When our Founders wrote the Constitution, they had a sense of noblesse oblige toward this country and its citizens. Too many people in today’s government, despite taking an oath to the Constitution, have no sense of fealty or obligation to America or her people—and they aren’t shy about showing that.

The Smithsonian’s new Futurist exhibit asks the question “When might there be a single global government?” Another asks, “Which of these might unite different people most effectively?” Choices for the answer: Alien invasion; universal language; virtual reality travel; or shared world government.

Let’s see—alien invasion sounds right. So, in addition to having to worry about your children being exposed to Critical Race Theory, pornographic books in the public school library, anti-parenting attacks by the FBI, and pressure regarding gender fluidity for your six-year-old, you now have to worry about a field trip to the Smithsonian.

Everywhere we turn in America, someone or some group is trying to deconstruct our Rule of Law and our culture. In a recent article in the American Thinker called A Broader Oath For Those in National Power Today, we recall that public servants take an Oath of Allegiance to the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.

The Constitution contains rights for individuals from God that most governments in the world do not recognize. Questions in a Futurist display that imply a loss of American sovereignty and a replacement of our Constitution are exactly what those who work for the Smithsonian promise by Oath not to do.

All around us is soft propaganda meant to create in the American people a sense of the inevitability of the loss of the nation. We will be told by some global governance system what to think, what to say, what to do, and what assets we are allowed to have. The unspoken notion is that the Rule of Law in the United States is insufficiently bathed in diversity, inclusion, and equity because our system warrants process, not outcomes. Its focus is on the individual, not the group to which that individual belongs.

The notion of American Liberty involves individual choice with duty and promises an opportunity, not a result. The concepts of diversity and inclusion are warmly embraced—after generations of working toward it—if there is equal merit. There is no such thing as the concept of equity in our system if equity is defined as a surety.

Image by Andrea Widburg

In addition to the exhibit at the Smithsonian, the National Archives indicates that the U.S. Constitution contains “harmful content.” “Harmful content” or “historic content”? The Constitution was written in 1787. It is a document of its time but it contains the ways and means of moving society forward (possibly backward) for future times. This is part of the genius of the document and why it is revered in our country by American citizens. There is nothing harmful about it.

The twenty-seven Amendments are testimony to its flexibility. Americans have even changed their minds. The XVIII Amendment, ratified in 1919, prohibited the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors, and was repealed in 1933. What is called “progress” or “reform” does not always turn out to be so. Our system allows for this change of mind once the “reform” is experienced. Historic documents do not need to be censored; they need to be found, studied correctly, and understood in the context of their times. The Archivist of the United States should know this. He took an Oath of allegiance to the United States Constitution.

Why is this happening? Why are some of those who have prospered the most from the liberties available in the United States interested in replacing the irreplaceable with “shared world government”? And why are those who have chosen to be public servants ignored or deliberately broken their Oaths to God to support the United States Constitution and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same?

Some of the most misunderstood words in the Declaration of Independence are these: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. . .” These words do not mean that all people are created equal; the words mean that all people belong to the same rank. We have no titles of nobility in our social construct, and no religious test, either, as a qualification for public trust.

So, while we rejected the aristocrats of Britain and their inherited duties to the public, we do need persons of high quality and honor who are generous, responsible, and who quietly fulfill their duties beyond their wealth or station on behalf of the People of America. Our country cannot tolerate in our public servants, if we are to be sustained, conflicts of interest, corrupt self-serving, cowardice, weakness, coarseness, ingratitude, faithlessness, ignorance, and Oath breaking.

Political party or group identity are not the markers of who is unfaithful. The ignoble live in all ranks, parties, classes, races, ethnicities, genders, and ages. The shoddy tend to be comfortable where shoddy is accepted. For the honorable, a simple Oath of allegiance is enough. When working on the Constitution during four months in 1787, delegates were asked not to reveal the discussions and debates until the last delegate died. No one broke his word. No one. What went on remained confidential until 1836 when James Madison died.

Would that God would bless us with an American Noblesse Oblige, now.

M. E. Boyd’s Apples of Gold – Voices From the Past that Speak to Us Now is available at www.amazon.com using the title and subtitle.

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.