandments, and the Supreme Court found that it was unconstitutional because it had no secular legislative purpose. They said the Ten Commandments convey a religious undertone because they include the religious duties of believers worshiping the Lord God alone, avoiding idolatry, not using the Lord&#8217;s name in vain, and observing the Sabbath day. 
But that was based on a fundamental misreading that is enshrined in Lemon, that the government of the United States has to take no position between religion and irreligion, that the government of the United States has no interest in promoting public morality via generalized religion, that the government has to be absolutely agnostic about whether it is promoting the Ten Commandments or whether it is promoting paganism. 
In 2005, there was a similar case about a public display of the Ten Commandments. Justice Antonin Scalia dissented in this case. He <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1693.ZD.html">wrote</a>, “What distinguishes the rule of law from the dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority is the absolutely indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be grounded in consistently applied principle.”
He was ripping the Lemon test. He was saying there&#8217;s no consistently applied principle. He continued:
<blockquote>That is what prevents judges from ruling now this way, now that–thumbs up or thumbs down–as their personal preferences dictate. … the Court acknowledges that the “Establishment Clause doctrine” it purports to be applying “lacks the comfort of categorical absolutes.” What the Court means by this lovely euphemism is that sometimes the Court chooses to decide cases on the principle that government cannot favor religion, and sometimes it does not. …
Besides appealing to the demonstrably false principle that the government cannot favor religion over irreligion, today’s opinion suggests that the posting of the Ten Commandments violates the principle that the government cannot favor one religion over another. That is indeed a valid principle where public aid or assistance to religion is concerned, or where the free exercise of religion is at issue … but it necessarily applies in a more limited sense to public acknowledgment of the Creator. 
If religion in the public forum had to be entirely nondenominational, there could be no religion in the public forum at all. One cannot say the word “God,” or “the Almighty,” one cannot offer public supplication or thanksgiving, without contradicting the beliefs of some people that there are many gods, or that God or the gods pay no attention to human affairs. With respect to public acknowledgment of religious belief, it is entirely clear from our Nation’s historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists.</blockquote>
In other words, every time Joe Biden finishes his speech and says, “God bless our troops,” why isn&#8217;t that an establishment of religion in the same way it would theoretically be an establishment religion to put the Ten Commandments in a public school classroom? 
The answer is because it&#8217;s not establishing religion. Biden isn&#8217;t forcing you to do anything, and neither is the sign on the public school classroom. It is encouraging you to abide by the central fundamental moral premises of the West.
The attempt to remove the Ten Commandments says more about the society than the attempt to replace them. All of Western civilization is based on a merger of Judeo-Christian ethics found in the Old and the New Testaments and Greek reason.
Here’s why the Ten Commandments are important: They take certain fundamental principles and put them beyond the scope of debate, which is good. You don&#8217;t want to live in a society where “thou shalt not kill” is a debatable proposition. How about “honor thy parents”? We&#8217;re now a society that does not honor our parents and scorns our parents as racists and bigots and white supremacist and vestiges of the past.
How about “do not bear false witness”? We live in a society in which you are allowed to bear false witness so long as the political motivations of the person against whom you are bearing the false witness are suspect.
A society that abides by the Ten Commandments is going to be better than a society that does not.
The centralizing philosophy of the United States used to be grounded in Judeo-Christian virtue. That is why it is good to put the Ten Commandments back up on the wall. Not everyone will abide by them, but they will remind people that a functional society has to have a functional philosophy.
And the most functional philosophy over the last several thousand years has sprung from those Ten Commandments.

Ten Commandments Standing In The Desert

Bring Back The Ten Commandments

Ben Shapiro

First Amendment

Judeo-Christian Values

Louisiana

Secularism

Supreme Court

Almost <a href="https://www.senate.gov/legislative/MeasuresProposedToAmendTheConstitution.htm">12,000</a> amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been proposed since it first came into force in 1789, but only 27 have been ratified. John Yoo, Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley, helps break them down in a new PragerU video.
Yoo described the first 10 as &#8220;the most famous amendments,&#8221; known as the Bill of Rights, ratified by the 1st Congress in 1791. These amendments restrain the federal government&#8217;s power and, among other things, guarantee freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, freedom from unwarranted search and seizures, and the right to a speedy and public trial.
<h3>WATCH:</h3>
<iframe loading="lazy" title="The Constitution: Taxes, Voting Rights, and Prohibition | 5-Minute Videos" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MLLsEgn9vKQ?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Another batch of major constitutional reforms would come after the Civil War: the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments would be passed by a Republican-controlled Congress between 1865 and 1870 and are collectively known as the Reconstruction Amendments. The 13th Amendment formally abolished slavery, while the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to former slaves and all other people born on American soil and extended equal protection under the law to all people. The 15th Amendment gave former slaves the right to vote and made it unconstitutional to deny citizens the franchise “on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.”
Beyond these generally accepted historical groupings, Yoo further subcategorized the others under three broad umbrellas: &#8220;Those that expanded the franchise, those that extended the federal government&#8217;s power, and those that fixed issues relating to the office of the presidency.&#8221;
Yoo groups the 17th, 19th, 23rd, 24th, and 26th Amendments together as expansions of the franchise. The 16th and 18th Amendments gave the federal government expansive new powers, and the 20th, 22nd, and 25th Amendments made various revisions to the election and removal of the president.
Apart from a handful of areas that have been subject to repeated revisions, much of the American Constitution remains in its original form.
“The Constitution has proven to be remarkably durable,” Yoo concluded. “Just as the framers intended.”

Screen Shot 2023-03-13 at 3.02.31 PM

WATCH: PragerU Talks Constitutional Amendments

PragerU Talks Constitutional Amendments

DailyWire+

Education

Politics

Prager University

At the Constitutional Convention, the specter of monarchy cast a long shadow over the discussion of the presidency.
The failures of the Articles of Confederation notwithstanding, everyone still remembered King George, and a unified executive power left a foul taste in many mouths. Reasonable voices could point out that while a body of disparate interests might fight amongst itself, a unified power is in an ideal position to grasp even more power — a president can act quickly and decisively during a crisis, and then refuse to relinquish those powers once the emergency had passed.
However, a strong executive could also do things, which deliberative bodies tend to struggle with. Some situations, like an invasion or rebellion, required quick and decisive action.
Cognizant of history, a <a href="https://csac.history.wisc.edu/document-collections/constitutional-debates/executive-branch/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">handful of delegates</a> tried to square this circle by following the example of the Roman Republic — like America, Rome had thrown off tyrannical kings and loathed monarchy ever since, but unlike America, Rome had extremely powerful magistrates — the consuls — who held the power of life and death over their citizens and were immune from legal prosecution while in office. However — there were TWO consuls, and each had unlimited veto power over the activities of the other.
This has some advantages: the executive can act quickly and decisively when necessary, but if one consul gets power hungry the other consul could check him.
However, the plural executive solution comes with its own suite of problems. What happens when the two consuls disagree? Well, mutually assured vetoes mean nothing happens, in which case we&#8217;re right back where we started.
Worse, when a consular army was deployed in the field, with command alternating between the two, the results proved disastrous.
Take the <a href="https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Cannae" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Battle of Cannae</a> in 216 BC when the Carthaginian Hannibal played the two consuls against one another. One consul was reticent, suspicious that Hannibal was leading them into a trap, while the other was aggressive, eager for battle and glory.
Hannibal wisely made the simple move of holding a strong position while the cautious consul was in charge and then baiting the other Consul into a trap while the commander who was wise to his shenanigans couldn’t do anything about it — killing one-fifth of Rome’s fighting aged men in the process.
Anachronistically observing that a house divided against itself cannot stand, the framers tabled the “plural executive” almost immediately.
Of course, the Romans had a different office they could fall back on in extreme emergencies, where the Senate could appoint one man whose word was law — a <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/Roman-dictator" target="_blank" rel="noopener">dictator</a> — but if you’ve ever heard the name Julius Caesar you know exactly where that story goes.
Terrified that their Frankenstein creation might turn into a dictator despite their best efforts, the Convention quibbled over the specifics — should the president be selected by the states, or Congress, or popular election? Should he be elected for life contingent on good behavior, or should he only be eligible to serve one limited term?
Ultimately, the convention took a cue from the Enlightenment philosopher Montesquieu and decided that the executive and legislative branches should be <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/separation_of_powers_0" target="_blank" rel="noopener">separated</a>, and, alongside the judiciary, their powers could be turned against one another to check ambition with ambition.
Congress would have no role in selecting the president but would have the power to confirm or deny the appointment of his most important underlings, and his desired judges. Impeachment was left on the table as an “in case of tyranny, break glass” safeguard, with a further safeguard of a two-thirds threshold for conviction in the Senate so the House couldn’t get <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-democrat-controlled-house-votes-to-impeach-trump" target="_blank" rel="noopener">impeachment-happy for political purposes</a>.
The president could veto legislation, but Congress could override that veto. The president commanded the military, but only Congress could declare war. And the smorgasbord electoral college gave the people and states the power to reward or replace the chief executive quite regularly.
All this wasn’t enough to satisfy the detractors, and according to the anti-federalists the power of the presidency was one of the major deficits of the Constitution, but supporters would point out that George Washington would inevitably be the first proper president and that his administration would set the standard for all his successors. Washington had already walked away from absolute power after relinquishing his command at the end of the Revolutionary War, and is perhaps unique in American history for the unique admiration and trust Americans of all political backgrounds had for him — if anyone could paper over ambiguities or deficiencies in the office, it would be him.
Washington would set the tone for the presidency in many ways. He supported the adoption of a Bill of Rights which would further limit the federal government’s powers. In an age of regal titles, instead of “his highness” or “his majesty,” he settled on the simple honorific of “Mr. President.” He treated his veto power not as a stamp of approval but as a tool of constitutional review — he would veto only two bills on the grounds that he thought they were unconstitutional.
Crucially, after being unanimously elected and widely popular, he stepped away from power after two terms, setting a precedent that would be voluntarily observed by his successors, a precedent that the office was greater than any one man — until the Roosevelts came along and ruined that.
Unfortunately, America would peak early and hard. John Adams, our second president, would overreach his authority by pushing through the Alien and Sedition Acts, which led to the jailing of some critics of his administration — although he did admirably set the precedent for a peaceful transition of power. Jefferson, who famously said that “government is best that governs least” admittedly “stretched” his own powers to secure the Louisiana Purchase.
The power of each subsequent president would ebb and flow, but the trend line was clear almost immediately: Over time the president would wield ever greater influence.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/a-brief-history-of-the-american-presidency-part-1-humble-beginnings" target="_blank" rel="noopener">RELATED: A Brief History Of The American Presidency, Part 1: Humble Beginnings</a>

George Washington

A Brief History Of The American Presidency, Part 2: ‘In Case Of Tyranny, Break Glass’

Congress

Presidency

U.S.

Earlier this month, a Democratic lawmaker in California introduced a “Bill of Rights” for dogs and cats.
The <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB1881">proposal</a> states that it “would enact the Dog and Cat Bill of Rights, and would require every public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, humane society shelter, or rescue group to post a copy of the Dog and Cat Bill of Rights.”
&#8220;The bill would impose a civil penalty for failure to post the Dog and Cat Bill of Rights, as specified. The bill would make legislative findings and declarations in support of the Dog and Cat Bill of Rights. By imposing new duties on local public officials, the bill would create a state-mandated local program,” it added.
The act continued, “Dogs and cats have the right to be respected as sentient beings that experience complex feelings that are common among living animals while being unique to each individual animal.”
The Bill of Rights in the legislation declared:
<blockquote>
(a) Dogs and cats have the right to be free from exploitation, cruelty, neglect, and abuse.
(b) Dogs and cats have the right to a life of comfort, free of fear and anxiety.
(c) Dogs and cats have the right to daily mental stimulation and appropriate exercise.
(d) Dogs and cats have the right to nutritious food, sanitary water, and shelter in an appropriate and safe environment.
(e) Dogs and cats have the right to preventive and therapeutic health care.
(f) Dogs and cats have the right to be properly identified through tags, microchips, or other humane means.
(g) Dogs and cats have the right to be spayed and neutered to prevent unwanted litters.
</blockquote>
The legislation acknowledges that California law already “makes it a crime for the owner or keeper of any animal to permit an animal to be in any enclosure without proper care and attention, or to abuse or neglect an animal, as specified.”
As The Hill <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/594764-california-lawmaker-introduces-bill-of-rights-for-cats-dogs">reported</a>, Assembly Member Miguel Santiago (D-Los Angeles) announced the bill’s introduction on February 11.
“As an owner of two dogs myself, I am proud to author the Dog and Cat Bill of Rights to help our furry friends live happier, healthier lives,” Santiago reportedly said in a statement. “Our dogs and cats deserve to be loved, and cared for, and the Dog and Cat Bill of Rights will help inform potential adopters of the care needed to create a healthy environment for their adopted pets.”
The bill is sponsored by Social Compassion in Legislation, an animal advocacy organization. The group&#8217;s founder and president, Judie Mancuso, said they were grateful toward Santiago for &#8220;recognizing the need to uplift the conversation around the rights our dogs and cats deserve.”
“Those rights go beyond just food, water, and shelter. As stated in the bill, dogs and cats have the right to be respected as sentient beings that experience complex feelings that are common among living animals while being unique to each individual,&#8221; Mancuso said in a statement, per The Hill. “We’re thrilled to be codifying this into law.”

Yellow Labrador retriever and Maine coon cat cuddling together on a blue couch.

California Legislator Introduces ‘Bill Of Rights’ For Dogs And Cats

Dogs

Tomorrow morning, conservatives will be waking up to the first full day of Joe Biden’s presidency. After four long years of turbulent and partisan ideological warfare, we find ourselves on the losing side.
It doesn’t feel good. After all, nobody enjoys losing, and certainly not when the stakes are so immeasurably high. Not only did we lose, we lost to Joe Biden — a geriatric career politician whose one defining success is a crime bill he abandoned in order to pander to the radical left — and Kamala Harris — a disingenuous power-hungry liar who is demonstrative of everything wrong with our identity politics obsessed culture.
In addition to the sour taste of defeat left in our mouths, we must also grapple with the fact that many of President Trump&#8217;s accomplishments will soon be eradicated by the incoming wave of Democrats. Under Trump’s foreign policy, for example, we came agonizingly close to peace in the Middle East. Prior to COVID-19, the American economy was a barnstorming powerhouse. With Trump at the helm, the veil of objectivity has been irreversibly ripped from the grinning faces of the legacy media. With Biden ushering in hoards of Obama officials, each scrambling for roles in his administration, how long will such unprecedented changes last?
It is natural that — out of understandable frustration — conservatives will be looking for an explanation as to why Trump is not beginning his second term. Some will blame the legacy media. Some will blame election fraud. Some will blame the Democrats. Some will blame the American electorate. To some degree, each of these are valid. Some, of course, will blame Trump. Again, to some degree, such criticism is valid.
Regardless of why Trump lost, rather than spending four years complaining, conservatives must focus on the bigger picture. 
To quote Hank Williams Jr., “America can survive, America is going to survive.” In this case, these are wise words. After all, America has faced far greater challenges before.
With that in mind, despite the worries of what may come, I remain hopeful, determined, and grounded in our mission.
I remain hopeful because I know that the fundamental foundation of the United States of America cannot be broken or erased. The incomparable words of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights are a recognition of a reality which cannot be changed by a gaggle of whining progressives: a reality given to us by God, not government,
I remain determined because I know that these fundamental principles are objectively superior ideals, promoting a form of freedom unimaginable across all of human history and — in its purest and true form — blind to irrelevant and shallow characteristics like race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Finally, I remain grounded because I know that such principles — while given to us by God — are far from guaranteed in our flawed human environment. They are principles which must be protected, vocally defended on a daily basis in the arena of ideas. There are those who seek to replace the ideology which provided the foundation for the greatest civilization in the history of humanity in favor of an implausible utopia which will result in nothing other than misery. For that reason alone, it is imperative that we use our voices to speak the truth in defense of American principles, which are now entirely conservative principles.
America will survive, but only if we work to protect it. Today, we can mourn our loss. Tomorrow, the work begins.
Ian Haworth is an Editor and Writer for The Daily Wire. Follow him on Twitter at <a href="https://twitter.com/ighaworth">@ighaworth</a>.
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Trump flag

America Will Survive

Conservatism

Declaration of Independence

Donald Trump

Joe Biden

Today, The Bill of Rights may be more relevant than ever before. Yet, this past Tuesday, Bill of Rights Day came and went largely unnoticed. Perhaps this disregard is emblematic of our society’s attitude towards constitutional protections in 2020?
On December 15 1791, Congress ratified the <a href="https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript">Bill of Rights</a>. Composed primarily by James Madison, the first ten amendments to the Constitution effectively define and guarantee the rights of citizens in relationship to the government.
After a year of multiple violations of our rights, and as the nation braces for a second round of draconian lockdowns, Madison’s words feel intensely prophetic.
<blockquote>“It will not be denied that power is of an encroaching nature and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.”</blockquote>
Violations of the Bill of Rights in 2020
Emergency does not create power — the Supreme Court <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/290/398/">said</a> it themselves in 1934. And, yet, under the guise of a national health crisis, governmental authority has bloated to unprecedented levels. As we close in on a year since the start of the pandemic, our leaders show little interest in relinquishing their newfound power. Consequentially, the American people are seeing more and more of the protections afforded to them by the Bill of Rights eclipsed by authoritarian policy. 
From attendance <a href="https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/CDPH-Guidance-for-the-Prevention-of-COVID-19-Transmission-for-Gatherings-10-09.aspx">restrictions</a> placed on Thanksgiving gatherings to the <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/public-global-health/487006-newark-nj-warns-of-criminal-prosecution-for-false">threat</a> of criminal prosecution in Newark, New Jersey for disseminating false information about COVID-19 on social media, perhaps the most obvious encroachments have been upon the First Amendment. In 2020, protections of speech, assembly, protest, religion, and press have been under assault from every direction.
A blatant double standard has been revealed in exercising the right to protest during a national health crisis. While anti-lockdown demonstrations were widely castigated by <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/03/lockdown-protesters-dont-care-about-lives/">media</a> and politicians alike as grandma-killing crusades, the right to protest has been generously exercised for the advancement of left wing causes. By contrast, such protests appear ideologically immune to the coronavirus, and, according to an <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05/health/health-care-open-letter-protests-coronavirus-trnd/index.html">open letter</a> from over 1,000 medical professionals, even “vital to the national public health.”
Another obvious infringement upon the First Amendment relates to the right to practice one’s religion. Restrictions on church attendance have cropped up around the nation, with one particularly absurd example being Governor Cuomo’s policy in New York which required service attendance to be arbitrarily capped at 25, regardless of the size of the house of worship.
Though similar cases have been struck down, a recent Supreme Court ruling may provide a glimmer of hope for religious freedom. Just last month, the Court voted 5 to 4 to overrule Cuomo’s mandate. Justice Gorsuch <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/26/us/supreme-court-coronavirus-religion-new-york.html">noted</a>, “There is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues and mosques.”
The Second Amendment is additionally under mounting threat in 2020. Firearms are in higher demand than ever before — sales are up 60% from last year, especially among first-time gun owners. But with lockdown policies <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/03/politics/nra-new-york-gun-store-non-essential/index.html">shuttering</a> firearms shops as “non-essential” businesses, more and more Americans are being rendered defenseless amidst rioting, looting, and civil unrest.
With inauguration approaching, concerns about the future of gun ownership are understandably heightened. From buybacks to smart-guns, Biden pledges to place unprecedented restrictions upon the Second Amendment which, according to his <a href="https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/">website</a>, “is limited.” Partisan legal cases like that of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/mccloskeys-respond-to-being-indicted-after-defending-home-this-is-an-attempt-to-intimidate-people">Mark and Patricia McCloskey</a> only further inhibits our constitutional right to bear arms.
The Fourth Amendment, protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures, is also among our liberties breached this year. When the state of Washington <a href="https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/king-county-buy-kent-motel-house-covid-19-patients/RKPEH5B42JDQBNTNIMWD7SM3HE/">purchased</a> a motel to quarantine coronavirus patients in March, it ushered in a wave of property seizure. From New York City to Los Angeles, local governments have commandeered privately owned hotels for temporary housing. While some such transactions are voluntary, others are enforced by executive order.
This very mechanism of seizure is in and of itself a constitutional violation. The state of New Jersey, for example, utilized an <a href="https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/real-estate-condemnation-trust/articles/2020/covid-19-constitutional-impact-property-rights-personal-liberties/">executive order</a> to decree upon the local government the right to “commandeer” private property to forcibly shut down “non-essential” business. Business owners who resist face unimaginable consequences — <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/12/14/nj-gym-that-defied-covid-19-lockdown-fined-more-than-1-2m/">Atilis Gym</a> in Bellmawr, New Jersey, has racked up almost $1.2 million in fines for remaining open.
Constitutional violations have also metastasized into cyberspace. COVID-19 apps and <a href="https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/publications/committee_newsletters/cyberspace/2020/202006/contact-tracing/">contact-tracing technologies</a> are accruing massive amounts of personal data, violating reasonable expectations of privacy afforded by the Fourth Amendment. According to <a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/blog/covid-19-and-the-constitution-key-takeaways">Lata Nott</a> of the Freedom Forum Institute, “You’re able to track very easily who people meet with, what political events they attend, what protests they attend.… a concern is that once you have that established, that it will be used beyond the scope of this crisis or this emergency” — a sobering reminder that once power is accrued, quite rarely is it willingly relinquished.
How can we protect our rights if we don’t know them?
When encroachment upon civil liberty is this brazen, it can be hard to imagine why outrage is not more widespread. Though any informed patriot is familiar with the Bill of Rights, such individuals are few and far between. A recent <a href="https://woodrow.org/news/national-survey-finds-just-1-in-3-americans-would-pass-citizenship-test/">study</a> revealed that an abysmal 64% of Americans would fail a citizenship test — 37% also believe Benjamin Franklin invented the lightbulb. If the typical American fails so basic a test, they would likely struggle to name the liberties afforded to them in the Bill of Rights.
From this data emerges an even more concerning pattern: the problem is only getting worse. While 74% of those 65 and older passed the test, only 19% under 45 could do the same. This generational divide is symptomatic of an increasing disregard for American History. With only <a href="https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/hgc_2014/">18%</a> of students proficient in our nation’s history, a grim picture is painted for our future. This begs a fundamental question: how can we protect our rights if we don’t even know them?
If 2020 has taught us anything, it has proven that we cannot trust power-hungry politicians to protect and preserve our rights. The proper exercise of liberties is contingent upon a fundamental understanding of them. We are watching in real time the failure of the education system to inform Americans of their rights and empower them to defend their liberties when required. Is it any surprise we are not rising to the occasion?
Bill of Rights Day celebrates the most radical pronouncement of civil liberties in world history. Tragically, however, being grateful for our country, our rights, and their protections has fallen out of fashion. As 2021 approaches, hopefully such barefaced assaults on our constitutional freedoms will inspire more Americans to recognize the value of their liberties through their absence.
As we commemorate the Bill of Rights, let us remember James Madison’s firm warning: “Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace.” We must stand up — and stand up soon — for our civil liberties, lest his forecast comes to fruition.
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Andrew Cuomo

As Authoritarians Aim To Erase The Bill Of Rights, We Must Stand Up And Protect Our Civil Liberties

COVID-19

Fourth Amendment

Lockdowns

Religious Liberty

Second Amendment

On Tuesday, the Falls Church school board in Virginia voted unanimously to change the names of Thomas Jefferson Elementary School and George Mason High School, achieving one of the great feats of bureaucratic cowardice by knocking out the father of the Bill of Rights and the author of the Declaration of Independence all at once. 
School Board Chair Greg Anderson, in <a href="https://wtop.com/fairfax-county/2020/12/falls-church-school-board-votes-unanimously-to-change-names-of-2-schools/">announcing</a> the change, said, “The Board took seriously the viewpoints and concerns raised by many students, parents, staff, and community members. We thank everyone who shared their perspectives with us and will be mindful of your comments as we now begin selecting names that reflect the diversity of opinions in our community. Our schools must be places where all students, staff, and community members feel safe, supported, and inspired.”
Contrary to Mr. Anderson’s blatherings, the viewpoints of anyone who claims to feel “unsafe” because an elementary school is named after Thomas Jefferson should not be taken seriously. A person who raises such concerns should be summarily dismissed as insincere, stupid, mentally ill, or some combination of the above. Their opinions on the issue are not important, their feelings do not matter, and their desire to dethrone our greatest national heroes should not be treated with even a modicum of respect.
But that is how it should be, and we know that how it should be and how it is are two different things, especially these days.
A report from the local Falls Church News Press says that the board was making the move out of respect for the “strongly-felt sentiments of students, teachers and citizens.” Although it is also noted that a majority of that group actually did not want to change the names. The board members ultimately caved to the demands of the unreasonable minority. As it often goes. 
It takes a special sort of coward to make this sort of decision under these circumstances, and footage from a school board “work session” in June, when they first began talking about this issue, shows that board is indeed occupied by those sorts of coward. The members <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYWDrFmUKQw&amp;feature=emb_logo">can be seen</a> babbling semi-coherently about “equity” and “inclusion,” none of them seeming too terribly excited about the name change, but none possessing the minimal courage required to speak up decisively against it.
This is how bureaucracies, from the local school board all the way up to the federal government, often wind up making mind-numbingly terrible decisions. Not everyone involved has to be a radical ideologue. There are usually only a few. The rest just have to be so spineless that you wonder how they manage to sit up straight in their chairs.
All of the wimpish waffling and platitude-spewing eventually gave way to a decision — the wrong one, as expected. One of the school board members, Philip Reitinger, in <a href="https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1336685289922768897?s=20">explaining</a> his vote during the meeting on Tuesday night, inadvertently provided a master class in Orwellian rationalization. Reading prepared remarks, Reitinger said that he’d decided to vote for changing the name partly because Donald Trump “put kids in cages.” It’s not clear why Thomas Jefferson should be blamed for the immigrant detention policies instituted by Obama, or even why Donald Trump should be blamed for them. All Reitinger could say was that Trump’s alleged bigotry had led him to conclude that the board had to “do more for diversity.” He also implied that having a school named after Jefferson and Mason “makes a statement” that people are not created equal. Finally, he claimed that the best way to “live up to” the words of Thomas Jefferson is to “no longer have a school named after him.”
The cowardly coup de grâce came later that night when the school formally known as Thomas Jefferson Elementary (perhaps we can take the Washington Football Team approach and rename the school simply The Elementary School) tweeted out the news of the name change, and then deleted it as soon as people started criticizing it. The schools have made their decision, and now they’ll hide under their beds until the mean people stop yelling at them about it.
As it happens, the board members are able to hide under their beds, or in their beds, because schools in the Falls Church system have been shut down since spring of last year. They recently voted to extend the “remote learning” farce until 2021. So, while students remain abandoned, in limbo, having not received a real education in nine months, the board has spent its time conducting a moral assessment of a Founding Father who died 200 years ago. 
Needless to say, their moral assessment was wrong. Yes, Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. So did George Mason. These were flawed men, but their flaws were nearly ubiquitous in their time. Not everyone owned slaves, of course, but I doubt whether any single person on Earth in the year 1776, or any year before it, or even in the century after it, could have passed as racially enlightened by our standards today. Most of the world still cannot pass that test. In Jefferson’s time, his perspective was about as enlightened as it got, and that’s how he and George Mason and their compatriots managed to lay the groundwork for what would soon become the greatest — not to mention most diverse and racially tolerant — country on Earth.
We honor the Founding Fathers for that great achievement. We don’t honor them because they were perfect. We honor them because we are Americans, this is America, and they are the men who built it. That should be reason enough.
If it is not reason enough, then no historical figure is safe. Great people often committed great sins. Martin Luther King Jr. was allegedly a serial philanderer who watched and, <a href="https://www.insider.com/mlk-jr-rape-allegations-fbi-2019-5">according to FBI docs</a>, laughed as a woman was raped. If we cannot put Thomas Jefferson’s bad choices into context, then why should we lend that grace to MLK? If we are looking for a perfect hero among mere mortal men anywhere on Earth, anywhere in history, we will not find him. Even if we are searching simply for someone who would not be called “racist” and “bigoted” by people today, we still will not find him. Either we can choose to see historical figures in the context of their time, judge them accordingly, and celebrate them for the great things they achieved while choosing not to emulate whatever evil they committed, or we can systematically go back through time and condemn every person who ever lived, and all of our ancestors who established, fought for, and passed down to us, every good thing we have in our lives. The Left has chosen its path. And its one that leads nowhere but to insanity. 
More from Matt Walsh: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/walsh-school-district-reportedly-gives-white-privilege-training-to-teachers-this-is-anti-white-racism">School District Reportedly Gives White Privilege Training To Teachers. This Is Anti-White Racism.</a>
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author&#8217;s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Thomas Jefferson

WALSH: School Board Votes To Take Thomas Jefferson’s Name Off Of School, Gives Truly Insane Reasons To Justify It

A Port of Seattle police officer made a video urging his fellow officers around the nation to eschew &#8220;enforcing tyrannical orders against the people” as a result of stay-at-home and lockdown orders. According to a <a href="https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-officer-anderson?fbclid=IwAR24Kpq4SczjPZyrmwW4dkeJmsrH9CbLxgCDQJomhQdab_UR3jeXvU93hNQ">Go Fund Me page</a>, the officer, Greg Anderson, a reported Special Forces veteran who fought in Iraq, may be terminated from his job because the video was deemed a violation of policy.
In the approximately nine-minute video, Anderson began:
<blockquote>You know, as a police officer, I’m compelled to make this video. I’ve been in law enforcement for ten years, and I’m speaking to my peers, other fellow officers; people in any kind of law enforcement position. I’ve seen police officers nationwide enforcing tyrannical orders against the people, and I’m hoping it’s the minority of officers but I’m not sure anymore, cause every time I turn on the television, every time I look to the internet, I’m seeing people arrested or cited for going to church, for traveling on the roadways, for going surfing, opening their businesses, going to the park with their families or doing nails out of their own house, using their own house as a place of business and having undercover agents go there and arrest them and charge them with what? With a crime?</blockquote>
He continued, “I don’t know what crime people are committing by doing nails in their own house, but we’re seeing this more and more and more. We need to start looking at ourselves as officers and thinking: Is what I’m doing right? I want to remind you that regardless of where you stand on the coronavirus, we don’t have the authority to do those things to people just because a mayor or a governor tells you otherwise. I don’t care if it’s your sergeant or chief of police, we don’t get to violate people’s constitutional rights because somebody in our chain of command tells us otherwise. It’s not how this country works.”
Anderson turned to citing the Declaration of Independence:
<blockquote>Those are de facto arrests; we’re violating people’s rights and taking money from them or even worse, arresting them and depriving them of their freedom when they are exercising their constitutional rights. So let’s talk about that. Let’s read something right here off of the Declaration of independence” “All men are created equal … among these, we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that to secures these rights, governments are instituted among men deriving their power from the consent of the governed.” Meaning our power, and any government official’s power, is derived from the people. We don’t hold power over our citizens; it’s contradictory to everything that our country stands for.</blockquote>
Anderson cited the Bill of Rights:
<blockquote>And this is what I’m seeing: First Amendment Rights, telling people they can’t go to church; freedom of religion. Telling people they can’t protest: freedom of assembly. Fourth Amendment violations: illegal traffic stops to check for papers? What are you, the Gestapo? Is this 1930’s Nazi Germany? You don’t get to stop people unless you have reasonable suspicion or probable cause that they have committed a crime. And I know people that have personally been stopped, saying, “We want to see papers showing that you’re essential.” That is not how our job works, okay?</blockquote>
Anderson pointed out that the schism created by officers enforcing state and city orders could have a calamitous effect on citizen-law enforcement relations:
<blockquote>What really has been pissing me off lately is the fact that these officers that are going out here and enforcing these tyrannical orders, what they’re doing is they’re putting my job and my safety at risk. Because what you’re doing is widening the gap between public trust and law enforcement officers. And what that’s gonna do — look at what’s happened to law enforcement in the last ten years: less and less public trust, and more often that not that is a result of isolated incidents that get blown out of proportion. They’re not isolated anymore; they’re happening every single day.
And the thing that I want you guys to realize is that our power that we hold as law enforcement officers is nothing more than a façade. It’s badge and a gun. You don’t realize, if you haven’t lived in anarchy, if you haven’t seen combat, things can be stripped from people in a heartbeat. And that’s what I’m afraid of; I’m afraid that these actions are going to wake a sleeping giant, i.e., the American people. They are going to be put in a position where they won’t have their rights trampled anymore. And us as law enforcement officers, we’ll have our ability to enforce the law stripped from us in about ten minutes.</blockquote>
He predicted, “I think what’s gonna happen, if this continues, is we’re gonna see bloodshed in the streets. I don’t want to see bloodshed in the streets on either side of this coin. I don’t want to see fellow officers get injured or killed, and I certainly don’t want to see citizens get injured or killed. And I promise you, most of you out there, doing these tyrannical acts against our citizens, you’re not ready for combat. You’re not mentally or physically ready for combat in the first place. I promise you, you don’t want to go through that, and I hope I never have to go through that again.”
He continued:
<blockquote>You don’t get to just say, “Well, I’m doing this because I was told to do so,” or, “I was following orders,” or, “I need to keep this job.” Guess what? I need to keep this job more than anybody. I have three young children; I have two houses; I have the same sob story that the rest of you guys have. But my personal choices and my living arrangements, no matter what they are, don’t allow me to trample on people’s rights. And I don’t understand why that concept is so hard for people to understand. Listen: You need to stand up for what’s right. If you’re part of a department or agency that is asking their officers and their deputies to impose on people’s rights and infringe on their freedoms, you need to step up and say, “No. That’s not me. That’s not what I signed up for and that’s going against my oath.” And if that costs you your job, so be it. At least you’ll be able to look at yourself in the mirror at night.</blockquote>
Anderson concluded:
<blockquote>I’ve already expressed this to my department, and luckily for me, I come from a department that I feel like my chain of command shares my view, but I don’t care what department you’re part of or what your chain of command thinks: you don’t get to trample on people’s liberty. And so, as a Special Operations veteran, I fought on the streets of Iraq under the U.S. government’s guise of freedom, and I’m telling you what: The American people — you are going to wake a sleeping giant, and they are going to fight ten times harder for their freedom on their soil than anything you’ve ever seen before. And if that’s something you’re willing to face, then keep trampling on people’s rights. But I promise you the American spirit of defiance is going to rise again and it’s gonna be a big problem for our country. So I’ll leave you with this, something I learned as an E-nothing in the army: No matter what situation you’re put in, if you look inside yourself and ask yourself one question: Am I doing the right thing, you ask yourself that? You know the answer. And no amount of money or no order or law or anything should be able to make you go against doing the right thing. So I’m imploring officers to look inside themselves and ask themselves: Is this what I want to be doing to my citizens? And I think the answer’s clear. And if we all stand up together, guess what? It’ll be a non-issue, no factor, because people and law enforcement will be united like we should be.</blockquote>
Video below:
<iframe loading="lazy" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HXDTBl1FCWs" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Officers standing with hands behind

Police Officer Makes Viral Video Urging Law Enforcement Not To Enforce ‘Tyrannical Orders Against The People’

COVID

Police

Seattle

A group of peaceful protesters gathered in Raleigh, North Carolina on Tuesday to call for the re-opening of the state. They stood outside and observed social distancing guidelines. More importantly, they observed the guidelines of the First Amendment, which, plain as day, protects &#8220;the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.&#8221; They were assembled. They were peaceful. And they were petitioning their government for a specific and reasonable thing, namely the right to go back to work and feed their families.
But the protestors forgot that our Founding Fathers, when codifying our inherent human rights into the legal document known as the Bill of Rights, included the important caveat that all rights immediately evaporate whenever there&#8217;s a virus and people are scared. You can&#8217;t see it because it&#8217;s written in invisible ink. That appears to be the legal theory of the governor of North Carolina and his law enforcement agents, anyway, as Raleigh police descended upon the peaceful assembly and instructed it to disperse. At least one of the protestors was <a href="https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article241999131.html">arrested</a>.
When asked to justify their actions, the Raleigh Police Department <a href="https://twitter.com/raleighpolice/status/1250111779574894594?s=20">explained</a> on Twitter that &#8212; and this is a direct quote &#8212; &#8220;protesting is a non-essential activity.&#8221; I expect that the bootlickers who support the government&#8217;s right to arrest people for going to church will find this reasoning totally acceptable. But Americans who value freedom will recognize it as Orwellian insanity. If a politician can unilaterally abolish our fundamental liberties simply by declaring them non-essential, then we have no fundamental liberties. The whole idea becomes a farce. Or, at best, a symbolic concept that we sing about in our songs but that has no practical application in the real world.
It doesn&#8217;t matter if a particular protest or church service is essential. That is a matter of opinion, I suppose, and the opinion of a politician or bureaucrat should have no more weight than anyone else&#8217;s. The point is that the right to protest, just like the right to practice our religion, is essential. Essential not in the sense of being merely important, but in the deeper sense of being inherent to our nature as human beings. That is the idea that our country was founded upon.
It&#8217;s also worth noting that North Carolina has only 5,000 confirmed cases of coronavirus and a little over 400 hospitalizations. That is in a state of 10 million people spread out over 93 counties. Its coronavirus death toll of 108 means that there is an average of slightly more than 1 death per county. These numbers amount to a sad situation, and a serious situation, but they are not a cataclysmic emergency. North Carolina, like most states in the union, has never had a coronavirus emergency. Even if an emergency could justify the suspension of our fundamental human rights &#8212; which it can&#8217;t, in my view &#8212; this would not be such an emergency.
Governments across the country have exploited a virus, and the fear it generates, to seize unprecedented power. We are in the midst of the most severe assault on the Constitution that any of us currently living have ever witnessed. It&#8217;s time to choose a side &#8212; for freedom or against &#8212; and make our stand.

Flag Shutdown

WALSH: Police In North Carolina Arrest Peaceful Protestors, Declare Protesting A ‘Non-Essential Activity’ 

Protest

United States

&#8220;A More or Less Perfect Union&#8221; is a three-part series, produced by Free to Choose Network, that will air on various PBS stations across the nation starting in February. The documentary is a personal exploration of the U.S. Constitution by Justice Douglas Ginsburg, who served on the U.S. Court of Appeals D.C. Circuit and is now a senior justice on the court. Ginsburg explores the U.S. Constitution and features interviews with and gains the perspectives from constitutional experts of all political views — liberal, conservative and libertarian. He examines the key issues of liberty in the U.S. both from a historical and contemporary perspective. Among those issues are freedom of the press and religion, slavery and civil rights, the Second Amendment, separation of powers and the number of ways that the Constitution&#8217;s framers sought to limit the power of the federal government.
The first episode is titled &#8220;A Constitution in Writing.&#8221; It examines the contentious atmosphere that arose among the delegates in that hot, humid Philadelphia summer of 1787. State delegates were sent to Philadelphia to work out the problems of the Articles of Confederation, which served as the first Constitution of the 13 original states. This part of the documentary examines some of the efforts to deal with the problems of the Articles of Confederation while maintaining its guiding principle to preserve the independence and sovereignty of the states. It also examines the compromises and struggles that led to the document we know as the U.S. Constitution. Some of the framers, particularly the Anti-Federalists, led by Patrick Henry, saw the Constitution as defective and demanded amendments be added that contained specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights and clear limitations on the federal government&#8217;s power. They swore that they would never ratify the Constitution unless it contained a Bill of Rights.
The second episode is titled &#8220;A Constitution for All.&#8221; One major emphasis of this episode is the examination of the Supreme Court decisions that undermined racial justice both for slaves and later ex-slaves for a century after the Civil War. Several constitutional scholars discuss how the courts and states ignored and weakened the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, known collectively as the Civil War Amendments, which were designed to ensure equality for recently emancipated slaves. There is also discussion of Bill of Rights guarantees to people accused of a crime. There is more exploration into the Bill of Rights guarantees of free speech, religious freedom and the notion that &#8220;due process of law&#8221; be part of any proceeding that denies a citizen &#8220;life, liberty or property.&#8221; This forced the government to compensate citizens when it takes private property for public use.
Episode three, &#8220;Our Constitution at Risk,&#8221; examines the many ways that our Constitution is under assault today. It points out that the framers would be shocked by how all three branches of government have grown as a result of what we the people demand from our elected representatives. There&#8217;s a discussion about how some of our Bill of Rights guarantees mean absolutely nothing today, namely the 9th and 10th Amendments, which reaffirm personal liberty by specifically limiting the federal government to its &#8220;enumerated powers.&#8221;
&#8220;A More or Less Perfect Union&#8221; is not just a bunch of academics and constitutional experts preaching. It features interviews with everyday Americans weighing in with their visions on the rule of law, the branches of government and the debate over originalism. There&#8217;s a companion book titled &#8220;Voices of Our Republic,&#8221; edited by Ginsburg. It is a collection of thoughts about the Constitution from judges, journalists, and academics. It includes the thoughts of Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Neil Gorsuch and Sandra Day O&#8217;Connor, publisher Arthur Sulzberger, professor Alan Dershowitz, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and historians Joseph Ellis and Ron Chernow, along with Jack Nicklaus, Gene Simmons and many others.
The most important audience for &#8220;A More or Less Perfect Union&#8221; is high school and college students. For it is they who stand a good chance of losing the liberties that made our nation the greatest and freest on earth.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

American flag

WILLIAMS: A More Or Less Perfect Union

Menu