Right now in Portland, Seattle, Chicago, and other cities across America, anarchists are rioting in the streets demanding change. That change is centered on the concept that the very existence of the United States is wrong; that somehow these rioters know better than did our Founding Fathers; and if they had been around 250 years ago, this would now be a land of “milk and honey” and not a land of injustice -- so they claim. Are their claims valid? Let’s have a look.

Since everyone seems to have problems with government, ask yourself, why were governments established in the first place? Was it to provide housing for the poor, educate the young, build roads for trade, or to build aqueducts for water distribution? Of course, the answer is "no." So, what is government’s purpose?

Governments were established to provide security, to provide for a common defense. During mankind’s prehistoric, nomadic days, it was family against family and tribe against tribe. The only way to protect your family, or your tribe, was to organize for the common defense. Once a large group gathers together, there must be some type of organized hierarchy or nothing gets accomplished. So, someone was designated the military leader, and that person usually became the tribe’s leader as well -- because he was backed by those who did the fighting. The security that ensued from the “common defense” gave stability to society. It allowed tribes to develop civilizations that then built roads and bridges, educated the populace, developed commerce, etc. However, the #1 purpose of government, at all levels, is to provide security and to protect the populace -- that’s why we tolerate the other inefficiencies of government. Without security, trade doesn’t develop because it will only be stolen. Without security, without protection, nothing else matters. 

The Preamble to the Constitution states that the Constitution was established “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence (sic), to promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

The “more perfect Union” was an attempt to move the colonies from the weak, ineffective, imperfect union under the Articles of Confederation (AC) to a better form of government. The AC had many problems, mostly centered on a lack of power to enforce laws. The colonies needed something “more perfect” to replace the AC.

The worthy attempt by the Constitution to “establish Justice” should be self-evident. The Constitution recognized that we need a government that applies the laws equally to all citizens, regardless of race, color, creed or gender. Throughout our history that has not always been the case. Is that the fault of the Constitution? Or is it more likely that men (and women) are not perfect, never have been, and it is flawed individuals who unequally apply the Constitution and current laws to the immediate situation as they see fit?

The term “domestic Tranquility” refers to peace and order; the ability of citizens to be secure from harm, and for property to be safe from destruction. Tranquility centers on local governments establishing and enforcing laws that create good order and discipline in the community. This goes to the very heart of government which is to provide security and stability. Who would open a restaurant or a trade if security cannot be guaranteed? Or open a business if officials did nothing to lawbreakers? Answer -- nobody. Right now, across the nation, Democrat mayors and governors are failing to provide domestic tranquility. Portland, Oregon has experienced 60 consecutive days of rioting in which large areas of downtown are occupied by anarchists who loot businesses and burn cars; people who interfere are beaten. Yet Portland’s Mayor Ted Wheeler does nothing. Actually, Wheeler supports the rioters in that he told the police to “stand down.” Wheeler even showed up to riot with them and was tear-gassed. The same thing is happening in Seattle, Chicago, and New York. Mayors in those cities have prioritized burning and looting over the domestic tranquility of its citizens. It’s a bizarre world when every single Democrat politician in major cities such as St. Louis, Oakland, Portland, Chicago, and Austin do nothing to prevent businesses from being destroyed. Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot did nothing to the mob that injured 18 police officers protecting a statue of Columbus. Instead, she appeased the mob by having Columbus torn down. In St. Louis, a 300-person mob threatened a family with violence. The family flashed guns to keep the mob away; yet the St. Louis attorney general charged the couple with assault, and did nothing to the threatening mob. Domestic tranquility is trampled when laws are selectively enforced and when lawbreakers (i.e. criminals) are prioritized over the victims.

A regulated and disciplined police force is what insures our domestic tranquility. In what can only be described as domestic terrorism, a war is being waged against law enforcement. It’s unlike anything we’ve ever seen. Never before have elected officials (mayors, councilmen, aldermen, governors, etc.) been openly hostile to the law. In cities and states across the nation, police officers are screamed at, yelled at, beaten, and killed while officials in Chicago, NYC, Minneapolis, and St. Louis do nothing. Actually, they do worse than nothing -- police are told to not enforce the laws. And rioters who get arrested are released with no bail, which only encourages and emboldens further lawlessness. I cannot imagine what citizens in those cities are thinking and experiencing when videos in city after city clearly show that laws are not being enforced, businesses are looted and burned, people are beaten and killed, and politicians do nothing to prevent the destruction.

Getting back to my original question about injustice, these riots have nothing to do with justice or injustice. As Rahm Emmanuel famously said, “never let a crisis go to waste.” This crisis is an attempt to destroy the country. If the Joe Biden anarchists are successful, what would replace the Constitution? Look at Cuba and Venezuela for your answer.