Tag: Declaration of Independence

Why Have We Forgotten?

Richard Barnes

The prior post (Look There For A Sign) quoted Octavio Paz’s maxim, “Every time a society finds itself in crisis it instinctively turns its eyes towards its origins and looks there for a sign.”

The post also observed, “I see precious few folks today turning their eyes to our origins in order to seek answers….”

In other words, either Paz was in error, or our society does not consider our current conundrum to rise to the level of crisis.

Current polling suggests that most Americans, of all persuasions, do believe we are in crisis; if so, then Paz is in error, at least with regards to America. Which, as with most things in life, is nothing new. Jeremiah urged the people of his day, who knew they were behind the proverbial eight ball, to “…ask for the old paths, where is the good way and walk therein ….” Their reply? “We will not walk therein” (Jer. 6:16).

And they catastrophically lost their country.

Our colonial era was fundamental to the United States Constitution which was truly unique in the annals of history. For the first time ever a government was formed on the basis of limiting the scope of that government to few and limited powers; with all other powers retained by the states and the people.

This unleashed a very free and supremely productive populace which very quickly ascended to leadership and a shining example on the world’s stage.

However, from the late 19th Century, but especially since the New Deal, that paradigm of liberty has been distorted to the point where, today, the Constitution is not even considered by the many; and when it is, it is seen as a document which gives unlimited powers to the central governmental unit which treats the states and the people as sort of its “subdivisions” or subsidiaries or somehow subservient to its whims.

In other words, a complete and utter inversion of the original intent of our founding.

This has resulted in Americans today being among the most regulated, taxed, and controlled people on earth.

To take just one example: The Affordable Care Act, known as “Obamacare” was signed into law at 2,800 pages, which was considered ridiculous at the time, given that there was no possible way Congress could have read it in time for their Christmas Eve vote.

But the real outrage are the 10,000 closely printed pages of Obamacare’s regulations printed in the Federal Register. 

Ten Thousand closely printed pages.

Americans are not being governed by the 2,800 pages voted on by our representatives and senators and signed into law by our president.

Americans are being governed by the 10,000 closely printed pages in the Federal Register.

Not our president, not our senators, not our representatives wrote those 10,000 pages. 

Such were written by unelected, invisible bureaucrats and staffers in the countless offices, nooks, and crannies of the central government.

But that is not all: the agencies charged with implementing Obamacare are also empowered to promulgate more regulations, to prosecute citizens for violating such regulations, and to act as judge and jury in the prosecutions that they bring. In other words, these agencies combine the legislative, executive, and judicial functions in the same body.

That’s just Obamacare.

Congress and the president have passed and signed over 4,200 laws since 2001 alone.

And each one of those comes with agencies, bureaucrats, official enforcers, and hundreds and thousands of pages of regulations, which are the only “laws” most of us ever see.

One of the grievances cited by our founders to justify our Declaration of Independence was this:

“He [King George] has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.”

Our founders intended this would never be the case here by erecting a system of checks and balances whereby the legislative, executive, and judicial would be separate. However, for well over a century now, and especially since the mid-20th Century, we have submitted to governance that neatly eviscerates that system.

So, does that mean that the solution to our crisis is a “return to the Constitution”?

No.

The solution to our crisis is a return to the “old paths”, which led to our Constitution.

It is a return to faith in God and His law.

That return begins in our homes and in our churches.

Judgement begins with us.

We are the ones who have permitted our children to be taught and indoctrinated by atheistic, socialistic professors who outnumber their conservative counterparts by 17 to 1. In 1968 that ratio was 2.7 to 1. These ratios are not only representative of college faculty but also of elementary and secondary schooling.

That means that two generations, at least, have been subjected to unending socialist, atheistic indoctrination and revisionist “American history”, which teaches us to hate our country and to cut off its roots.

The above ratios are also representative of our media and our “entertainment” industries.

In other words, we are under an unremitting barrage of propaganda which will take its toll unless we are clothed with Truth and teach our children and grandchildren that Truth.

One of the reasons we forget — perhaps the primary reason — is that we believe or assume that our prosperity came from the power of our own hand. We believe “naturalistically”.

However, it was not for nothing that our founders began our Declaration with the presupposition of our being created in God’s image: “All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights….”

We live in a personal universe because it was created by a personal Creator God, Who tells us, “Beware that thou forget not the Lord thy God….”

A return to the Constitution requires a return to God.

Fourth and Fifth of July: Declarations of Independence

Richard Barnes

(First posted on July 4, 2020)

Those who grew up in El Pao will remember celebrating both the Fourth and the Fifth of July, reflecting yet another similarity between the two countries. The American and Venezuelan holidays afforded an opportunity for executives to declare and affirm ongoing genuine friendship and a collaborative spirit between both peoples while we children looked forward to having our fathers home for a more extended time than usual, and also learning a bit more to understand and appreciate our liberties. I was fortunate to have had a father and mother who, as best they knew how, taught us appreciation and gratitude for America and also for Venezuela.

Venezuela history was a required subject in school. And a most frustrating one it was for me. For the life of me, I could not understand what the early 19th century fighting was about. My teachers seemed to tell stories assuming we students possessed presupposed knowledge as to why the revolutionaries rose against Madrid. But I had no such knowledge. My father had told me about the North American colonies and how they had a history of self-government and liberties and how England had begun taking those liberties away, even to the point of stationing mercenary troops in private homes where they abused and in some cases even defiled the mothers and daughters. 

Furthermore, the English parliament had decreed the assignment of Church of England bishops to the colonies: a last straw. I could see why folks would resist and seek to stop that, even if it meant overthrowing the rule of the English king. 

Although my mother and father taught me to respect and honor Venezuela, my teachers told no stories about Spain’s abuses against Venezuela. We heard much about concepts of liberty and fraternity and equality. However, all stratospheric disquisitions about intangible concepts did not satisfy me as to why the criollos rose against Madrid initially, let alone explain the eventual extermination of over one-third of their number. The entire country churned with violence and at the end had been practically depopulated. It was clear to me that the savagery and atrocities occurred not prior to, but during the Revolution. I do remember hearing a teacher quote the words uttered by Simón Bolivar as he approached death in the late 1820’s, “I have plowed in the sea….” And, “…those countries will infallibly fall into chaos and dictatorships….”

But why cast off Spanish rule for intangible concepts only to install tangibly cruel “chaos and dictatorships”? 

To read the July 4, 1776 and the July 5, 1811 declarations of independence back to back is an instructive exercise which might help explain why.

The Venezuelan is over 800 words longer and reflects allusions to French revolutionary thinking that is absent from the American. Consistent with the American, it also alludes to the Christian religion which sounds discordant if one has a basic understanding of Rousseau and the Declaration of the Rights of Man.

The Venezuelan opens by alluding to a former declaration (April 19, 1810) which was adopted as a result of Spain’s occupation by France. It goes on to complain about three centuries of suppressed rights and that recent political events in Europe had served to offer an opportunity to restore those rights. They then, following the 1776 Declaration, proceed to justify their actions.

The United States [American] declaration does not complain about 150 years of colonial rule. Rather it expresses concern that, when abuses make it necessary to dissolve long-standing political bands, that such action must be taken carefully and with strong justification. It expresses the need and the willingness to “suffer, while evils are sufferable” before abolishing government and relations to “which they are accustomed.”

I know this is simplistic, and historians will disagree, but to the layman, the 1811 comes across as willful, the 1776, as reluctant.

The longest body in each is the justification. The Venezuelan uses 1,156 words, beginning with another allusion to 300 years of Spanish rule and affirming that a people has a right to govern themselves. Then the author expresses a willingness to overlook those 300 years by “placing a veil” over them (“corriendo un velo sobre los trescientos años“) and proceeds to recent European events which had dissolved the Spanish nation. It goes at length criticizing the Spanish monarchy for its abandonment of her throne in favor of the French and how this state of affairs had left Venezuela without legal recourse (“dejándola sin el amparo y garantía de las leyes“). 

It asserts, furthermore, that the vast territories of the Americas with far more population than Spain itself cannot be governed from afar, etc. Here, the author presumes to speak for all the Spanish Americas. The layman is justified in wondering if this misdirection is inserted to remove attention from special pleading in the document that does not wholly stand up.

This section is not easy to follow today without some knowledge of the events current in 1811.

This was not a unanimous declaration; three provinces did not join, presaging the terrible bloodletting which was to follow.

For its justification, the American declaration uses 824 words (332 less than the Venezuelan), to list the abuses and their attempts to humbly address these legally only to have their attempts rebuffed. They make no allusions to 150 years of oppression or of unhappiness with their colonial status. They address only relatively recent abuses, including violence against life and property, mercenaries on their way to fight against them, war waged against them, threats to their religious liberty (the Quebec allusion), and much more. These are listed almost in bullet point format, but without the bullets, and are easy to understand, even 244 years later. It reads as if the document were a declaration of the right to self defense.

This was a unanimous declaration signed by representatives of each of the thirteen colonies.

In their conclusion, the Venezuelans, yet again, allude to centuries of oppression and their natural right to govern themselves. They assert they have a right to establish a government according to the general will (“voluntad general“) of her people.

It is hard to miss the influence of French revolutionary thinking in the Venezuelan document, despite allusions to a Supreme Being (“Ser Supremo”) and to Jesus Christ (“Jesucristo”). Its reference to the “General Will” is Rousseauean and is also found in the atheistic French Declaration of the Rights of Man. 

They also state they will defend their religion. 

The layman can’t help but be impressed by the schizophrenic nature of this document which contained appeals to atheistic revolutionary thinking then in vogue, while recognizing that the “regular folk” were still very religious and needed to hear allusions to religious fidelity.

The American conclusion appealed to the Supreme Judge of the world and in the name and authority of the people in the colonies they declared independence.

I know that professors delight in pointing out that Thomas Jefferson was the “author” of the American declaration and that he was not a Christian, etc.

However, one does not read the Virginia Fairfax Resolves (1774), or the Virginia Declaration of Rights (May, 1776), both of whose  primary author was George Mason, a Christian, nor does one read clergyman, John Wise, who in 1710 wrote, “Every man must be acknowledged equal to every man,” and “The end of all good government is to cultivate humanity and promote the happiness of all and the good of every man in all his rights, his life, liberty, estate, honor, and so forth…” and “Democracy is Christ’s government in church and state.” Jefferson drew from a rich, deep Christian well. According to President Calvin Coolidge, Jefferson himself “acknowledged that his ‘best ideas of democracy’ had been secured at church meetings.”

The American declaration was followed by seven more years of war whose official end was the Treaty of Paris in 1783 and a constitution, still in effect, whose final ratification was in 1790. The Venezuelan declaration was followed by nineteen years of wars (plural) characterized by unspeakable cruelties and tortures, including a proclamation of “war to the death” by Simón Bolivar. By their end in 1830, one third of Venezuela’s population had perished. These wars were followed by more wars and rebellions which continued to the end of the century. She’s had 27 constitutions.

In sum, the American hearkened to her Christian heritage and history; the Venezuelan, to French revolutionary atheism, most starkly demonstrated by yet another revolution, the Russian, in 1917. Both the American and the Venezuelan shed blood. But the latter, like the French, shed it more abundantly.

I love the United States of America and its history. I love her Christian heritage and her pioneers. She is a wonderfully great country with a people who will always pull at my heart. I also love Venezuela and the warmth and genuine friendship of her people. I am grateful the Good Lord has exposed me to both and shown me that, in Christ, our best days are yet ahead.

Declaration of Independence – Text of the Declaration of Independence | Britannica

Text of the July 4, 1776 Declaration of Independence

Acta de la Declaración de Independencia de Venezuela – Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

Towards the bottom of article linked above, the reader will find the text of the July 5, 1811 Venezuela Declaration of Independence. It is in Spanish.

Calvin Coolidge’s Speech on the Occasion of the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence – Wikisource, the free online library

Highly recommended to all, not just Americans

Venezuelan Navy Captain Dies After Signs of Torture

Richard Barnes

If memory serves, this is only the second post where I address current events in Venezuela. As readers know, I am avoiding, as much as possible, the reporting of present-day polemics, preferring to focus on helping to increase understanding of Venezuela by consulting her history (including early links with the United States), portraying her people and culture, alluding to the way we were. That will help us understand, in as irenic an approach as possible, how we got to where we are, and, perhaps, the way forward.

However, sometimes it is necessary to pause and look around at today’s scene. If we know about folks being drawn to death unjustly, let alone cruelly, and say nothing, we will be held to account: “If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain; if thou sayest, ‘Behold, we knew it not; doth not He that pondereth the heart consider it? and He that keepeth thy soul, doth not He know it? and shall not He render to every man according to his works?”

Although this blog’s purpose generally excludes reporting on contemporary incidents, it does mean to help explain how we got to where we are; and to know where we are, it is at times necessary to not assume folks “know”, especially when the media’s reporting of terrible events is so muddled.

The below link is to the New York Times, not known for its fiery right wing reporting. There’s plenty of other reporting on what is happening in Venezuela: hundreds, if not thousands, drowning on their desperate journey to ever-elusive freedom in Aruba or Curazao; multiple reports of disappearances and tortures; threats to wives and children of anyone suspected to be opposed to the regime; corpses exploding in morgues for lack of electricity and, consequently, no controlled temperatures; the purposeful collapse of criminal law and the consequent explosion of savage wickedness; hunger; and much, much more.

I’ve refrained from posting or commenting on such. Those who wish to know more, are able to find it. But you will have to search beyond the mainstream media enthralled with noisome dingbats who, most recently, tell us that we run concentration camps along our southern border. Mercifully, such pronouncements have been strongly rebuked by a few, including Holocaust survivors who point out, reasonably, that those in real concentration camps were herded there by Nazis or Soviets. Nothing of the sort is happening here, where folks are coming on their own accord. And there are no survivors of the Boer War to tell about the first concentration camps in modern history. They too would be aghast at the comparison. The media should help here, but it seems interested in reporting only invective, not facts.

The article linked below is so low key it’s almost pathetic. It’s as if it’s written to blunt any criticism of its having ignored what’s happening on the ground in Venezuela. They can now say, “Oh, but we have indeed reported on these things.” Spare me. However, I’ve selected it because, for many people, the Times is a credible source that you can point to, should you be asked.

If you prefer reading a more-to-the point summary, this, from the Caracas Chronicles might suffice:

“Navy captain Rafael Acosta Arévalo, arrested by the Military Counterintelligence Directorate (DGCIM), was missing since June 21st until, five days later, regime Communication Minister, Jorge Rodriguez, accused him on TV of being involved in an alleged coup. He was publicly seen two days later, when he was taken to his preliminary hearing in a military court with obvious signs of violence, in a wheelchair and with poor mobility. The captain’s wife, Waleska  Pérez, denounced his serious physical condition by torture and requested protection from the Inter American Commission of Human Rights, because her husband’s life was in danger. Hour later, early on Saturday, June 29th, Acosta Arévalo died. Everything happened under State custody. This Saturday night, the regime confirmed the death through statements; none deny the torture, or the reports that torture was the likely cause of death.”

A Scripture verse that was quoted often in the days leading up to and following the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, was II Corinthians 3:17: “Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” Our rights are God-given, “endowed by our Creator.” If we value liberty we must be a people who values a love for God in Jesus Christ. We must be a people who grasps, however inchoately, that a state pretending to be God is a crass violation of the First Commandment. It is an abomination which eventually brings judgement.

Those of you who pray, please pray for the family of Captain Acosta. Pray for the people of Venezuela. Pray for the restoration of liberty and a decent civil order in that stricken land.

And, most importantly, be sure to thank the Triune God for the liberties we continue to enjoy in this great land of America.

As for the New York Times report, it’s below the photo. Read it and weep.

Navy Captain Rafael Acosta Arévalo. Witnesses report that when he appeared before court on Friday, “he looked barely alive. He couldn’t move his feet or hands. He had excoriations on his arms, traces of blood on his nails, signs of blows in the torso, and he was almost unable to speak.” Upon seeing him, the judge ordered his immediate hospitalization and postponed the hearing. He died hours later in the hospital.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/29/world/americas/venezuela-torture.html

Source: New York Times, June 29, 2019

CARACAS — A Venezuelan Navy captain accused by the government of plotting a rebellion has died in custody a week after his arrest, underlining President Nicolás Maduro’s increasingly ferocious repression campaign amid a spiraling economic crisis.

The captain, Rafael Acosta, is the first of more than 100 active and retired Venezuelan officers jailed by the government on treason charges to die in custody after allegations of torture.

A military judge told Captain Acosta’s legal team on Saturday that the officer had died in a military hospital the previous night, said his lawyer, Alonso Medina Roa. Captain Acosta was detained on June 21 and charged with treason and conspiring to rebel. He denied the charges.Mr. Medina Roa said the captain had been detained in good health but was in a wheelchair when he was brought into a courthouse on Friday. The lawyer said his client was struggling to speak or move, showed visible signs of beatings, and kept repeating the word “help” to his legal team.

Friday. The lawyer said his client was struggling to speak or move, showed visible signs of beatings, and kept repeating the word “help” to his legal team.

He was taken to a hospital from the courthouse and died hours later, the lawyer said.

Venezuela’s information minister, Jorge Rodríguez, a close adviser to Mr. Maduro, confirmed Captain Acosta’s death on Saturday night and asked the country’s attorney general to investigate the “unfortunate event,” without providing details.The head of the Organization of American States, Luis Almagro, condemned the captain’s death, adding in a message on Twitter that “the crimes of Nicolás Maduro won’t be left unpunished.”

Captain Acosta was one of half a dozen former and active officers who have been detained in the past week over allegations of plotting to overthrow Mr. Maduro. On Wednesday, Mr. Rodríguez presented a video purporting to show Captain Acosta discussing coup plans on a conference call. The video could not be independently confirmed.

Mr. Maduro has survived one coup and one assassination attempt in the past two years, as the country’s economic collapse has weakened his grip on power. His government, however, has also repeatedly used unconfirmed coup accusations to jail and repress political opponents and instill fear in the armed forces.Last year, a detained opposition City Council member in Caracas, Fernando Albán Salazar, fell to his death from a window during his interrogation by intelligence officers. The government claimed it was a suicide.

Mr. Acosta was detained on the day that Mr. Maduro met with Michelle Bachelet, the United Nations human rights commissioner, in Caracas. After the meeting, Ms. Bachelet said she had agreed with the government to evaluate its anti-torture policies.

Her office did not immediately respond to a request for comment following news of Captain Acosta’s death.His wife, Waleswka Pérez, told local reporters that her husband had done nothing beyond discussing in family circles Venezuela’s economic crisis and chronic corruption. She said she had not seen or heard from her husband since his detention.