Daily Wire Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer, a 2018 John Marshall Fellow at the Claremont Institute, has the following piece today at Claremont&#8217;s online publication, <a href="https://americanmind.org/post/our-constitutional-order-prioritizes-justice-not-procedure/">The American Mind</a>.
The <a href="https://americanmind.org/features/why-the-new-right-rises/recovering-america-whats-at-stake-in-the-ahmari-french-debate/">intramural dialogue</a> between the New York Post’s Sohrab Ahmari and National Review’s David French <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/david-french-response-sohrab-ahmari/">continues</a> to <a href="https://americanmind.org/video/sohrab-ahmari-david-french-and-charles-kesler-at-notre-dame-9-13-2019/">unfold</a>. Some may wonder when it will end — but there is no more important intellectual debate in all of contemporary political discourse, and it is crucial that we all grasp the stakes.
There is much to be said about the procedural protections for a free citizenry that developed in the English common law system and were subsequently incorporated into the American constitutional order. But the right to a jury trial, habeas corpus, due process under law — these procedural niceties are not, contra Enlightenment apologists and Lockean purists, <a href="https://twitter.com/yhazony/status/1099666558958342145">epistemologically “self-evident”</a> due to unaided reason. The late Andrew Breitbart knew that our politics is ultimately <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/in-politics-fight-breitbart-knew-culture-is-key">downstream of culture</a>, and so too is our Anglo-American legal and constitutional tradition downstream of culture. Vitiating the ties that attach our citizenry to the peculiar traditions we have inherited weakens the procedural protections we rightfully hold dear, empowering a new culture wherein self-appointed victims become their own judges and those targeted for summary “cancellation” have no appeal. If not carefully nourished, classical liberal procedural protections will be swept away.
If we were to lose touch with our unique Anglo-American tradition, the lofty promises of the Declaration of Independence and the structural ingenuities of the Constitution alike would be broken. Recognizing that culture and tradition are necessary prerequisites for the genuine restoration and preservation of our procedural norms should make us comfortable nudging the levers of political power to reclaim cultural influence from the revanchist illiberal Left. From the Jacobin menagerie in the streets to the Woke, Inc. staffers on academic and corporate campuses, the illiberal Left rejects dialogue and preempts from the public square even the most anodyne right-of-center beliefs. Against that backdrop, procedural neutrality as a purported panacea to our culture war is a plea that rings hollow at best. Ahmari is fundamentally correct in his ongoing feud with French. A substantive and not strictly procedural political agenda oriented toward the highest good responds best to the crippling crises leftist illiberalism deepens: Balkanization, mass despondency, and moral decay. Ahmari has offered more to directly confront these attacks on our heart and soul than French.
<a href="https://americanmind.org/post/our-constitutional-order-prioritizes-justice-not-procedure/">Read the rest here</a>.

Constitution.jpeg

Hammer At ‘The American Mind’: Our Constitutional Order Prioritizes Justice, Not Procedure

Conservatism

Constitution

Declaration of Independence

Federalist

Once confined to graduate seminars and the ethnic “studies” departments at our nation’s colleges and universities, multiculturalism is now the authoritative ideology reigning over higher education, our media and political establishments, legal system, and corporate boardrooms.
Today, multiculturalism and its politics of identity pose an existential threat to the American political order — comparable to slavery in the 1850s or communism during the Cold War.
By multiculturalism, we don’t mean the mere presence of different peoples or the tolerance of diverse traditions. The American system has always fostered a certain amount of pluralism through our rich, vibrant, and free civil society. In that system, regardless of race or creed, all Americans shared the same sense of justice — the one embodied in the Declaration of Independence, safeguarded by our political institutions, and enshrined in the motto E pluribus unum. It is a justice based in natural rights possessed by all, and the consent of the governed. It is a justice that defines equality based on our common humanity — and for some purposes our common citizenship — but never on the basis of tribalistic attachments and group identity.
Over time, America maintained this unity by common commitment to shared principles, especially the central divine and natural truth of equal individual rights. In addition to commitment to principle, James Madison praised what he referred to in The Federalist Papers as the “genius of the people,” by which he meant their habits and customs, their storied traditions, and religion. The American Founders had the wisdom to know that any decent society needed an agreement on justice at its core — and the sobriety to appreciate that no system of self-government could withstand the fragmentation of the body politic into radically antagonistic factions.
Multiculturalism flips on its head America’s traditional and Founding focus on equal individual rights, essentializing group identities and lionizing group rights. Rather than the promoter of justice, politics becomes a dispensary of entitlements — to varying levels of honor, resources, and prestige, all in accordance with an ostensible hierarchy of oppression.
If we do not reverse multiculturalism’s advance, it will continue to undermine our country and constitutionalism, destroying the possibility of a common good and a life of civic peace. Indeed, multiculturalism threatens to take down Western civilization as a whole.
Of course, opposition to multiculturalism does not mean excusing or smuggling in racism, bigotry, xenophobia, or any other spirit of injustice. And those who say it does wish to silence all challenges to their radical ideology — to shut up dissenters by smearing and deplatforming them into submission.
If their menacing form of rule is not met with a vigorous response — with Americanism — we will lose the politics and then lose the policy. Our right to free speech. Our sovereignty. Any semblance of a union of states. All gone. We will cease to be America.
As part of a broader <a href="https://americanmind.org/essays/defend-america-defeat-multiculturalism/">campaign</a> to defend our Founding order against the dangers of multiculturalism, we at the Claremont Institute have just released a <a href="https://americanmind.org/audio/multiculturalism-vs-america/">special edition of The American Mind podcast</a>. In the podcast, we explore the intellectual roots, political and societal implications of, and the antidote to multiculturalism.
I invite you to listen as Claremont scholars and fellow travelers — including Claremont Institute President Ryan Williams, Chairman Tom Klingenstein and scholar Charles Kesler, as well as David Azerrad, Lord Conrad Black, Allen Guelzo, Roger Kimball, and Norman Podhoretz — explain how belief in Americanism, as opposed to multiculturalism, is about treating people as individuals who are equal. Equal, that is, insofar as they are not nameless, faceless, mindless members of groups based on essentialized features — or hierarchies of the oppressed devised by ivory tower leftists for political exploitation.
If left unchallenged, multiculturalism will defeat America. But by instead recovering Americanism, we will ensure our nation continues not just to survive, but to thrive, as Lincoln said it would — as the last, best hope of earth.
Listen <a href="https://americanmind.org/audio/multiculturalism-vs-america/">here</a>.
James Poulos is the executive editor of <a href="https://americanmind.org">The American Mind</a>, a new online publication of the <a href="https://www.claremont.org">Claremont Institute</a>.

POULOS: Multiculturalism Stands Athwart America Itself

Speaking on Monday, President Trump, ebullient after the strong approval he got from much of the American public after his July 4 salute to the military, <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7226105/Trump-says-hell-hold-Fourth-July-salute-Weve-decision-year.html">stated</a> that he would like to make it an annual event.
The president asserted in the East Room of the White House, “In spite of the heavy rain, and it was really heavy, we had a remarkable salute to America on the National Mall. These incredible big beautiful crowds, braving the weather all the way, back to the Washington Monument. It was something really special. And I will say this — it was a wonderful day for all Americans. And based on its tremendous success, we&#8217;re just making the decision, and I think we can say we&#8217;ve made the decision to do it again next year. And maybe we can say, for the foreseeable future.”
As <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-says-he-will-hold-another-military-celebration-next-fourth-of-july/2019/07/08/5b285a00-a1bd-11e9-bd56-eac6bb02d01d_story.html?utm_term=.e8ae264a6b24">The Washington Post</a> reported, the president also stated, “Standing on the steps of the great Lincoln Memorial and looking out on the crowds — these incredible, big, beautiful crowds, braving the weather all the way back to the Washington Monument — we celebrated freedom, in all of its magnificence, while saluting our great military.”
During his July 4 speech, the president stated:
<blockquote>On this July 4, we pay special tribute to the military service members who laid down their lives for our nation. We are deeply moved to be in the presence this evening of Gold Star families whose loved ones made the supreme sacrifice … Throughout our history, our country has been made ever greater by citizens who risked it all for equality and for justice … Our warriors form a hallowed roll call of American patriots running all the way back to the first souls who fought and one American independence. Today, just as it did 243 years ago, the future of American freedom rests on the shoulders of men and women willing to defend it. We are proudly joined tonight by heroes from each branch of the U.S. Armed Forces, including three recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor. Thank you. They and thousands before us served with immense distinction, and they loved every minute of that service.
To young Americans across our country, now is your chance to join our military and make a truly great statement in life, and you should do it …
We will always be the people who defeated a tyrant, crossed a continent, harnessed science, took to the skies and soared into the heavens, because we will never forget that we are Americans, and the future belongs to us. The future belongs to the brave, the strong, the proud and the free. We are one people chasing one dream and one magnificent destiny. We all share the same heroes, the same home, the same heart. And we are all made by the same Almighty God. From the banks of the Chesapeake, to the cliffs of California, from the humming shores of the Great Lakes, to the sand dunes of the Carolinas, from the fields of the heartland, to the Everglades of Florida, the spirit of American independence will never fade, never fail, but will reign forever and ever and ever.</blockquote>

TRUMP: I’ll Salute The Military EVERY July 4

Donald Trump

Military

The leftist ingrates at Salon have decided to &#8220;celebrate&#8221; Independence Day — which is celebrated on July 4th for the sole reason that our beautiful republic&#8217;s Declaration of Independence was ratified on that day in Philadelphia in 1776 — today in a rather peculiar manner. In what can only be described as a dissemination of the most stereotypically woke of all stereotypically woke takes, the Salon dullards today tweeted: &#8220;Despite its positive impact on history, the #DeclarationOfIndependence was also a product of its time—and bears some of the shortcomings of its era, including racism, sexism and prejudice against #NativeAmericans.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">Despite its positive impact on history, the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DeclarationOfIndependence?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#DeclarationOfIndependence</a> was also a product of its time—and bears some of the shortcomings of its era, including racism, sexism and prejudice against <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NativeAmericans?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#NativeAmericans</a><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/4thofJuly?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#4thofJuly</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/IndependenceDay?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#IndependenceDay</a><a href="https://t.co/W3Hz8NO0n5">https://t.co/W3Hz8NO0n5</a>
— Salon (@Salon) <a href="https://twitter.com/Salon/status/1146766310036168704?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 4, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
The accompanying <a href="https://www.salon.com/2019/07/04/fourth-of-julys-ugly-truth-exposed-the-declaration-of-independence-is-sexist-racist-and-prejudice/">piece</a>, courtesy of an obscure Ph.D. named Matthew Rozsa, concludes that America&#8217;s Founding Fathers &#8220;were fallible human beings, and some of their flaws had terrible consequences for people who were not fortunate enough to be born into privileged groups.&#8221;
Suffice it to say that such a &#8220;celebration&#8221; of the Declaration of Independence is a far cry from how John Adams described his vision for future annual celebrations in a July 1776 letter to his wife Abigail: &#8220;I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.&#8221;
But Matthew Rozsa and Salon are not merely profoundly ungrateful. They are not merely flipping a proverbial middle finger to the epistolary legacy of John Adams. They are also affirmatively wrong to muddle and belittle the genius that was Thomas Jefferson&#8217;s drafted Declaration of Independence, and it is important to understand why.
Chattel slavery was the original sin of the American republic, and one would be an inveterate fool to deny that obvious truth. The continuation of slavery from the colonial era through the early decades of the constitutional republic represented a brutal compromise of annunciated principle for the sake of maintaining a fragile unity of disaggregated and often self-interested states.
But what Salon misses — and what leftists routinely miss — is that America&#8217;s original sin of chattel slavery was just that: A compromise of principle. Slavery was not in any way a tenet of the American Founding; it was an institution manifestly athwart the Founding. The sagacity of the Declaration, in fact, was that it actually laid the seeds — the very codified foundation — for the eventual eradication of that most horrific of compromises of principle.
For the greatest statesman in the history of the republic, Abraham Lincoln, the Declaration was precisely the tool he needed to latch onto in order to finally bring the American republic in conformity with its Founding-era principles. For Lincoln, the Declaration was paramount to understanding America — the Constitution, in fact, <a href="https://online.hillsdale.edu/document.doc?id=279">was to Lincoln</a> merely an encompassing &#8220;frame of silver&#8221; for the Declaration&#8217;s underlying &#8220;apple of gold.&#8221; Lincoln spoke eloquently of that Founding-era creed — what he called the &#8220;political revolution of &#8217;76&#8221; — all throughout his adult life, including during his <a href="http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/temperance.htm">famous 1842 speech</a> to the Springfield Washington Temperance Society: &#8220;Of our political revolution of &#8217;76, we all are justly proud. It has given us a degree of political freedom, far exceeding that of any other nation of the earth. In it the world has found a solution of the long mooted problem, as to the capability of man to govern himself. In it was the germ which has vegetated, and still is to grow and expand into the universal liberty of mankind.&#8221;
It is thus the Declaration — the &#8220;apple of gold&#8221; — that provided the Great Emancipator with the moral and intellectual sustenance he needed to &#8220;grow and expand &#8230; the universal liberty of mankind&#8221; insofar as that growth and expansion meant the eradication of America&#8217;s original sin. And the eradication of that original sin, following the bloody horror of the Civil War, tangibly took the eventual form of modifying the Constitution — the &#8220;frame of silver&#8221; — via the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. For Lincoln, none of this would have been possible had it not been for the <a href="https://amgreatness.com/2019/07/03/lincoln-americas-founders-iron-men-2/">&#8220;electric cord&#8221;</a> of the Declaration — which &#8220;links &#8230; patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world.&#8221;
But perhaps no one <a href="https://amgreatness.com/2019/07/03/coolidge-declaration-men-created-equal-final-2/">said it better than President Calvin Coolidge</a> on the 150th anniversary of the Declaration&#8217;s ratification, in 1926:
<blockquote>About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.</blockquote>
It is a great paradox of modern &#8220;progressivism&#8221; — the likes of which is embodied by Salon&#8217;s self-hating screed published today — that such insipid idiocy is, in the Coolidge formulation, not &#8220;progress&#8221; at all. It is &#8220;reactionary.&#8221;

HAMMER: Salon Attacks The Declaration Of Independence. Here’s Why They’re So Wrong.

American History

Leftism

Patriotism

Salon

Slavery

Thomas Jefferson

United States

As a way of celebrating Independence Day, <a href="http://www.thevindicator.com/news/article_556e1014-7e41-11e8-a85e-ab264c30e973.html">The Vindicator</a> thought it would be appropriate to publish the Declaration of Independence on Facebook. To make the reading of it more manageable online, the outlet broke the famous founding document into twelve &#8220;bite-sized&#8221; segments and posted one a day over a period of 12 days, ending on July 4. But after posting the tenth segment, The Vindicator received a notice from Facebook informing them that the post &#8220;goes against our standards on hate speech&#8221; and had been blocked.
After the outlet complained about the censorship, Facebook restored the post on the evening of July 3, explaining that its automated &#8220;Community Standards&#8221; checker had incorrectly flagged the post. While Facebook&#8217;s relatively prompt reversal was welcomed, the incident highlights how information is handled on the platform and what types of expression can be blocked.
Below is the passage of the Declaration of Independence (paragraphs 27-31) that contained language deemed to be &#8220;hate speech&#8221;:
<blockquote>
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty &amp; perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
</blockquote>
Here&#8217;s how The Vindicator&#8217;s Managing Editor Casey Stinnett first responded after learning that this particular passage had been blocked:
<blockquote>
While The Vindicator cannot be certain exactly what triggered Facebook&#8217;s filtering program, the editor suspects it was most likely the phrase &#8220;Indian Savages.&#8221;
Perhaps had Thomas Jefferson written it as &#8220;Native Americans at a challenging stage of cultural development&#8221; that would have been better. Unfortunately, Jefferson, like most British colonists of his day, did not hold an entirely friendly view of Native Americans.
Although, to be honest, there is a good deal in that passage that could be thought hateful.
The removal of the post was an automated action. If any human being working at Facebook were to review it, no doubt the post would be allowed, and the editor has searched for a means of contacting Facebook for an explanation or a opportunity to appeal the post&#8217;s removal, but it does not appear the folks at Facebook want anyone contacting them. Or, at least, they do not make it easy. The Vindicator has sent Facebook a feedback message. That being the only way found so far to contact the company.
</blockquote>
Stinnett noted that Facebook&#8217;s Vice President of Global Policy Management posted a notice on the platform&#8217;s newsroom in April that the company would be creating a process by which people can appeal decisions to remove user content, but &#8220;no such review request option appeared on Facebook&#8217;s notice to The Vindicator.&#8221;
In an update on July 3, The Vindicator announced that the post had been restored and published Facebook&#8217;s response to their complaint.
&#8220;It looks like we made a mistake and removed something you posted on Facebook that didn&#8217;t go against our Community Standards,&#8221; Facebook wrote in response. &#8220;We want to apologize and let you know that we&#8217;ve restored your content and removed any blocks on your account related to this incorrect action.&#8221;
Stinnett thanked Facebook for correcting the mistake, saying they &#8220;never doubted Facebook would fix it, but neither did we doubt the usefulness of our fussing about it a little.&#8221;
The editor made a point of defending Facebook&#8217;s ability as a business corporation to restrict use of its services &#8220;as long as those restrictions do not violate any laws&#8221; and underscored that The Vindicator uses the platform for free, making complaints feel somewhat &#8220;silly.&#8221; However, the temporary blocking of content, the editor noted, highlighted just how dependent the outlet has become on Facebook for traffic, like so many other sites.
&#8220;This is frustrating, but your editor is a historian, and to enjoy the study of history a person must love irony,&#8221; concluded Stinnett. &#8220;It is a very great irony that the words of Thomas Jefferson should now be censored in America.&#8221;
<a href="http://www.thevindicator.com/news/article_556e1014-7e41-11e8-a85e-ab264c30e973.html">Read The Vindicator&#8217;s full post here</a>.

Here’s The Passage Of The Declaration Of Independence Facebook Blocked As ‘Hate Speech’

Facebook

WATCH: Shapiro, Knowles, Boreing, Klavan And Peterson Talk Independence Day

Andrew Klavan

Ben Shapiro

Jeremy Boreing

Jordan Peterson

Michael Knowles

On Thursday, PragerU uploaded a new video featuring Will Witt asking strangers on Santa Monica Beach questions regarding the Fourth of July.
Here are some of the saddest answers preceded by Witt&#8217;s questions:
<blockquote>
WITT: Why do we celebrate the Fourth of July?
&#8220;Uhh&#8230;I don&#8217;t really know.&#8221;
&#8220;I forgot.&#8221;
WITT: Why is the significance of 1776?
&#8220;Is that when Columbus sailed the ocean blue?&#8221;
&#8220;I don&#8217;t even know what that is.&#8221;
&#8220;[It&#8217;s the] Civil War, or the end of it. End of slavery.&#8221;
</blockquote>
Several individuals responded correctly to both questions, but the fact that so many people didn&#8217;t know the answers is deeply troubling.
Check out the entire video here:
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen frameborder="0" height="385" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xMlXavsjbjs" width="720"></iframe></div>

WATCH: Will Witt Asks Beachgoers About The Fourth Of July. They Perform Poorly.

A fourth-grade teacher in Mesa, Arizona, has come under fire for allegedly replacing a word in the Declaration of Independence, and having her students recite the revised version.
The word in question? &#8220;Men.&#8221;
<blockquote>
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all [humans] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among [humans], deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. &#8230;
</blockquote>
One parent, Elizabeth Vaillencourt, complained about the alteration of historical documents. <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/22/arizona-teacher-has-4th-grade-class-recite-altered/">The Washington Times</a> writes that &#8220;the school reacted by putting her child in a different class.&#8221;
&#8220;I was hurt, I was mortified, I was disturbed at the fact that somebody is changing historical documents &#8212; and nobody has the right to change our historical documents,&#8221; Vaillencourt told ABC15. &#8220;You teach what&#8217;s written. You don&#8217;t get to rewrite it and teach it how you feel you believe.&#8221;
ABC15 <a href="http://www.abc15.com/news/region-southeast-valley/mesa/mesa-mother-speaks-out-after-teacher-alters-declaration-of-independence">reports</a> that &#8220;when Vaillencourt took this concern to school officials, she was initially told she had &#8216;hurt the teacher&#8217;s feelings&#8217; by posting about it on social media.&#8221;
The Washington Times adds that only later did the school admit &#8220;that the teacher broke district policy by injecting her personal politics into the classroom.&#8221;
A spokesperson for Mesa Public Schools issued a <a href="http://www.abc15.com/news/region-southeast-valley/mesa/mesa-mother-speaks-out-after-teacher-alters-declaration-of-independence">statement</a> on Wednesday, which reads in part: &#8220;It should be recited as written, and not modified in any way. &#8230; School administration, when learning of the alteration to the text, provided feedback and guidance to the teacher to restore the document to its original format.&#8221;
Rather than offer context for her students, this teacher simply decided to change the Declaration of Independence to suit her own message. This isn&#8217;t simply lazy teaching, it&#8217;s negligent teaching.
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe allowfullscreen frameborder="0" height="385" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FNNlXa7cvho" width="720"></iframe>&#8203;</div>

Report: 4th Grade Teacher Changed The Word ‘Men’ In Declaration Of Independence To ‘Humans’; Had Students Recite It

Political Correctness

The British Embassy in Washington D.C. won the Internet on July 4 with a tweet reflecting the British reaction as Americans celebrated their independence as it was first dreamed of in July, 1776:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Being British in America today.<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/FourthOfJuly?src=hash">#FourthOfJuly</a> <a href="https://t.co/q7QNMJW5or">pic.twitter.com/q7QNMJW5or</a>
&#8212; British Embassy (@UKinUSA) <a href="https://twitter.com/UKinUSA/status/882225439938359298">July 4, 2017</a></blockquote>
</div>
There were some funny tweets in recognition of the British Embassy&#8217;s sense of humor:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
I sent all my American friends <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/FourthOfJuly?src=hash">#FourthOfJuly</a> greetings this morning&#8230; <a href="https://t.co/vDofSRj3ln">pic.twitter.com/vDofSRj3ln</a>
&#8212; Rafael Gomez (@Raf_Gomez) <a href="https://twitter.com/Raf_Gomez/status/882321699508809729">July 4, 2017</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://t.co/NqbeXhVcHn">pic.twitter.com/NqbeXhVcHn</a>
&#8212; David Walsh, Jr. (@jeffersonianguy) <a href="https://twitter.com/jeffersonianguy/status/882318280634925057">July 4, 2017</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://t.co/h13JGN6zjC">pic.twitter.com/h13JGN6zjC</a>
&#8212; Tyler Hunter (@tylerhunter23) <a href="https://twitter.com/tylerhunter23/status/882307235598049280">July 4, 2017</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://t.co/8YTaSErfW2">pic.twitter.com/8YTaSErfW2</a>
&#8212; Rod Polisher (@RodPolisher) <a href="https://twitter.com/RodPolisher/status/882370716032798720">July 4, 2017</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet"></div>
The fact that the picture was of actress Emma Watson looking furtively around made the tweet even funnier, as the leftist feminist, who championed the cause of Hillary Clinton in 2016, wasn&#8217;t exactly thrilled that the United States elected Donald Trump: she was one of a group of celebrities protesting Trump&#8217;s presidency <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/madonna-emma-watson-and-half-of-hollywood-join-anti-trump-womens-march/articleshow/56713545.cms">the day after his inauguration</a>:
<img alt src="https://www.dailywire.com/sites/default/files/styles/wysiwyg/public/uploads/2017/07/gettyimages-632332040.jpg?itok=M5IS6qMC" />

British Embassy Wins Independence Day With This Tweet

Great Britain

Tuesday is July 4th, the day that Americans celebrate our nation&#8217;s birthday through pool parties, barbecues and spectacular fireworks shows. However, the true significance of the holiday and how it came to be enshrined in our culture often gets lost in the fanfare. To help remedy this, here are five things you need to know about the Fourth of July.
1. July 4, 1776 was the day that the Continental Congress adopted the <a href="http://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/writing-of-declaration-of-independence">Declaration of Independence</a>. A committee of of five people &#8212; Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Roger Sherman, Robert Livingston and Benjamin Franklin &#8212; was established on June 11 with the purpose of crafting a document explaining the colonies&#8217; reasons for severing ties with Britain. The committee selected Jefferson to be the document&#8217;s chief author.
The Continental Congress officially adopted a resolution for independence on July 2 and then adopted Jefferson&#8217;s Declaration of Independence after a few revisions by the congress. <a href="http://www.military.com/independence-day/history-of-independence-day.html">Nine colonies</a> agreed to adopt it, while South Carolina and Pennsylvania voted no and Delaware and New York abstained. 
The Declaration of Independence was signed on August 2. 
2. The first celebration of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence was on <a href="http://www.pbs.org/a-capitol-fourth/history/history-independence-day/">July 8, 1776</a>; the next year, July 4 became the official day of celebration. July 8, 1776 was when the Declaration was publicly read for the first time in Philadelphia&#8217;s Independence Square as the Liberty Bell rang out. The first yearly celebration of the document&#8217;s adoption on July 4 took place on July 4, 1777 in Philadelphia. In <a href="http://www.history.com/topics/holidays/july-4th">1778</a>, George Washington allowed his troops to have twice as much rum as was normally allowed to celebrate the Fourth of July. Massachusetts became the first state to designate July 4 as a holiday in 1781, however, the custom didn&#8217;t truly spread until the conclusion of the <a href="http://www.history.com/topics/war-of-1812">War of 1812</a>.
3. The Fourth of July <a href="http://www.pbs.org/a-capitol-fourth/history/history-independence-day/">became a national holiday in 1870</a>. In 1938 it became a paid day off for federal employees.
4. It is believed that fireworks first became a Fourth of July custom as a &#8220;morale booster&#8221; for the colonists during the Revolutionary War. Via <a href="http://time.com/4828701/first-fireworks-history-july-4th/">Time</a>:
<blockquote>
 Because the first July 4 fireworks display happened in the middle of the Revolutionary War, some historians believe they were supposed to be a &#8220;morale booster.&#8221; The celebrations at the time would have also included the firing of cannons and guns, adding to the explosive nature of the festivities. With the war&#8217;s end and increasing concern for public safety, those firearms were eventually phased out of the celebrations and replaced almost entirely by the fireworks, which were often given the official stamp of approval in the hope of drawing citizens to public celebrations instead of more dangerous private firework shows.
</blockquote>
5. The values espoused in the Declaration of Independence are eternal truths that are meant to stand the test of time. Take in the beauty of <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-declaration-of-independence-full-text/article/2627742">these words</a>: 
<blockquote>
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature&#8217;s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.&#8212;That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, &#8212;That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
</blockquote>
Though the document was written to address King George III&#8217;s abuses, it enshrines the universal truth that mankind is born with the unalienable rights of life, liberty and property granted to them by God &#8212; not government &#8212; and the government&#8217;s role is to protect those rights. A government that encroaches upon them is tyrannical.
These are not principles that change with the times; they are eternal &#8212; and without them, freedom is lost. Will America continue to uphold these principles going forward, or will the country eventually succumb to <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01M2BRJMW/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&amp;btkr=1">the tyranny of progressivism</a>? 
<a href="https://twitter.com/bandlersbanter">Follow Aaron Bandler on Twitter.</a>

5 Things You Need To Know About The Fourth Of July

They were taxed excessively. They had foreign soldiers forcibly living in their homes. They could not express their grievances publicly under threat of legal action. If one got captured, he did not receive a fair trial by jury. Following April 19, 1775, they were outgunned, outnumbered, and short on resources as the world&#8217;s most ferocious armed force sailed across the Atlantic to destroy their insurrection. The following year, the British captured New York City under a barrage of heavy fire as the streets were lined with the blood of patriots. From the perspective of many men, women, and children, the American Revolution was going to die out in a sea of red.
King George III was ruthless in his ambition to hold these traitors accountable for their sins against the British Crown. He threatened the lives of all who sought to liberate the colonies from his grasp. Given how stacked the deck was in his favor, he had every reason to believe he would emerge victorious against farmers and fisherman turned minutemen. However, the greatest mistake the King made was underestimating the men who refused to cave under pressure; he did not realize the lengths to which these men would go toward ensuring liberty for the populace.
In Philadelphia, a band of fifty-six men representing all thirteen colonies looked at the stark reality their Continental Army faced and decided their cause was still worth fighting for. Five of these men were tasked with drafting a document finalizing their intent as a united people. It started with this famous opening:
<blockquote>
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature&#8217;s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
</blockquote>
Under the premise that the Laws of Nature required separation from the British Empire to secure a free people, these five men believed the rights of all who sought freedom from tyranny were mandated by The Lord; no man-made system of governance could infringe upon them. This concept deliberately spat in the face of the British King, who viewed himself as chosen by The Lord to rule over his subjects however he pleased. However, the promise for a free people undeterred by an intrusive government became a reality:
<blockquote>
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creatorwith certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
</blockquote>
Following this proclamation, the fifty-six men listed off a tremendous indictment against the British Crown, his subjects, and the nation he represented that violated The Lord&#8217;s natural rights to man, compelling their decision to be a free and liberated people. This paved the way for one of the most remarkable moments in international law.
<blockquote>
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
</blockquote>
Citing The Almighty as the source of their rights and formally announcing the Colonies&#8217; independence, these fifty-six men understood that signing this legal separation from the British Crown effectively signed their own death warrants. If any of these men were captured by the British Army, they would receive no mercy and face the King&#8217;s wrath. No quarter would have been given to anyone who dared defy the Crown.
Nevertheless, these men persisted. Nevertheless, these men decided to put their lives on the line for the promise of freedom from tyranny and abusive government.
<a href="http://www.dsdi1776.com/members-only/william-floyd/">William Floyd</a> was one of these fifty-six. He not only signed the Declaration on behalf of New York but also served as a Major General of the Long Island militia. He took his quest for American independence by both the pen and sword, ensuring the promise of freedom remained alive in the face of adversity. He dedicated his life to public service, serving in the United States Congress and New York Senate. While he is seen as a patriot to a majority of Americans, he is my great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather.
Bravery is <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bravery?utm_campaign=sd&amp;utm_medium=serp&amp;utm_source=jsonld">defined</a> in Merriam-Webster as &#8220;the quality or state of having or showing mental or moral strength to face danger, fear, or difficulty.&#8221; In contemporary times, some people define bravery not as legitimately risking your life for freedom&#8217;s promise, but as expressing your grievances about a cause du jour while not having to do anything of substance about it. For those people, it is more brave to speak against the phantom patriarchy outside of a safe space than to enlist in the Armed Forces, deploy overseas, and fight against Nazism, communism, or radical Islamism. It is one of the saddest eventualities of a nation where many of its citizens lost sight of the Founding Fathers&#8217; vision.
While the United States was founded upon the principle that one&#8217;s freedom of speech and press is a G-d given right, many have lost perspective of the character of men who paved the way for those rights&#8217; materialization. These fifty-six men did not sit around the private confides of a collegiate institution petting puppies and drawing with crayons. Instead, they left their homes under threat of capture and imminent execution, deliberated on the Laws of Nature and rights of man, drafted a crowning achievement in international law, signed it, and gave a newly-founded nation hope for freedom. It took men of remarkable bravery, principle, and character to muster that type of courage in the face of tyranny. We would not have an Independence Day without these men and we cannot forget their names:
John Hancock
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Matthew Thornton
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton
From the bottom of my heart, Happy 241st Independence Day! G-d bless these brave men. G-d bless the United States of America.
Follow Elliott on <a href="https://twitter.com/ElliottRHams">Twitter</a> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ElliottRHams/">Facebook</a>.

Remembering the Fifty-Six Bravest Men in History

Following President Trump&#8217;s <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/17086/excellent-trump-5-reasons-trump-right-pull-out-ben-shapiro">decision to withdraw</a> from the Paris Accords, Harvard Professor Joyce Chaplin, who <a href="https://history.fas.harvard.edu/people/joyce-chaplin">chairs</a> the American Studies Department, argued that the United States betrayed the international community that created America back in 1783.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
The USA, created by int&#8217;l community in Treaty of Paris in 1783, betrays int&#8217;l community by withdrawing from <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/parisclimateagreement?src=hash">#parisclimateagreement</a> today
&#8212; Joyce E. Chaplin (@JoyceChaplin1) <a href="https://twitter.com/JoyceChaplin1/status/870383338799976448">June 1, 2017</a></blockquote>
The tweet received significant backlash from conservatives and legal scholars. United States Senator and conservative warrior Ted Cruz (R-TX) took Chaplin to task for her revisionist history.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Just sad. Tenured chair at Harvard, doesn&#8217;t seem to know how USA was created. Not a treaty. Declaration+Revolutionary War+Constitution=USA. <a href="https://t.co/tQALvjdkTs">https://t.co/tQALvjdkTs</a>
&#8212; Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) <a href="https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/870475665908408321">June 2, 2017</a></blockquote>
Cruz is correct. The United States became a nation following the signing of the Declaration of Independence, which announced its separation from Great Britain and created an independent nation-state according to Westphalian standards of international law. Chaplin responded to Cruz&#8217;s rebuttal by essentially making up international law and the standards for determining statehood.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Sad. US Senator, Harvard Law degree. Doesn&#8217;t know that national statehood requires international recognition. <a href="https://t.co/gcxtJifWCl">https://t.co/gcxtJifWCl</a>
&#8212; Joyce E. Chaplin (@JoyceChaplin1) <a href="https://twitter.com/JoyceChaplin1/status/870627283551301633">June 2, 2017</a></blockquote>
Cruz continued his initial argument by denouncing Chaplin&#8217;s assertion that the international community created the United States by reminding her that it was founded by individuals and courageous leaders who risked their lives for the promise of freedom and liberty. A graduate of Harvard Law School, he also lamented that his alma mater turned into a festering hive of leftist group think that divorces itself from historical reality.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Lefty academics @ my alma mater think USA was &#8220;created by int&#8217;l community.&#8221; No&#8211;USA created by force, the blood of patriots &amp; We the People. <a href="https://t.co/zOxVdj21en">https://t.co/zOxVdj21en</a>
&#8212; Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) <a href="https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/870651101137207298">June 2, 2017</a></blockquote>
Furthermore, Cruz explained that the Treaty of Paris in 1783 did not create the United States but rather reaffirmed the Declaration of Independence seven years earlier, ended the Revolutionary War, and forced Great Britain to recognize the nation as no longer being part of its empire.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Treaty of Paris simply memorialized that fact, of our total victory at Yorktown. Her claim is like saying a plastic globe created the earth. <a href="https://t.co/eHDPfmsjIB">https://t.co/eHDPfmsjIB</a>
&#8212; Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) <a href="https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/870653391336353794">June 2, 2017</a></blockquote>
If only more professors at Harvard possessed the same intellectual honesty and understanding of history as Ted Cruz, then Harvard would not continue to lose its credibility in the <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/15165/these-harvard-students-found-way-resist-trump-james-barrett">face</a> <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/14358/harvard-smears-daily-wire-and-pretty-much-every-john-nolte">of</a> <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/13195/harvard-crimson-free-speech-me-not-thee-elliott-hamilton">leftist</a> <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/16171/progress-harvard-hold-blacks-only-graduation-amanda-prestigiacomo">insanity</a>. 
Follow Elliott on <a href="https://twitter.com/ElliottRHams">Twitter</a> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ElliottRHams/">Facebook</a>

Menu