America’s Secret Constitution: How The Civil Rights Act of 1964 Empowered The Progressive Takeover of The Nation
PART ONE of TWO Articles
The civil rights movement led by Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was clearly hijacked by radicals…
Affirmative action was the mutant cell that would metastasize into the cancerous tumor of political correctness.
The United States had not only acquired two constitutions, but the people also sorted themselves into two sets of citizens (two countries).
The Tea Party uprising and its political mirror image, the Black Lives Matter uprising, were symbols of that division.
When you see one party arresting the strongest candidates from its opposition party, that is not a sign that the nation has grown stronger… That is a sign that your nation is close to falling for good.
By Brad Ward, Director, Armor of Truth
On June 9, 2001, just three months before 9-11, Bill Clinton addressed his classmates and other Georgetown University alumni at a class reunion. While reflecting on political division in the United States, the former president, a man so averse to honesty that he picked up the nickname “Slick Willy,” just so happened to utter a shockingly relevant truth to his fellow Hoyas. Clinton remarked,
“If you look back on the ’60s and on balance you think there was more good than harm, you’re probably a Democrat. If you think there was more harm than good, you’re probably a Republican.”
Twenty-three years later, as America suffers a pernicious infection of authoritarianism, Clinton’s veritable revelation helps to expose the root cause of the suspicion so many of us share: that the US Constitution has become a dead letter.
It’s still there as a symbol. In the public square, Right Wingers and Patriots invoke the Constitution frantically as if the Bill of Rights were a magic spell that should instantly convert the hearts of the oddly well-fed campus communists, woo the fashionable Marxists right out of their berets, and convince the oddly well-to-do anti-capitalists of the error of their ways while they denounce the document as the oppressive product of colonialism and white supremacy — apparently aloof to the irony of their invective as they bawl out the selfsame Founders from whom they benefit and borrow from so abundantly.
But freedom is not symbolic. Freedom implies risk, even danger, and requires vigilance and an educated defense. Sadly, the founding framework that enables and secures such spirited bickering is no longer honored or enforced and perhaps, it has even been replaced.
Replaced by what?
How did this happen?
WHAT has happened?
The root cause of our suspicion is worth finding. For therein lies the understanding that could help us restore the republic — should that be God’s will.
VIDEO:
BOOK Recommendation: The age of entitlement: America Since the Sixties. By Christopher Caldwell. (2020) Simon & Schuster.
In order to get at that root cause, satisfy the inquiries above, and understand where it all went wrong to empower ourselves to make that educated defense of the God-given wisdom of the Founders and mount a comeback we need to define some terms and then learn some history.
In his 2020 book, The age of entitlement: America Since the Sixties, author, columnist, and public intellectual Christopher Caldwell presents a straightforward thesis:
The United States is divided by two rival political forces loyal to two rival constitutions.
The “de jure” “Constitution of 1788,” the founding document enshrining liberty, is in direct conflict with the “de facto” “Constitution of 1964,” the reflexive shadow code in which all expectations turn on the hinge of equality. Those who honor “freedom of association” (the “master freedom”), clash constantly with the advocates of “affirmative action” and “political correctness,” the “twin pillars of the second constitution.”
At its core, this is an ideological conflict. However, this rivalry also divides Americans along the lines of class, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, and perhaps more provocative than all the rest, this second rival convention divides us, and worse, provokes us according to race.
The Constitution of 1788, championed by secular conservatives, and Christian traditionalists was heavily influenced by Puritan separatists who brought with them to the New World a form of government that stands on the unchanging, eternal truths of God’s Word.
This “original” Constitution is organized around ideals of a family unit meaning marriage between one man and one woman, therefore, heterosexual and meant for the purposes of happiness, procreation, and a thriving god-glorifying society with the husband as head of the household serving the family as provider and protector and serving the community as an honorable, trustworthy, productive member, and the wife serving the family as keeper of the home, provider of sustenance, personal and emotional care and the nurturing and education of children all of which serve the community and the nation by solidifying its true foundation, the spiritual, emotional, and physical well-being of its people.
At the symbolic heart of the 1788 Constitution is the Protestant work ethic, a term popularized in the early 20th century by German sociologist Max Weber, a way of life that emphasizes hard work, discipline, diligence, honesty, individual responsibility, service, self-reliance, punctuality, frugality, moral excellence, and to do all of this to the glory of God, seeking God’s favor through obedience to His Word.
With all of this working together as the hinge on which the whole enterprise turns, Protestantism and its influence on the founding of the American system of government created the circumstances for the rise of American as a strong, prosperous nation built on the principles of free market economy, a strong commitment classical Christian education, close-knit community life, and individual responsibility through which the nation thrived and grew into a prosperous and powerful force for good in the world as a beacon of liberty and justice for all.
Standing in opposition to the Constitution of 1788 and everything it stands for is the so-called Progressive movement, the Leftists, the 20th century Democratic party. As Caldwell writes, “Backing the Constitution of 1964, [is the] rainbow coalition of professional-managerial class whites and racial minorities.”
It is their goal, both stated, and acted upon to fundamentally change America and turn it away from the above mentioned principles that have given generations the opportunity to be free, to thrive, and to make their own life in the only nation in the history of the world, even with its sinful flaws, where a person could come with nothing and have the freedom, and equal opportunity to build a life of his liking, and to pursue happiness with the US Constitution as the instrument that defends and secures his universal, inalienable, God-given rights.
Between the two is a no-man’s-land, a political wasteland in which all must “choose between these two orders.” The parties are locked in mortal combat, and only one can prevail.
To really understand where we are right now in this dizzying downward spiral, we need to know more about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Since it is far too common for trolls, grifters, and dimwits to attack out of ignorance that which they haven’t bothered to understand, and especially since we seek to honor Christ and glorify His name in all we do, it is very important to first state the biblical position on equality.
Genesis 1:27 “So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him;
male and female He created them.”
To be made “in the image” of God means, among other things, that all men and women have intrinsic value and dignity as God’s unique creation through which He works His will. God came into the world as a man, Jesus Christ, the God-man, to be the way, the truth, and the life for lost sinners. God and man are compatible in ways that no other created being can be. The “image” of God means that all human beings possess knowledge, feelings, and a will. We can make moral judgments and have a conscience. All human beings possess spirituality, and since God is Spirit (John 4:24) that means that man is made for communion with God.
Proverbs 22:2, “The rich and the poor have a common bond, The Lord is the maker of them all.”
John 7:24, “Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.”
Romans 2:11, “God shows no partiality.”
Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor
female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
So, when we endeavor to apply critical analysis to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, let it be known here that we are NOT criticizing the urge people have to ensure that all people are treated fairly and justly, and are not unfairly discriminated against or harmed because of for physical traits or features, or societal positions that have no bearing on the content of their character. Our purpose is to demonstrate how such a feature of the human heart, like compassion, and care for others (evidence of God’s image) can be manipulated and taken advantage of by intentional bad actors. That is the subtext of the story of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — The goodwill of Americans was exploited and the consequence of it was the adulteration of the American system of government, the same system that made equality before law possible in the first place.
"Civil rights"
refer to the rights of individuals to receive equal treatment (and to be free from unfair treatment or discrimination) in various settings, including employment, education, housing, and more, based on certain legally-protected characteristics. Typically, these rights are grounded in the principles of freedom and equality enshrined in national constitutions and laws. They protect individuals from any form of discrimination or repression by the government or other entities, ensuring fairness regardless of race, gender, age, religion, nationality, disability, or other characteristics. Civil rights movements around the world have sought to secure these fundamental rights for all members of society, especially for marginalized groups.
The Civil Rights Act was a milestone in American history and it has typically always been assumed that it only represented positive change. A dastardly sinful expression of racism and oppression was certainly present in the nation, however, as it turns out, it was not the best idea to give the federal government extra powers to quash it. The problem was spiritual. The solution should have been spiritual. No spiritual problem can be adequately solved through political solutions. The act moved fast because the appeals to emotion led to cries for fast action which led to the circumvention of the democratic process of debate and refinement of legislation. This has now become the cry of the climate change alarmist movement. They’re saying the same thing in a different context:
“We don’t have time to talk about it. There’s no time for debate. The science settled. We’re all going to die if we don’t skip the debates and just create these new laws and restrictions.”
The Civil Rights Act was a direct response to the escalating civil rights movement and the widespread protests and demonstrations across the country. The movement gained momentum among the people following events like the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, where Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his iconic “I Have a Dream” speech.
VIDEO: Martin Luther King - I Have A Dream Speech - August 28, 1963
The pressure from these events mounted and it seemed that something must be done fast to abate this moral offense.
The act did face some fierce resistance, especially in the southern states, and among certain legislators in Congress. The House Rules Committee tried stalling it, and the bill endured a 57-day filibuster in the Senate—one of the longest in U.S. history. However, the persistence of its supporters and the growing cries for fast justice coming from the American populace eventually tipped the scales.
CLICK BELOW NOW:
Continue Reading PART TWO Of This Article
Download the Armor of Truth Mobile App! Free