Individuals who are strong constitutionalists frequently refer to the self-evident truths contained in the Declaration of Independence as one cornerstone of the foundation of our Constitution.

Those self-evident truths are that all men are created equal;  all men are endowed by their Creator (God) with certain unalienable rights, among those life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; and, men institute governments that derive their powers from the consent of the governed to secure the unalienable rights endowed to them by God.

While many can understand unalienable rights and the function of government to protect those rights, the self-evident truth of all men being created equal can elude many of us in expressing how it is that so many different individuals are all equal.

After God created heaven and earth, He created man in His image, granting man dominion over the Earth and all creatures in it (Genesis Chapter 1, v. 28).

God brought forth every creature before man to name the creature;  whatever man called the creature became its name (Genesis Chapter 2, v. 19).

No creature could name itself because God did not bestow upon the creatures of the Earth the equality to man.

God gave man dominion over the creatures.

But, what separated man from the animals?

It was God's gift of speech.

This gift of speech can be described as "the great equalizer of men."

What is it about speech that gives rise to the equality of man?

Aristotle, in The Politics, Book 1, wrote,

"Now the reason why man is more of a political animal than bees or any other gregarious animals is evident. Nature [God], as we often say, makes nothing in vain, and man is the only animal whom she [He] has endowed with the gift of speech.  And whereas mere sound is but an indication of pleasure or pain, and is therefore found in other animals (for their nature attains to the perception of pleasure and pain and the intimation of them to one another, and no further), the power of speech is intended to set forth the expedient and inexpedient, and likewise the just and the unjust. And it is a characteristic of man that he alone has any sense of good and evil, of just and unjust, and the association of living beings who have this sense makes a family and a state."

Because of God's gifts, man, all men, are able to distinguish good and evil, declare what is just and unjust, and possess the ability to form families and states.

Much of this is because of speech.

Speech is the expression of thinking and reason.

And, how do we distinguish what is good and what is evil in order to declare it through speech?

God, through His Word, declared to man the nature of evil and of good and the laws for family and state.

Through freedom of choice, man can choose to recognize it or not, speak it or not, and follow it or not.

Remember, we, as mankind, accept and understand that we will live by laws, reasoning that it is better to live under good laws rather than bad.

But, God left it to man to determine the organization of society by establishing governments intended to best meet the needs of the society.

Thomas Jefferson, in his letter to Roger Weightman in 1826 right before his death, wrote,

"That form which we have substituted [speaking of monarchical government replaced with republican government], restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion.  All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.  The general spread of science has laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately by the grace of God."

If having speech is the great equality of men, then what happens when some men are deprived of their ability to speak – meaning their speech is negated or lessened in value, possibly silenced in totality?

Those men become saddled by a favored booted and spurred few to be ridden illegitimately by the edicts of other men.

To see this illustrated, citizens of the united States need only look no further than some incidences in history and incidences occurring in society today to see where those citing injustices are ignored, having their voice removed from those considering themselves booted and spurred to ride the masses, which they have saddled.

The first and most probable egregious removal of equality of speech occurred with the War to Enslave the States.

Exercising the right to throw off the government that had become destructive to the self-evident truths, the southern states protested the unfair taxation upon items only applicable to southern states, exercising the right to create a new government in a form that would be more suitable to their safety and happiness.

The central US government, under President Abraham Lincoln, refused to recognize the self-evident truths as applicable to the southern states, resulting in a devastating war that saw martial law exacted upon the defeat of the southern states and the direction of the government of the southern states guided by northern politicians.

Remember, the residents of the southern States did not seek to subvert the central government, changing it from its constitutional foundation to another form, nor did these States seek to remove by force from office those who were engaged in unfair practices toward them.

These States sought to end their voluntary association with the central government of the republic to establish a new government to secure their unalienable rights in what they determined to be better suited to them.

The southern States no longer consented to being governed by a government intent on marginalizing a select region of the republic.

The next egregious example of removing equality of speech was the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment – electing Senators by popular vote.

This removed the voice of all the States from the federal government forever changing the foundation of government.

States willingly relinquished their representation in the federal government thereby surrendering their interest becoming subservient to the federal government through eradication of State-interest speech.

The States chose to be saddled so the booted and spurred federal government could ride them further into submission.

It was the ultimate ending started by the War to Enslave the States.

Remember, the States did not have to ratify the Seventeenth Amendment – they chose to do so.

Another egregious example has been the case of Hillary Rodham Clinton and her "mishandling" of classified information through her unsecured home email server.

The government has held individuals committing the same offense as in violation of the law.

Yet, despite finding Clinton in violation of the law, the government chose to allow Clinton impunity.

Meanwhile, the government ignores the masses who have expressed through written and verbal speech the unjust nature in which the government has handled Clinton's crimes.

By removing the legitimacy of that speech, those sitting in positions of authority (booted and spurred) have determined the speech of the masses as "less than" their speech, essentially removing equality and instituting servitude (applying the saddle).

This republic witnessed unlawful, illegal, unconstitutional acts committed by the previous occupant of the Oval Office and those within his administration against the people in general and toward political opposition, attempting to silence their speech.

Despite the outcries of the unjustness of the actions of the man and his administration, government has refused to acknowledge the people, ignored their demands for justice, and allowed these criminals, nay traitors, impunity, which no average citizen or man would be afforded.

Through the refusal to follow the law, despite the conveying of the unjustness of impunity given these criminals, government has removed the equality of the average person to the politicians and elevated government speech above all others, including the law.

As representatives of the people, government officials are to hold to their oath of office to protect, defend and uphold the Constitution.

More often than not, these elected officials govern according to their personal preferences, not the law.

Constituents calling for government officials to honor their oath are ignored, meaning their speech becomes less than the politician, aka government.

Moreover, the political body, who is representative of the people,  refuses to police its own members, punishing those who are disorderly or engaged in criminal activity, or to expel a member when warranted.

The body politic has decided that corruption, criminality, and unsavory behavior are acceptable despite what the people have to say about the unjust nature of being governed by those who engage in lawlessness.

The pedophilia and sexual harassment scandals are but two areas where the House should expel members who refuse to resign.

This shift in government is destructive to the unalienable rights of the people.  And, as long as people consent to be governed under this inequality, the inequality will continue.

An additional problem occurs when government determines one "faction" has more dominion in speech than another.

This example appears in these times through government support of anarchical groups such as Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and Islamists – to name a few.

Other groups receiving dominion over speech of others are illegal alien invaders and those illegal alien invaders pushing for amnesty.

When masses of individuals call out the unjustness of the actions of anarchical groups and those breaking the laws and/or seeking relief from the law for crimes are ignored by those in representative government, who legitimize lawbreakers and anarchists over those advocating for civilized society, their voices are made inferior to the preferred faction, signaling a society where government determines the equality of men.

It has occurred with the factions of large corporations, the wealthy who can donate large sums of money to campaigns and parties, political elites, entertainment and sports industry characters, and special interest groups.

Worst of all, members of government declare their speech to be more important than those who elected them to office, thereby refusing to properly represent their constituents.

This happens at all levels of government – California legislating itself a "sanctuary state" excusing the violations of the law for some "factions" while holding other factions to the law.

It's seen in local government as well – the Newton County Georgia Board of Commissioners unilaterally, without the opinion of the people, closed numerous recycling centers after citizens paid for these centers through additional taxes approximately 20 years ago, while requiring each household purchase a "tag" at a cost of $150 per year to use the facilities remaining open.

In The Federalist Papers, numbers six and ten, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, respectively, warned against "factions" as a danger to the republic while outlining remedies to control "factions" to prevent the subversion of our republic.

The current "party" system can be said to be part of the "faction" problem, as well as splinter groups from within those parties to new "factions" such as Black Lives Matter, Antifa, illegal alien invaders, individuals supporting amnesty, etc.

There are numerous examples to cite where government has marginalized speech of some groups.

Past and present history is riddled with them.

But, why is it that government has morphed into this almost totalitarian creature that ignores the equality of men?

As the Declaration of Independence indicates, government derives its "just" powers from the consent of the governed.

At the outset, the people consented to the republican form of government authorized by the Constitution.

In order for government to remain legitimate, the people have to continue to provide their consent.

As government morphed slowly into the creature it is now, the people, some by virtue of inaction, others by virtue of action, consented for the government to assume evermore-encroaching authority over the lives of the citizens.

This was done through speech.

Those supporting a totalitarian authoritative government were in lockstep with those in government seeking power, whereby representatives of the people in government gave more weight to the speech of those citizens supporting such usurpation while holding less equal the voices of those citizens who declare their actions against our republican form of government.

The continuation of increasing government authority came through citizens electing those individuals to office to perpetuate and expand government authority.

Voting is a form of speech.

With that recognized, parties and politicians alike developed platforms to buy votes to attain power or keep it, swaying the speech to ensure inequality to benefit party and politician, while negating the speech of those against the platform.

What all constitutional supporting individuals should understand is that continued consent is essential for the creature government to continue its expansive authority.

Anti-constitutionalists understand this very well.

Government and the media work together to frame these small "factions" as the larger voice – sometimes the only voice.

A good example of this was the supporters of Obamacare versus those who were not.

Citizens did not advocate for a government health care insurance scheme – it was thrust upon us by government.

Once the atrocity was out there, the small numbers of individuals supporting this stain upon freedom and liberty were portrayed as the majority, instead of a small faction that did not have the best interest of the public at heart – that best interest is freedom and liberty.

Of course, not to be forgotten is the extensive "brainwashing" children and young adults receive through the government indoctrination centers where the future generations are taught that speech espousing freedom is inferior to the ideological "utopia" of speech promoting subservience.

The tool of political correctness serves to negate or belittle the speech of those who advocate for constitutional republican government.

This is a simplified look at what is a complex process.

But, what we can take away from these examples is this – our representatives in government have taken away the self-evident truth that all men are created equal by weighing the speech of some more heavily than others.

Moreover, the government works with other entities to encourage a voluntary relinquishing of the equal right to speech.

As with all rights, no one can take an individual's God-given unalienable right away without that individual's consent.

But, many have not given their consent.

Through subterfuge, chicanery, and the subversion of the media or the "Fourth Estate," into its propaganda arm, the representative government, the agencies of the executive, and constitutional as well as unconstitutional agencies have created an inequality among men based on their contrived system founded in no lawful or just principle, but following the attitude of King George III – being king telling the people what to do and they do as they are told.

Remember, these constitutional and unconstitutional agencies act as all branches of government rolled into one – legislative, executive and judicial – whereby they make the law, enforce the law, and adjudicate individuals' complaints and adverse actions taken against individuals by the agency.

The next step, after recognizing the problem, is to work to correct it.

How do people who have devolved from all men created equal to the state of government imposed gross inequality regain the self-evident truths?

That is up to the people.

First, the people have to see speech as the great equalizer of men.

Many recognized this when a politically incorrect speaker arrived on the political scene "telling it like it is" while running for office of the president under the Republican ticket in 2016.

Donald Trump's recognition of the people as having equality of speech formed his campaign platform giving voice to those the political elitist charlatans ignored.

When speech is unequal and sought to be silenced through political correctness or any other measure, men are no longer equal;  there has developed a system whereby the speech of some are considered more important than others, resulting in the saddling of some to be booted and spurred by the privileged.

The election of Donald Trump to the presidency started the process of returning speech as the great equalizer among men.  [Trump's presidency has been compromised and his campaign platform eroding because of many incidences which are numerous]

But, it cannot stop there.

Just as in 1800, when Thomas Jefferson became president and an overwhelming replacement of both chambers of Congress occurred resulting in a return to the founding principles, the people need to continue their diligence and remove those politicians who have not held to the Constitution, instituting new guards.

It is a process Steve Bannon has started through a grassroots movement to remove establishment party types and RINOs in favor of individuals holding a constitutional view like that of the framers through suffrage (voting).

It takes a fair amount of time to change the guards for our future in order that reason tempers our passion.

While passion may have led to the beginning of change, our reason should dictate it here on out.

Most importantly, the people need to recognize that those elected to hold office are reflective of the people;  if the people are lacking in moral character and lawfulness, elected officials will as well.

The people of this nation need to turn toward God, repent, ask for forgiveness, and go forward in Jesus Christ.

Since we understand that we will live under laws, the first laws to obey are those given by God.

Out of love for one another, we should declare what is just and unjust, moral and immoral, and good and evil as God has imparted this to us.

Some view this republic as "gone with the wind" since those holding political office turned a deaf ear to the people.

Some see it as salvageable by a slim margin;  others sit on the fence.

A growing number of factions are moving toward a merge to cement their "stronghold" over speech, the great equalizer of men.

The character, Benjamin Martin, in the movie The Patriot, said it best when asking, "Why should I trade one tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants one mile away?"

Why should we as constitutionalists submit to the tyranny of marginal factions when these factions operate in lawlessness?

If enough of the people hold dear those values given us by God and espoused by the founding fathers (unalienable rights, liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness), the solution is laid clear for the people by our founders should the people choose to avail themselves of it, declaring what is just and unjust, relying on the protection of Divine Providence, then mutually pledging their lives, fortune and sacred honor to one another.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.