What`s More Important: Liberty Or The Entity That Protects It?

Let me ask readers a question. What`s more important:
freedom and its undergirding principles, or the entity
meant to protect it? A word of caution: be careful how
you answer that question, because the way you answer
marks your understanding (or lack thereof) of both
freedom and the purpose of government.

Thomas Jefferson–and the rest of America`s
founders–believed that freedom was the principal
possession, because liberty is a divine–not human–gift.
Listen to Jefferson:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men
are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men."
(Declaration
of Independence)

Jefferson could not be clearer: America`s founders
desired a land in which men might live in liberty. By
declaring independence from the government of Great
Britain (and instituting new government), Jefferson, et
al., did not intend to erect an idol (government) that
men would worship. They created a mechanism designed to
protect that which they considered to be their most
precious possession: liberty. In other words, the
government they created by the Constitution of 1787 was
not the object; freedom`s protection was the object.

Again, listen to Jefferson:
"That to secure
these rights, Governments are instituted among Men."
In other words, government is not the end; it is the
means. Government is not the goal; it is the vehicle
used to reach the goal. Nowhere did Jefferson (and the
rest of America`s founders) express the sentiment that
government, itself, was the objective. Listen to
Jefferson once more:

"That whenever ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People
to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
Government, laying its foundation on such principles and
organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall
seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
(Declaration) (Emphasis added.)

Jefferson is clear: people have a right to alter or
abolish ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT that becomes destructive
to liberty. To America`s founders, there was no such
thing as a sacred cow when it came to government.
Government had but one purpose:
"to secure these rights." When ANY FORM of government stops
protecting sacred, God-given liberties, it is the right
and duty of people to do whatever they deem appropriate
to secure their liberties–even to abolishing the
government.

To America`s founders, patriotism had everything to do
with the love of liberty, not the love of government!

Today`s brand of patriotism (at least as expressed by
many) is totally foreign to the fundamental principles
of liberty upon which America was built. I`m talking
about the idea that government is an end and aim in
itself; the idea that government must be protected from
the people; the idea that bigger government equals
better government; the idea that criticism of the
government makes one unpatriotic; the idea that
government is a panacea for all our ills; and the idea
that loyalty to the nation equals loyalty to the
government. All of this is a bunch of bull manure!

When government–ANY GOVERNMENT–stops protecting the
liberties of its citizens, and especially when it begins
trampling those liberties, it has become a
"destructive"
power, and needs to be altered or abolished. Period.

Can any honest, objective citizen not readily recognize
that the current central government in Washington, D.C.,
long ago stopped protecting the God-given rights of free
men, and has become a usurper of those rights? Is there
the slightest doubt in the heart of any lover of liberty
that the biggest threat to our liberties is not to be
found in any foreign capital, but in that putrid
province by the Potomac?

Therefore, we must cast off this phony idea that we owe
some kind of devotion to the
"system." Away with the notion that vowing to protect and prolong
the "powers that
be" makes us
"good" Americans. The truth is, there is very little
in Washington, D.C., that is worthy of protecting or
prolonging. The
"system" is a ravenous BEAST that is gorging itself
on our liberties!

Patriotism has nothing to do with supporting a
President, or being loyal to a political party, or
anything of the sort.

Is it patriotic to support our country (which almost
always means our government),
"right or wrong"? This is one of the most misquoted clichés in
American history, by the way. Big Government zealots (on
both the right and the left) use this phrase often to
try to stifle opposition by making people who would
fight for smaller government appear
"unpatriotic."

The cliché, "My country, right or wrong," comes from a short address delivered
on the floor of the US Senate by Missouri Senator Carl
Schurz. Taking a strong anti-imperialist position and
having his patriotism questioned because of it (what`s
new, right?), Schurz, on February 29, 1872, said,
"The senator from
Wisconsin cannot frighten me by exclaiming, `My country,
right or wrong.` In one sense I say so, too. My
country–and my country is the great American Republic.
My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right;
and if wrong, to be set right." (Source:
The Congressional
Globe, vol. 45, p.


1287)

Schurz then later expanded on this short statement in a
speech delivered at the Anti-Imperialist Conference in
Chicago, Illinois, on


October 17, 1899.
He said, "I
confidently trust that the American people will prove
themselves . . . too wise not to detect the false pride
or the dangerous ambitions or the selfish schemes which
so often hide themselves under that deceptive cry of
mock patriotism: `Our country, right or wrong!` They
will not fail to recognize that our dignity, our free
institutions and the peace and welfare of this and
coming generations of Americans will be secure only as
we cling to the watchword of TRUE patriotism: `Our
country–when right to be kept right; when wrong to be
put right.`" (Source: Speeches, Correspondence and
Political Papers of Carl Schurz, vol. 6, 1913, p. 119)
(Emphasis in original.)

Amen! In a free society, genuine patriotism demands that
our country be RIGHT, as our nation`s policies and
practices reflect the values and principles of its
citizens. To feign some kind of robotic devotion to a
nation without regard to sacred principle or
constitutional fidelity is to become a mindless
creature: at best, to be manipulated by any and every
Machiavellian that comes along, or, at worst, to be a
willing participant in tyranny.

As to loyalty to a President merely because he is
President,


Theodore Roosevelt may have said it best:

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not
mean to stand by the President or any other public
official save exactly to the degree in which he himself
stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him
insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is
unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that
by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to
stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic
not to tell the truth–whether about the President or
anyone else."

Hence, freedom-loving Americans cannot afford to become
infatuated with Washington, D.C. We cannot allow these
propagandists on network television to distort the
meaning of true patriotism in our hearts.

Patriotism means we love freedom. It means we understand
that freedom is a gift of God. It means we understand
that government has only one legitimate function: to
protect freedom. It means that our love of liberty
demands that we oppose, alter, or even abolish ANY FORM
of government that becomes destructive to these ends.
And it means that we will never allow government to
steal liberty from our hearts.

As I asked at the beginning of this column, What`s more
important: freedom and its undergirding principles, or
the entity meant to protect it? The right answer is,
freedom and its undergirding principles. If you
understand that, then you rightly understand that the
current government we find ourselves under is in
desperate need of replacement. And whatever, however,
and whenever that replacement reveals itself is not
nearly as important as that liberty is preserved.

On the other hand, if you mistakenly believe that
government (the entity meant to protect liberty) is more
important than liberty, you are both tragically deceived
and pathetically impotent to preserving freedom. You may
also have identified yourself as an enemy of freedom.

As for me and my house, we will stand with Jefferson`s
Declaration of Independence–in whatever form it may
present itself in a modern world bent on dismantling our
liberties. In other words, I pledge no loyalty to any
government that seeks to destroy our freedom–including
the current one!

Dr. Chuck Baldwin is the
pastor of Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola,
Florida. He hosts a

weekly radio show. His
website is

here.