The Dark Irony: National Archives Tossed Visitors Wearing Pro-Life Beanies, But HOUSES Declaration and Constitution

P. Gardner Goldsmith | February 12, 2023
Text Audio
00:00 00:00
Font Size

The second of two lawsuits filed by the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) over the course of less than a week sheds light on just how hypocritical some government employees can be.

And it also helps reveal the larger fraud sold to Americans: the fallacy that in “public” places supported by tax money, all people can exercise free speech and assembly – rights supposedly enshrined in the foundational documents of the United States.

Daily Caller’s Katelynn Richardson reports that, following its lawsuit against the federally subsidized Smithsonian Air and Space Museum – where museum employees allegedly berated nine students and three parents who wore March for Life attire inside the building, ACLJ also has filed suit against the National Archives for attempting to expel pro-life-attired visitors who entered THAT tax-funded edifice.

“Four individuals, part of three separate groups visiting the National Archives while in Washington D.C. for the March for Life on Jan. 20, were told by employees to remove their apparel with pro-life messaging, according to the ACLJ. On Friday, following the ACLJ’s filing of a lawsuit, the National Archives said it ‘sincerely’ apologizes for the occurrence, which it is now ‘actively investigating.’”

And while clear-minded observers likely could mention to the National Archives staff that they appear to have been far too involved in politically motivated activity (note the new revelations that people at the Archives appear to secretly have coordinated with Biden lawyers to handle the infamous classified documents he had stashed at the Penn Biden Center), others might notice another dark irony.

Related: Colorado Gov. Signs Exec Order - Claims Power to Tell Hospitals To Turn Patients Away | MRCTV

It's an irony not lost on the team at the ALCJ:

“What is so egregious about this particular targeting is that it was done by the very federal institution that is home to our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, and the Bill of Rights – the exact documents that call on our government to protect the freedoms of speech and religion, not trample on them.”


But, while this does expose the sad hypocrisy of the National Archives team hosting those foundational documents, even as they attack the rights supposedly enshrined in the Constitution, the ACLJ statement actually perpetuates a fallacy: the erroneous idea that government can and will protect the freedoms of speech and religion.

That’s not only impossible from a practical standpoint, it’s a fraud from a logical standpoint, as well.

The only way the political machine can operate – the only way any polis can function – is by forcing people to pay for the so-called “protection” the state supposedly represents and which we are told it provides. That’s circular logic. Any sensible person would define as liars and thieves a group of people claiming that they are “protecting your rights” even as they claim the power to seize your property and arrest you if you don’t pay.

Likewise, the argument that government facilitates or allows people to exercise their rights also is a fraud.

More precisely, it’s rhetoric designed to hide reality.

Anything funded by taxes and run as a “public” place cannot allow all people to exercise all their rights on it or in it.

For example, everyone is supposed to be able to speak freely and assemble freely on public property. But try that in a courtroom.

There, the right to a “fair” trial (how a tax-funded court system is “fair” to anyone is a mystery that never will be answered) must be afforded the accused. But the rights of reporters and people who want to “speak freely” on tax-funded land also are supposed to be sacrosanct.

The two cannot coexist at the same time on that “public” parcel, and so, as always is the case, the government starts to ration the “resource”, divvying it up based on political designs and arbitrary political or bureaucratic preferences, not the preferences of the all people being forced to pay for it.

So this case arising from the dispute in the National Archives serves multiple purposes. It not only shows us how hostile some of the staff appear to be towards free speech when it is speech with which they don’t agree, and it not only offers us a larger irony in the fact that the founding documents are stored there, it helps teach people a lesson in the fundamental problem inherent in all political systems – and how the political pushers have long-pushed a fraudulent narrative about government “protecting” the right to free speech and religious worship.

Related: CNN Settles In Defamation Suit With Covington Teen | MRCTV