Should election results be resisted?

Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego recently said that Catholics should be “proud collaborators” with the Biden administration.  On the other hand, Archbishop Vigano, the former Papal Nuncio to the U.S., frames the current conflict between Trump and Biden as part of an apocalyptic struggle between good and evil.  And he urges Catholics to resist the leftist attempt to “reset” the culture.

(Article by William Kilpatrick republished from TurningPointProject.com)

Although a significant number of Catholics agree with Vigano, a great many others, even those who aren’t happy with Biden, feel that you just have to accept the results of the election and move on.  There is, of course, a good chance that Biden’s “victory” may be overturned if sufficient election fraud is uncovered by Trump’s legal team.  But if that doesn’t happen, should that be the end of it?  Should the Catholic resistance cease and deist, and simply work toward a better result in the mid-term elections?

That largely depends on what sort of a situation we’re in.  Are we in the midst of a normal transition of power from a right-of-center party to a left-of-center party both of which share the same basic values?  Clearly not.  The two parties can no longer agree on what the Declaration of Independence calls “the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”  One party, on the whole, accepts the Judeo-Christian view that marriage should be between one man and one woman.  The other party holds that idea in contempt.  One party maintains that there are only two sexes; the other party believes that there are an infinite number.  What’s more, the party of the second part believes it has the right to force the party of the first part to believe as they do.  Or else the non-conformists will be subject to reputation loss, job loss, and financial loss.

The two parties are even in disagreement about the purpose of government.  One party believes, per the Declaration of Independence, that governments are instituted among men primarily to protect life and liberty.  By contrast, the protection of life, liberty, and property are far down the list of priorities subscribed to by the other party—many notches below the protection of the environment, the right of 8-year-olds to choose their own gender, and the right of educators to teach children to hate their country.

If the first duty of a government is to protect the life and liberty of its citizens, then a good case can be made that the Democrats are not qualified to lead the government.  Few prominent Democrats spoke out about the rioting, looting, and assaults that occurred in hundreds of cities during the spring and summer of 2020.  Few seemed concerned with calls to defund and/or abolish the police until some realized that silence on the issue might affect their chances for re-election.  In short, the “party of the people” doesn’t seem to care if there are no police to defend the people.  What’s more, as evidenced by their penchant for gun control and even gun confiscation, they want to take away the people’s ability to defend themselves.

Democrats seem to lack enthusiasm for the Second Amendment. How about the First? Freedom of speech? Sure. But only if they approve of what you say. Otherwise you can look forward to six months of sensitivity training. The right of assembly? Yes, but only if you limit your assembly to ten people, put on your mask, practice social distancing, and refrain from inappropriate speech. Freedom of religion? That’s perfectly okay as long as your church doesn’t teach anything that conflicts with approved secular doctrine.

As we’re rapidly learning, the left-liberal establishment is no friend of the Constitution or of the liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights. This brings us back to the question of whether or not Catholics and other citizens are bound to accept the election results.  If the election of a Democratic administration means the end of Constitutional government, are citizens constitutionally required to abide by the election results?  If, for example, a pro-slavery party had somehow managed to win the election, would the rest of the country be obliged to accept the re-establishment of slavery?

If a present-day pro-slavery party seems unimaginable, suppose that a pro-environment, pro-population control party came to power. And suppose one plank in their platform called for the culling of a certain percentage of people above the age of 80 and below the age of two. This would be by lottery, of course, to give everyone an equal chance. That’s not quite so hard to imagine, is it? But should we insist that because the population control party won the election fair and square, the rest of us must fall in line?

In short, is there a point at which citizens are justified in rejecting duly appointed leaders? The Declaration of Independence unequivocally states that there is such a point.  To wit: “Whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government…”  After which comes a qualifier: “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes…”  However, “when a long train of abuses and usurpations… evince a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” Two sentences later, the Declaration reiterates the right to alter the government when its leaders are usurping the rights of the people and attempting to establish an “absolute Tyranny.”

The question for us is whether or not we have reached the stage of absolute tyranny.  Have we? No not quite yet.  The governing class still pays lip service to the Constitution, and they do not yet control every aspect of our lives.  But they are very close to doing that.  And because they have far more resources at their disposal, they are capable of establishing a far more total tyranny than King George could ever have imagined. They aspire not only to control behavior, but also thoughts.

How do you control thoughts?  By controlling access to information. It’s difficult to think clearly about a situation if you are poorly informed about it.  And the woke among us have become very skilled in the science of controlling what we’re allowed to know.

Here’s a case in point.  A new survey conducted by the Media Research Center (MRC) found that media censorship of news stories damaging to Biden gave him the edge in the election.  The MRC found that “one of every six Biden voters we surveyed (17%) said they would have abandoned the Democratic candidate had they known the facts about one or more of these stories.”  For example, 35.4 % of Biden voters were unaware of “Biden sex assault allegations” and 8.9 % of those voters say they would have changed their vote if they had known.  Likewise, an amazing 45.1 % of Biden voters were unaware of the “Hunter Biden scandal,” and 9.4 % of those would have changed their vote if they had known.  The MRC study concluded that had voters not been kept in the dark about these and six other stories, Trump would have won the election handily.

The MRC poll and numerous other similar revelations suggest that the Orwellian future we have long feared has arrived ahead of schedule.  As in Orwell’s 1984, inconvenient facts are dropped down the “memory hole,” or else—as in the incriminating facts on Hunter Biden’s laptop—they are not allowed to surface in the first place.

Obviously, we are no longer dealing with a single person (such as King George) or a single party (such as the Democrats), but with a ruling elite—a governing class made up of like-minded people in government, media, academia, and big business.  This governing class is agreed that there are certain things that people should be allowed to know, and certain things that they must not even think about.

It looks as though this elite class (which from one point of view is a traitor class,) has launched a seemingly successful coup attempt against our existing Constitutional order.  Prominent members of the Democratic Party—the political wing of this elite movement—have already made clear that they plan radical changes to the Constitutional system of checks and balances.  By packing the Supreme Court, extending voting rights to D.C., Puerto Rico and territories yet to be named, and by transforming illegal immigrants into registered Democrats, they hope to secure permanent and absolute one-party rule.

In the language of the Declaration of Independence, they are the usurpers whose “direct object is the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states.”  With the help of their accomplices in big business, media, academia, and the deep state, they are in the process of dismantling the system of government created by the authors of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  In this light, President Trump’s refusal to concede the election is not an attempt to alter or abolish our still-existing system of government, but to preserve it and– to the extent that it is being hijacked– restore it.  President Trump’s determination not to yield the American system of government to a massive left-wing conglomerate intent on destroying that system seems consistent with the intent of the founders. They were men who devoted much of their lives to the cause of resisting usurpation and restoring liberty.

They were aware, however, that the survival of liberty depended not only on the content of constitutions, but also on the character of the people. As John Adams observed, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

That’s a powerful insight. As the influence of the Judeo-Christian heritage on our society declines, we can see the truth of it. Once American citizens and their political leaders lose their moral compass, there is no system of government or electoral process that can’t be corrupted.

Such people and their utopian schemes should be resisted to the best of our abilities.  There is no duty to submit to tyranny.  However, there is a duty to resist peacefully if at all possible.  If they are principled, the Democratic leadership will have no objection to this resistance.  After all, they’ve been resisting the last election for the last four years.

Read more at: TurningPointProject.com