[image: Capitol Building, Colonial Williamsburg, Va, 2013, JA Van Devender]
Isaiah 1:17 (NKJV)
17 Learn to do good; Seek justice, Rebuke the oppressor; Defend the fatherless, Plead for the widow.
Patrick Henry was probably not a man I would ordinarily invite home for dinner I think. My impression of him, which may be entirely wrong, is that he was one of those sharp-eyed zealots whose demeanor was that of always being "on-edge." I don't think of him as "companionable" in the ordinary sense of the term. That's ok, it's not a criticism, I think it would mean that I would rather have him on my side than against me... but I probably wouldn't have him home for dinner.
It was in this building that Patrick Henry stood and spoke and moved the leaders of colonial Virginia, a very powerful colony, to take strong measures against the unfair, discriminatory taxation that the Parliament of England had imposed them. Something had to be done. The various colonies had to act in concert, not individually, if any hope of recourse might be attained. The taxes were an insult to their standing as "Englishmen" and represented arrogant, arbitrary discrimination against the hard-working colonists who, as they clearly perceived, actually represented the future.... either for England, if she listened, or for themselves, if she didn't. It was a tense, scary time.... but something had to be done... something had to be said... and it needed to come from across the spectrum of colonial America and not just by scattered voices here and there.
I wonder what Patrick Henry would say today? I wonder what speeches he would give and what fiery language would he use. It is openly recognized that certain American tax-payers have been subjected to systematic, sustained harrassment by Federal agencies, pre-eminently by the "Revenooers" in Cleveland. One woman reported that she was subjected to 17 surprise audit/investigations/demands for information in her pursuit of a "non-profit" status for an organization she was forming. Her legal bills amounted to hundreds of thousands of dollars just to provide representation and compliance with the demands.
That is what she endured. Systematic, detailed, abusive and illegal inquiries beyond the scope of any common sense understanding of what might be required to grant non-profit status to a proposed organization. Why was she subjected to this? Because her politics were suspicious. She appeared to be one of those troublesome conservatives that wanted to ensure that the votes that were being cast in various elections were actually those of people who were alive at the time.... she wanted to form a watch dog organization against voter fraud.
Clearly, Patrick Henry would be a mite upset. He might demand to know how this abuse was going to be corrected and he might further demand that criminal proceedings be initiated against those who established such a policy, official or otherwise, that lead to this abuse and the multitudes of other similar abuses.
And what would he say when he read an article such as THIS ONE. Though granting, at least, that these egregious activities were serious mistakes, the authors claim that such events only reflected the unintentional consequences of an over-worked, over-loaded, terribly under-staffed, dispirited group of employees in the Cleveland office of the "Revenooer" organization. Seriously... they make it sound like these poor folks felt so isolated and alone... that they were considered second-class citizens within the "revenooer" population, and, horror of horrors, they were stuck in Cleveland... oh, the shame of it all.
By the time one gets through the article, one is expected to feel a degree of sympathy for those poor guys... perhaps more for them than the woman who endured the abuse... or the others like her. Further, somehow, the idea of an over-worked staff who is sincerely trying to handle their case-work with the utmost efficiency because they have so much of it to do, doesn't square very well with the practice of demanding more and more and more and more detail from the applicants, with an ever expanding list of categories. Why, for example, must a list of donors be provided? Why, for another example, must all e-mail correspondence between the organizers and those they were seeking to enlist in the cause, be presented? Especially in light of the recent example of stone-walling by the Administration in furnishing email correspondence to Congress regarding this and other issues.
I think old Patrick Henry would just shake his head at this situation. He might just walk away saying "it's too late. They're too far gone. Something should have been done much sooner before it ever came to this." I think he might be right in that... but morally, that's no excuse.
It is time, in line with the words of Isaiah above, for us to remember that we have a command from our Lord and God to "do something" about injustice. It is not to be silently tolerated. The "oppressor" is to be "rebuked." Plain speaking and simple expectations are needed.
"There is no excuse for this" should be the first line of argument. "Those responsible must be specifically identified and subjected to legal action, no matter who they are or what office they hold" should be the second. And lastly, who ever they are, they are to be "rebuked", by the united voices of the entire community. Solitary and fragmented voices will be ignored.
We must all stand together or we shall surely die separately. Stand up and take a bow, Patrick... for all your faults at least you spoke up when you were needed.
Oh why do you rattle on so about the Constitution? It's a "living document" that is supposed to adapt and be tailored to fit the times. There's no need for it to be treated and interpreted so narrowly against the greater will and needs of our government and it's citizens. The Supreme Court justices have, on numerous occasions, clearly implied that the Constitution is not the letter of law and rights, but rather the guide by which our nation "evolves", refines and clarifies constitutional boundaries for government and individual.
The Patriot Act doesn't infringe on the 4th Amendment, the justices have told us that this is so.
Government shall have the right to take (force or seize) your private property for the greater good of the local community and that it does not infringe on the 5th Amendment ("..nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation").
The mandated must-purchase provision of ObamaCare doesn't infringe on the 9th and 10th amendments-- the justices have told us that this is so.
So, the IRS doing what it has done with regard to the extra scrutiny of conservative groups; the Department of Justice secretly obtaining telephone records from the AP News Service; and the Executive Branch and Department of State withholding critical information regarding their respective actions pertaining to the Benghazi terrorist attacks and resulting deaths--- all of these actions must therefore be protected by the "flexible and adaptable" nature of the Constitution, after all the government does know whats best for us-- and only has the most noble of intentions in all that it does-- right!?
Posted by: Gordon Lundy | May 20, 2013 at 10:32 AM
Now Gordon... one might think that you are being a bit sarcastic in those comments.... however, since I know you so well, I, of course understand that nothing is further from your mind.... ;>)
Posted by: Gadfly | May 20, 2013 at 11:17 AM