Independence Day should be more than fireworks and festivities—it should be a day of profound reflection and recognition. A day to honor the tremendous sacrifices and unyielding values of the Founding Fathers and American Patriots who defied death and tyranny, breaking free from the oppressive reign of a despotic king and the British Empire. These intrepid souls, fueled by an unwavering commitment to freedom, epitomized moral courage and selflessness. They challenged staggering odds, inspiring generations. However, a disconcerting chasm now gapes between the spirit of 1776 and today’s dominant values. 

Historical accounts tell us that during the American Revolution, less than 45 percent of colonists actively supported independence, according to historian Thomas Slaughter. This reminder underlines that the quest for freedom and justice seldom garners unanimous applause. Often, it’s the morally brave few who defy the status quo, facing mockery, rebuke, and even death. 

Sound familiar? 

Today, citizens face not a lethal external enemy but an insidious domestic one—”cancel culture.” This modern menace, capable of publicly ostracizing individuals, seems a harsher fate than that faced by our forefathers. 

Modern societal norms starkly contrast with the spirit of American independence. We see personal accountability crumble, a government increasingly dismissive of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, a weaponized justice system, and too much of a media landscape that has lost its objectivity. 

The Lexington Minuteman Statue superimposed in American flag against blue sky. Lexington Battle Green, Massachusetts.   (Photo by H. Armstrong Roberts/ClassicStock/Getty Images)

This amalgamation is a formidable threat to the freedom, justice, and individual liberty our founding fathers fiercely fought for. We must not only acknowledge these challenges but also actively strive to re-instill the founding principles of our nation—personal responsibility, limited government, and the safeguarding of individual rights. The question is: are we willing to change course, regardless of discomfort or inconvenience, or will we let the sacrifices of our ancestors be in vain?

From Fox News. Agree with this opinion, especially with the last question above. Read it all.

Yes indeed, Justice Thomas. Yes indeed. For those with ears to hear, listen and understand.

As the Fourth of July approaches in this semiquincentennial year of the Declaration of Independence, the best commemorations will contain some element of civic education—a reflection on the words and deeds of the American Founding. In advance of celebrating what Frederick Douglass called “the first great fact” in our nation’s history, Justice Clarence Thomas delivered a civic cri de coeur at the University of Texas at Austin on the principles of the Declaration and the character necessary for maintaining the American way of life.

Exhibit A was the black American community in which he was raised. Identifying himself as “American by birth and Georgian by the grace of God,” Thomas showed his affection for a country where the black residents of Pin Point, Georgia, affirmed the nation’s “promised ideals” even as they experienced “the indelible mark of segregation and its companion evils.” Their moral fiber in the face of Georgia’s segregation laws and customs taught him his worth as a human being and his rights as an American. As Thomas put it, “At home, at school, and at Church, we were taught that we were inherently equal…. [T]hat you did not get your rights or your dignity from those governments, but from God.” That moral self-understanding, shaped by the ideals of the American Founding and a culture shaped by Christianity, was central to Thomas’s message about the Declaration of Independence.

The venue for Thomas’s civics lesson was UT’s new School of Civic Leadership (SCL), established, as he noted, to teach students about “Western civilization and the American constitutional tradition.” While applauding their efforts to “rejuvenate our fellow citizens’ commitment to the principles of the Declaration of Independence,” he pointed out that SCL’s mission was to offer civic education “as part of a larger quest for wisdom about how to live and how to lead.”

Where critics of these new civic centers view them as ideological silos, Thomas sees SCL as reclaiming the university’s mission as a truth-seeking institution. That means not just presenting answers—like the self-evident truths of the Declaration—but also having debates and arguments about them. “Indeed,” Thomas observed, “your School of Civic Leadership was created to host such arguments.” Foremost among the arguments against America’s Founding principles are those associated with the progressivism championed by Woodrow Wilson, which Thomas identified as bad for both America and the world.

On the domestic front, Thomas contrasted the principles of equality, individual rights, and government by consent of the governed with progressivism’s rejection of the founders’ natural rights philosophy and elevation of rule by experts. Faith in historical progress to determine the proper relationship between the citizen and the state replaced God and nature as the ground of human equality, civil liberties, and legitimate government. The result was a federal government that racially segregated its workforce and eugenics policies that supported the sterilization of persons deemed unfit to reproduce. Thomas demonstrated how a rejection of “the transcendent origin of our rights” led the government to violate equality under the law and basic human dignity.

As bad as these policies were in America, their effects internationally were far worse. Thomas identified Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Mao as the political monsters of the 20th century who claimed to rule in the interest of the masses but served the interests of the few. As Thomas soberly recounted, “Fascism—which, after all, was a national socialism—triggered wars in Europe and Asia that killed tens of millions.” He added, “The socialism of the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China proceeded to kill more tens of millions of their own people.” Thomas didn’t spend much time proving his case; he simply stated his conclusions, inviting any doubters to prove him wrong by considering the available evidence.

With so few college courses required in American history, let alone world history, it’s no surprise that students lack even a passing awareness of the human devastation resulting from the real-world application of theories claiming to supplant the self-evident truths of the Declaration.

Read it all.