Authored by John & Nisha Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?”
- Thomas Jefferson
What exactly are Americans celebrating this Fourth of July?
Two hundred and fifty years after the Declaration of Independence proclaimed that all people possess inalienable rights, we now live under a government that increasingly behaves as though rights belong to the government to distribute, restrict and revoke as it sees fit.
Freedom has become conditional.
Equal justice under law has become selective.
Constitutional rights have become political bargaining chips.
Government now claims the authority to decide which religious beliefs deserve accommodation and which may be excluded—a clear violation of the First Amendment’s warning against both establishing a religion and favoring or disfavoring one religion over another.
It insists that some speakers deserve constitutional protection while others may be censored, surveilled or punished—a violation of the right to free speech.
It proclaims itself the defender of unborn life while dismantling programs that protect the health and welfare of children already born.
It welcomes some immigrants with extraordinary speed while denying others the full measure of due process promised by the Constitution.
It pays lip service to equality under law while dismantling programs designed to ensure equal opportunity and root out discrimination.
It invokes the sanctity of children while narrowing which children may claim the birthright citizenship guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
It insists that no one is above the law while expanding presidential immunity and removing many of the traditional checks on executive power.
None of these contradictions exists in isolation.
Together they reveal a dangerous shift in the relationship between the citizen and the state.
Rights that the Declaration of Independence described as inalienable are increasingly treated as permissions—granted when convenient, withheld when inconvenient, and interpreted according to political priorities rather than constitutional principle.
That is not merely bad policy.
It is a repudiation of the American Revolution, because the Revolution began with one radical claim: freedom is our birthright.
To listen to those in power, however, freedom is a privilege reserved for a select few: the politically favored, the ideologically acceptable, the obedient, the compliant, the useful.
The Declaration of Independence advanced a very different idea: that all people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.
That was the real revolution.
America’s founders may have disagreed—often grievously and hypocritically—about who qualified as “the people,” but they were united in one essential conviction: our rights do not come from government.
The government exists to serve us.
Government exists to safeguard and protect our inalienable rights—not ration them, redefine them or revoke them.
That distinction matters.
Once government is allowed to decide whose rights count, rights cease to be rights at all.
They become privileges.
And privileges can always be revoked.
For 250 years, Americans have treated the Declaration of Independence as the nation's birth certificate, but the Declaration was never merely a birth certificate—it was a warning label.
It was written by people who understood that freedom is fragile, power is relentless, and no generation remains free simply because an earlier generation fought for liberty.
The Declaration was not a celebration of government.
It was an indictment of government.
It catalogued the abuses of a ruler who had placed himself above the law, treated the people as subjects rather than sovereigns, undermined representative government, obstructed justice, maintained standing armies, imposed surveillance, abused power and waged war against the very people he claimed to govern.
The names have changed. The machinery has changed. The technology has changed.
The danger has not.
That is why the Constitution matters.
The Constitution translated the warnings of the Declaration into law.
Through separated powers, checks and balances, federalism, and a Bill of Rights, the founders sought to bind government down with what Thomas Jefferson called “the chains of the Constitution.”
James Madison understood that the greatest threat to liberty would not come from a foreign king but from our own government if left unchecked.
“If men were angels,” Madison famously observed, “no government would be necessary.”
Because those entrusted with power are not angels, the Constitution—especially the Bill of Rights—was designed to restrain it.
The Constitution assumes that power will seek to expand. That is why it divides power. That is why it checks power.
That is why it places certain freedoms beyond the reach of government majorities, executive decrees, judicial maneuvering and political convenience.
Yet those constitutional restraints are increasingly being loosened—not by formal amendment, but by precedent, emergency powers, executive practice, bureaucratic discretion and public indifference.
The warnings are no longer theoretical.
Even the judiciary has increasingly become part of that transformation.
Rather than serving as a reliable constitutional brake on concentrated power, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly removed barriers that once restrained the executive branch: presidential immunity, limits on nationwide injunctions, and expanded presidential power to fire independent agency officials.
Each decision may be explained on its own legal reasoning. Together they tell a larger constitutional story: the presidency grows stronger, while the people’s ability to restrain it grows weaker.
In Trump v. United States, the Court declared that presidents enjoy sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts, placing many exercises of executive power beyond the reach of laws that govern every other citizen.
In Trump v. CASA, the Court curtailed the power of lower federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions, making it more difficult to halt unconstitutional executive actions before they take effect across the country.
In Trump v. Slaughter, the Court expanded presidential control over supposedly independent agencies by strengthening the president’s power to remove agency officials.
Even where the Court has reaffirmed constitutional protections—as it did in rejecting the Trump administration’s attempt to undermine birthright citizenship—it has still left intact a dangerous constitutional reality: executive overreach can move faster than meaningful accountability.
The founders would have recognized this danger immediately. They had just fought a revolution against concentrated executive power.
Tyranny today may no longer look like King George III, but it is no less dangerous when it arrives wrapped in the language of national security, public safety, emergency management, border control, religious liberty, law and order, governmental efficiency and executive necessity.
It promises protection while steadily expanding surveillance, policing, executive discretion and bureaucratic control. It wraps itself in flags. It quotes Scripture. It invokes patriotism. It salutes the troops.
It speaks the language of freedom while making freedom conditional on obedience.
Thomas Jefferson would have recognized the pattern.
If Jefferson were drafting the Declaration of Independence today, the list of grievances would look strikingly familiar.
Instead of protesting quartered soldiers, he would likely protest militarized police forces equipped like occupying armies.
Instead of denouncing general warrants, he would condemn dragnet surveillance, geofence searches, facial recognition technology and warrantless tracking capable of monitoring millions of innocent people.
Instead of objecting to arbitrary searches of homes and papers, he would confront a government that can peer into our phones, financial records, online communications, travel histories and biometric data with astonishing ease.
Instead of warning against standing armies, he would question a permanent national security apparatus that wages endless wars abroad while steadily importing the tactics of war into policing at home.
Instead of protesting taxation without representation, he might challenge an administrative state that increasingly governs through executive orders, emergency declarations and unelected bureaucracies insulated from meaningful public accountability.
Instead of condemning the obstruction of justice, he would confront a system in which courts too often defer to power, Congress too often abdicates its authority, and presidents increasingly insist they may act first and answer later—if they answer at all.
Instead of accusing a distant monarch of placing himself above the law, he would confront a constitutional system in which the presidency has become imperial, the bureaucracy has become unaccountable, the surveillance state has become omnipresent, and the citizen has been reduced to a suspect, a data point, a taxpayer, a voter, a consumer and, too often, a pawn.
The machinery of power has grown unimaginably more sophisticated, but the central question remains exactly the same: who governs—the people or the government itself?
This is why the Fourth of July matters.
It was never intended as a celebration of government power. It is a celebration of liberty and self-government—the moment ordinary people declared that no ruler, no legislature, no court and no army should ever become too powerful to challenge.
That is precisely the principle now being tested.
Nowhere has this inversion of constitutional government been more visible than under the Trump administration, where rights increasingly appear to depend not on constitutional principle but on political identity, ideological conformity and executive preference.
The danger is not simply that government power is expanding. It is that government is claiming the authority to decide who possesses constitutional rights and who does not.
Freedom of speech, but only for those whose speech government approves. Religious liberty, but only for the beliefs those in power favor. Due process, but only for the people government considers worthy. Equal protection, but only for the politically acceptable. Citizenship, but only for the babies government chooses to recognize. Accountability, but only for ordinary citizens and not for presidents cloaked in immunity.
This is how constitutional government is hollowed out.
Not all at once.
Not always with tanks in the streets.
Not always with a formal suspension of the Constitution.
Liberty rarely vanishes in one dramatic act. It recedes gradually—emergency by emergency, exception by exception, court ruling by court ruling, executive order by executive order, crisis by crisis.
It disappears when due process becomes optional, habeas corpus is treated as expendable, speech is chilled, surveillance becomes routine, government secrecy expands, religious freedom becomes selective, citizenship becomes negotiable, oversight bodies can be fired at will, and executive power grows while meaningful accountability contracts.
It disappears when “we the people” grow so accustomed to fusion centers, surveillance cameras, geofence warrants, AI-assisted policing, militarized SWAT raids, civil asset forfeiture, government watchlists, facial recognition systems, warrantless tracking, endless wars, executive decrees and perpetual states of emergency that constitutional government becomes little more than a ceremonial ideal.
The most dangerous lie of the modern police state is not that government possesses extraordinary powers—it is that those powers are necessary, permanent and beyond question.
Every emergency becomes justification for another exception. Every crisis becomes an opportunity to normalize another expansion of authority. Temporary measures become permanent institutions.
Extraordinary powers become ordinary tools of government. And while the machinery of control expands, the machinery of distraction conspires to keep us from focusing on the government’s self-serving corruption, power grabs and abuses.
Authoritarian regimes require a populace that is too distracted—by spectacle, by outrage, by entertainment, by partisan tribalism, by endless political theater, by what the Romans called bread and circuses, by what we might call militainment—to get outraged enough to do something about the theft of their liberties.
When so-called representatives of the people celebrate power more than liberty, spectacle more than substance, and obedience more than accountability, that is not patriotism. It is conditioning.
The founders understood the danger of that conditioning. They distrusted concentrated power, feared standing armies, insisted on constitutional restraint and placed sovereignty not in rulers but in the people.
They pledged allegiance not to personalities, parties or power, but to enduring ideals and principles.
The founders did not create freedom.
What they created was a constitutional framework designed to preserve it.
Whether that framework survives depends upon whether the American people continue using it.
As America approaches its 250th anniversary, the most important question is not whether the nation survived.
The real question is whether the principles that inspired the Revolution have survived as well.
Have we preserved the belief that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed? Have we preserved the conviction that no one is above the law? Have we preserved the understanding that liberty requires eternal vigilance?
Or have we quietly accepted the idea that rights exist only at the pleasure of those in power?
If we truly wish to honor the spirit of 1776, we must restore the constitutional restraints that made liberty possible in the first place.
Bind the government, including the president, down with the chains of the Constitution.
James Madison understood that written constitutions alone cannot preserve liberty.
Rights written on paper become little more than “parchment barriers” unless the people insist that those limits be honored.
The Constitution cannot defend itself. Neither can freedom.
That was the lesson of independence.
It remains the warning of our time.
The unfinished work of the American Revolution was never about building a stronger government. It was about preserving a free people capable of restraining their government.
Two hundred and fifty years ago, Jefferson wrote that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
He did not write that governments derive their powers from fear. Or emergency. Or efficiency. Or surveillance. Or military strength. Or presidential immunity. Or partisan loyalty.
He wrote that governments exist to secure rights that already belong to the people.
The generation of 1776 pledged “their Lives, their Fortunes and their sacred Honor” because they understood that liberty would never preserve itself.
Our generation is unlikely to be asked to sign another Declaration of Independence.
But we are being asked something just as consequential: whether we will preserve the constitutional safeguards entrusted to us or quietly surrender them for the promise of security, efficiency and political victory.
Every generation inherits the Revolution unfinished.
Every generation must decide whether to continue its work—or abandon it.
As I make clear in Battlefield America: The War on the American People and its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, freedom does not defend itself.
Thus, the question before us is no longer whether America has reached its 250th birthday. The question is whether Americans still believe what made that birthday worth celebrating in the first place.
Preserving that birthright is our responsibility.
The Constitution is not self-enforcing.
Courts will not always protect liberty. Congress will not always defend its authority. Presidents will rarely surrender power voluntarily.
Which leaves only one remaining guardian of constitutional government: We the people.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.
Tyler Durden Sun, 07/05/2026 - 23:20President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could meet as early as next week after the US leader returns from the annual NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey.
That's what Trump told Axios on Saturday after a Friday phone call, wherein the Israeli PM congratulated the American leader on the 250th Independence Day of the United States. Trump said something very interesting in the wake of the call: "We get along very good. [Netanyahu] knows who the boss is," he told Axios.
via ReutersUS-Israel relations have been deeply strained of late, given deep Israeli reluctance on the US-Iran MoU signing, as well as the US-mediated ceasefire in Lebanon.
Israel fears that the end result to a hasty peace could be a nuclear-armed Iran, and some Israeli leaders have gone so far as to say military action must not stop until there's true regime change.
"During their conversation, the Prime Minister said that the United States is a guarantor of global freedom, and that Israel greatly values the close relationship between the two nations. Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Trump agreed to meet soon in the United States," Netanyahu's office said of the Saturday call.
On the issue of controversy over the US-Israel relationship and the push to launch Operation Epic Fury, Axios provides the following:
Indeed there seems of late a concerted White House effort to dispel this narrative. It seems that Trump is at least now more conscientious about it, given he's publicly seeking to assure Americans that Bibi "knows who the boss is."
A prior Trump-Bibi call in June didn't go so well. At that time reports based on US officials indicated that President Trump ripped into Netanyahu, cussing at him and the president essentially 'steamrolled' him - angry over breaking the Lebanon truce and demanding that Israel's military not attack Beirut.
Trump is said to have told Netanyahu "you’re fucking crazy’" while demanding Lebanon truce: "I’m saving your ass," he also reportedly said. Israeli officials have sought to downplay these negative reports...
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dismissed reports of a growing rift with U.S. President Donald Trump, calling their relationship “excellent.”
Speaking to Fox News, Netanyahu said the two have occasional “tactical disagreements,” but added, “In 99% of cases we see eye…
Since then, the US has essentially forced Israel to acknowledge the Lebanon ceasefire - though it should be noted that the IDF occupation has been allowed to continue in southern Lebanon - and direct exchanges of missile fire between Tehran and Tel Aviv has been silenced.
Tyler Durden Sun, 07/05/2026 - 22:45Authored by Janice Hisle via The Epoch Times,
After months of wrangling, the case of Charlie Kirk's alleged assassin, Tyler James Robinson, is now headed toward its first major legal threshold.
Tyler Robinson, accused of killing conservative commentator Charlie Kirk last year, appears during a hearing in Utah's Fourth District Court in Provo, Utah, on Dec. 11, 2025. Rick Egan/The Salt Lake Tribune via AP, PoolRobinson, 23, is accused of fatally shooting Kirk, the 31-year-old founder of the conservative Turning Point USA youth movement, while Kirk spoke at Utah Valley University on Sept. 10, 2025.
During a four-day proceeding set to begin on July 6 in a Utah courtroom, prosecutors must reveal some of the evidence they have against Robinson.
This preliminary hearing requires the evidence to pass two key tests. And the judge overseeing the case has set strict rules for people who will be attending, including news crews.
Here is what to expect, based on general legal principles, Utah law, and rulings from Utah Fourth District Court Judge Tony Graf Jr.
Why The Hearing MattersNot all U.S. criminal courts use a preliminary hearing to put evidence through an initial screening, but Utah courts do.
The hearing is like a "mini trial," which comes with advantages and disadvantages for both sides in a criminal case.
Prosecutors have already shared much evidence with Robinson's lawyers, as criminal law requires. But this hearing requires them to show their cards more specifically.
That will give defense lawyers a chance to poke holes in some of the evidence that prosecutors have against Robinson.
However, prosecutors have a wild card in their favor. At this hearing, they may present some evidence that would not be allowed during a trial.
In Utah, that evidence includes "reliable hearsay" testimony - statements that a witness heard someone else make. Usually, hearsay is forbidden, and witnesses must testify only about what they personally stated or observed.
The law requires prosecutors to present enough evidence to persuade Graf that they have "probable cause." That consists of two parts: First, they must provide sufficient proof that a reasonable person could conclude that the alleged crimes happened. Second, that evidence must show that the accused probably committed those offenses.
Open To The Public, With RestrictionsMembers of the public and news reporters are allowed to attend the preliminary hearing, the judge ruled on June 1, despite objections from Robinson's lawyers. They wanted to close all or part of the hearing.
Instead, access will be granted, subject to limited seating and strict rules, the judge said. He gave a lengthy explanation of the rules on June 26.
The rules are necessary, he said, to ensure everyone's "safety and well-being" and to preserve fair trial rights for Robinson, as well as for Kirk's widow, Erika Kirk.
No one - except specified people - will be allowed to bring electronic devices to Graf's courtroom in Provo, Utah; he is also banning the devices from the entire fourth floor of that building, outside his courtroom.
People who are exempt from that rule include attorneys and their support staff, as well as media personnel who receive Graf's approval.
"In addition, every person who will be in attendance will be afforded the dignity and respect due to them," Graf said.
He cited an order he issued on Sept. 24, 2025, regarding courtroom decorum.
"All spectators shall be quiet, civil, and orderly," Graf said. "Spectators shall not engage in any distracting, disruptive, provocative, disrespectful, uncivil, or threatening behavior of any kind."
Further, he is forbidding attendees from making any gestures, including shaking or nodding heads to signal disagreement or agreement with statements.
No one is allowed "to wear or display pins, buttons, signs, clothing, or photographs expressing support for or against any person," Graf said.
"The court respectfully asks all persons seeking admission to conduct themselves in an orderly and respectful manner while court staff and security personnel carry out their responsibilities, including security screening and the assignment of wristbands for entry into the hearing," he said.
What Could Happen Next?Because probable cause is considered a low bar to clear, it is rare for a case to fail at the preliminary hearing stage.
But if that does happen, the case probably would continue after a delay. Prosecutors would be allowed to add more evidence and refile the charges.
Most preliminary hearings end with the case being "bound over" for trial.
At trial, the standard of proof that prosecutors must meet is the highest in the criminal justice system. It is "beyond a reasonable doubt."
This standard requires "more certainty than any other burden of proof in law," according to Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute.
Beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean beyond all imaginary doubt. It means that the judge or jury is "firmly convinced" that the defendant committed the alleged crimes.
If Robinson is convicted as charged, he could face the death penalty.
Graf on June 26 rejected defense lawyers' request to remove the death penalty as an option. However, he found prosecutors in contempt because they made statements about being able to clear the "reasonable doubt" hurdle.
To remedy that violation of his order prohibiting such an out-of-court statement, the judge said he will work with attorneys on both sides.
They will put together an extra detailed jury selection questionnaire, and a larger pool of potential jurors might need to be summoned, Graf said.
Tyler Durden Sun, 07/05/2026 - 22:10