Tags: Fourth-of-July | Diversity | racist | sexist

Let's Not Forget What the Fourth of July Stands For

By
Thursday, 02 July 2015 11:54 AM Current | Bio | Archive

A note was sent out to our staff earlier this week reminding them that Friday the third was a Federal holiday and so they too would have it off to celebrate the Fourth of July.

My business partner, Diana Banister, made light of the moment noting to the staff to celebrate the Fourth — “while we still have it.” Like everybody else, I laughed for a moment but then thought about it.

Could they take the Fourth away from us to make it “Celebrate Diversity Day” instead? Or make it a day of national mourning as opposed to a day of the celebration of bravery, a celebration of one of the greatest days in human history?

Is anything beyond the realm of the “deconstructionist left?” Especially now?

After all, the Fourth of July is to celebrate America’s independence from Great Britain, but since we had slaves then and since women didn’t have the vote, could the deconstructionist left argue the Fourth is meaningless, or worse racist and sexist, since one could draw the conclusion that independence from England only applied to white adult males who owned property?

We’ve already seen the sorry spectacle of dumb CNN teleprompters readers talking about removing Thomas Jefferson’s statue from the Washington Mall.

We haven’t even come close to our own thermidor, that period in which the pendulum swings back and sanity begins to reassert itself. The American Jacobins are in charge and love to destroy in the name of social justice.

It wasn’t too long ago that marriage was the biblically inspired kind, a union of fidelity between a consenting man and a consenting woman. Thanks to the dysfunctional Supreme Court, sometimes arguing for federalism, sometimes against federalism, we now have the federal government out of the business of protecting life, but in the business of butting its nose into a private act. The Supremes say an abortion is a private act and thus no one’s business but a marriage is a public act and thus everyone’s business?

Incredible.

Already the left is going after the American flag, as Rush Limbaugh rightly predicted, against a two-person marriage in favor of multiple individuals marrying, against the tax-exempt status of churches and synagogues, against the institution of fatherhood — in short against every institution and tradition in America they can’t stand or . . . tolerate.

Ironically, traditional America has always been tolerant. But the new moralists are anything but tolerant. You can’t even suggest in polite company anymore that homosexuality is not typical of human behavior.

Past institutions they’ve gone after besides the family and religion include the Pentagon, small businesses, privacy, speech, home schooling and even the right of assembly. Thought crime? We’ve had that for years in the form of so-called “hate crimes.”

Of course, in their Declaration, it was the white landed male colonists who were are risk. The British did not make general war on African slaves or the wives and daughters of the colonists. Only the white males of the Revolution, both civilian and in uniform, were made war upon, even as they were making war on the British on behalf of all Americans to then create a more perfect union. It did not come quickly but it came.

For committing high treason, the colonists faced being hanged, drawn, and quartered, emasculated, disemboweled, and having their entrails cut out and burned. The Revolution was theirs, so the risk was theirs.

And yet, upon victory at Yorktown, the colonists did a rather remarkable thing — they began to share power with those who were less invested in the Revolution. Slowly to be sure, but steadily too.

John Kennedy said freedom comes “not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.” The framers agreed and cited James 2:12 who said, “Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom.” And yet the new Ministers of Hate preach nothing of the sort, denying the freedom of a baker or a photographer to freely practice their religious beliefs, even as they claim a bizarre constitutional right to marriage, when the Constitution was expressly silent on social and personal matters.

We are truly through the looking glass.

The Fourth of July is to be revered and honored by all because a few colonists had the wisdom to fight off oppressive government in order to create the free America that we enjoy and debate over today.

Craig Shirley is the author of "Rendezvous with Destiny: Ronald Reagan and the Campaign that Changed America," "Reagan’s Revolution: The Untold Story of the Campaign That Started It All," and "December 1941: 31 Days that Changed America and Saved the World." He is the founder of Shirley & Banister Public Affairs, which was chosen in 2005 by Springfield College as their Outstanding Alumnus, and has been named the First Reagan Scholar at Eureka College, Ronald Reagan’s alma mater, where he taught a course titled “Reagan 101.” He appears regularly on many network and cable shows including Newsmax TV, Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN. For more of his reports, Go Here Now.






© 2019 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

   
1Like our page
2Share
CraigShirley
Could they take the Fourth away from us to make it “Celebrate Diversity Day” instead? Or make it a day of national mourning as opposed to a day of the celebration of bravery, a celebration of one of the greatest days in human history?
Fourth-of-July, Diversity, racist, sexist
850
2015-54-02
Thursday, 02 July 2015 11:54 AM
Newsmax Media, Inc.
 

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved