the new right was once wrong, right?

Before I engage my two index fingers and commence typing each perspective, I contemplate the history surrounding America. How it came to be, who came before us, their struggles, triumphs, failures, and mistakes. Because if one truly looks at our history, they’d find more mistakes and failures than successes. But isn’t that the way success is achieved, through failure? Only, what if the absence of knowledge regarding a past success is transformed into a modern-day failure: Jamestown, Virginia for example. On May 13, 1607, 104 individuals who’d sailed from Europe to America established the colony. Including a gentleman class, by the end of their first year, about thirty-four remained alive. So, in September 1608, Captain John Smith took over the helm of the colony. One of his first orders: He that will not work, shall not eat. The gentleman class had been put on notice: They would have to work to survive, whereas before others worked to support them.

Well, move ahead 256 years to 1964 and the Civil Rights Act. LBJ enacted his “Great Society” reforms and unleashed an “unconditional war on poverty.” Part of what became a generational placement of individuals on welfare. The government would supply their financial needs as long as there was no man in the house. The beginning of the end of the nuclear family and an adage change: If you don’t want to work, we’ll take care of you. What appeared on the surface an altruistic endeavor, the underlying truth was a nefarious means to gain a voting bloc for generations to come and keep those who partook in poverty. Now, sixty-years later, was the “Great Society” a success or failure? The obvious answer: Just look around at our society today. Although, in my life, I discovered the only way to achieve “success” was through hard work and sacrifice.

Then, from that one Act forward, America has continued to regress fiscally and morally to where it now stands, especially in those who are either out to obtain autarchy or conversely, those who are ignorant of intent, willing to sacrifice self-worth for what government claims to be just. What I call: America’s sixty-year war. A two-sided coin composed of the whole sameness: A redefining of nation. Except, in the scope of everything the nation stands for: What is morally right or wrong and where do limits come into play? Like Captain Smith then, outside of Congress, who and what establishes the parameters to which WE THE PEOPLE live by today? Only, in the process of enacting law, the Constitution has no moral grounding, requiring a societal standard to live by. As there are no constitutional confines to morality, it is truly anything goes outside of the powers vested in it. And yes, each of the States has their own Constitution, but did those Framers have any inclination the country would be at the precipice it stands at today, understanding: Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, than whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers (Federalist 2).

Thus, a monolithic bedrock for the foundation to be built upon had to be intertwined into the fabric of national standing. Because without, or the removal thereof, the nation will continue to devolve until there is nothing left. Now, one can claim a belief in a “Creator” had no bearing in the nation’s framing: But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions (Federalist 51).  

But when people are without a moral limit or are debased in moral standing, what takes precedent? So, one must ask: What defines limits? As hypocrisy will leave an unappealing aftertaste the moment one’s limits are reached, becoming a hypocrite. Even those who claim to have no moral standing will one day find a limit. And sadly, the problem with man is man himself, having perverted every standing litmus of government and religion. And do not misconstrue my belief as I am not in any position to judge, but merely pointing out that religion has perverted faith, where our government has perverted itself. But nationally, while the nation crumbles and the one standard the country was born and stood with for centuries and is now further removed by the government, search for understanding: Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed, and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless (Romans 1:28-31).

And church, supposedly being the bastion of biblical principles unwavering? Only today, even the Catholic church seeks to divide itself through the Pope by blessing same-sex couples, only: Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lusts for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion (Romans 1:26-27). The Pope’s belief antithetically opposed to the Bible. Making me question motive: Is the church losing congregants (money), to where the Pope is willing to sacrifice truth over profit. Except, even Jesus professed: No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money (Matthew 6:24).

So again, it is not for me to judge, but to question and present a perspective that hopefully allows others to see both the right and wrong side of a question. Plus, shouldn’t those who lead be held to a higher standard than those of us who have to abide by the dictates they set forth: Now, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth – you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? (Romans 2:17-23).

So, to close, going back to where I started, before I commence typing each perspective, I contemplate America’s history. I want to understand its past and present which allows me an understanding of the present against the past and the intent of those leading. Additionally, I must weigh my moral compass and the struggles I face internally for every perspective posted against the belief that America should maintain a semblance of a compass. Believe me, where others claim past presidents to be exemplary, I wonder if most should be looked at through a lens of truth instead of the lens of obfuscation presented by the scholars. And while writing each perspective, my goal has always been to just open another’s eyes. Yet, I had one who unsubscribed, stating: Every time I read your posts, I end up being angry. His result being the antithesis of my intent, unless his anger is “righteous,” and he uses it to hopefully change another’s trajectory if only by a degree.

So, balancing two worlds in one scope can be perceived as a difficult proposition, to which I believe otherwise. There is a simplicity to truth, and the Framers knew; men are not angels, and thereby placed a responsibility on the people, knowing WE THE PEOPLE are responsible for the mess the nation is in today. Plus, I do speak out against what I see wrong in our country, but if I believe the words in the Bible, I must understand: Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgement upon themselves (Romans 13:1-2). Only, I can’t just be subordinate as I believe the nation we call the United States of America to be God ordained. Thus, when perversity breeds discombobulation, the need to speak out is tantamount to survival. To remain quiet is to allow the seeds of deception to grow. My balance is hoping those who do not understand, have a desire to seek truth over lies, and contentment over perversion. Remember: there were thousands who surrendered their lives to form this country so we could bask in the freedoms they provided.