Obama Says “Islam Woven Into Fabric Of Our Nation”: Yes, They Gave Us The Marines And Our First Wars

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Decatur_Boarding_the_Tripolitan_Gunboat

 

Hat/Tip to Doug Ross @ Journal and Keith Farrel at the Federalist Papers Project.

“Here in America, Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding.” Barack Obama, 2015

Really, Mr. President? How so?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Obama Claims Islam Part Of Founding; Here’s The Truth In The Founders Own Words

President Obama has continually asserted that Islam was “woven into the fabric” of the United States since its founding. Obama claims that Muslims have made significant contributions to building of this nation. The claim is laughable to anyone who has studied US history. Historian David Barton spoke to Glenn Beck and tore the president’s claims apart.

Barton found the first real contribution any Muslim made was in 1856 (80 years after the founding) when then Secretary of War Jefferson Davis hired one Muslim to help train camels in Arizona. Not exactly a resounding contribution, since the plan to fight Native Americans via camelback was soon dismissed.

But Muslims did have an influence on early America, and that influence was one of a foe. After winning its independence from England, American vessels no longer enjoyed British protection. France, dismayed that the US would not aid it in its war against England, also ceased protection of American ships. The result led to American vessels being raided and plundered by Muslim pirates from the Barbary Coast.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

After agreeing to pay 10% of the new nations dismal GDP in exchange for passage, attacks continued. Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin were sent as representatives to mediate the problem. It was there that they discovered that the Islamic law the pirates followed made it their duty to attack non-Muslims.

“The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise,” Jefferson wrote to Secretary of State John Jay, explaining peace was not possible.

Ben Franklin wrote of his experience: “Nor can the Plundering of Infidels be in that sacred Book (the Qur’an) forbidden, since it is well known from it, that God has given the World, and all that it contains, to his faithful Mussulmen, who are to enjoy it of Right as fast as they conquer it.”

John Adams, in his report to Jay, wrote of the Muslim prophet Muhammad, and called him a “military fanatic” who “denies that laws were made for him; he arrogates everything to himself by force of arms.”

By the time Jefferson became president the Barbary coast was extorting 25% of US GDP and attacks were still occurring. Jefferson wasted no time in signing a war powers request which launched the US’s entire naval fleet to wage war on the Barbary pirates. The US Marines were born. Jefferson saw the fleet off, ordering the US sailors to chase the pirates all the way to Tripoli, giving rise to the famed verse from the US Marines’ anthem.

President Obama is correct when he says that Muslims shaped this country, just not in how he means. They provided the context and need for the US Marines and provided our first lesson in battling extremism: It cannot be appeased. Extremism must be routed out through force.

.

.

.

Share

Obama Says Islam “Woven Into Fabric Of America,” Agreed: First Foreign War USA Fought Was Against Islamic Jihad

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

?????????????????????????????

Hat/Tip to Cardigan at IOTWReport.com.

Once again our President proves how ignorant he is of the facts of history.

*sigh*

Obama Says That “Islam Has Been Woven Into The Fabric Of Our Country Since Its Founding”. Yes, Its Called The Barbary Pirate Wars, The First War America Ever Fought Against Jihad.

Obama Says That “Islam Has Been Woven Into The Fabric Of Our Country Since Its Founding”. Yes, Its Called The Barbary Pirate Wars, The First War America Ever Fought Against Jihad. It Is Because Of Islamic Jihad That America Founded The US Marines. 

Shoebat—Islam, is in fact, a part of America’s founding, but not in the sense that Obama wants to convey to us. Islam did a very good job in deceiving some of our Founding Fathers, and once that deception lost its touch, it compelled the United States to launch its first international war that would ultimately lead to the formation of the United States Marine Corps. This international war was the Barbary Pirate Wars.

Joshua E. London wrote a very detailed on article on the Barbary Pirate Wars and I would like to convey some of the things that he has written.

It has been stated that around 1 million European Christian sailors from France, Spain, Holland, Great Britain, the Americas, and even Iceland, were captured by Muslim pirates in between 1500 and 1800. What happened many times was that the sailors would be stripped of all their belongings, including the clothes on their backs, and forced to go into North Africa where they would be slaves to Muslims.

When we finally did engage the enemy in war, in usual American fashion, we kicked ass.

When war was commenced against the Barbary pirates, there were many great and illustrious acts of valor done by the American warriors. For example, in 1803 Com­modore Edward Preble defeated the Muslims and retook the USS Philadelphia with muskets, swords and tomahawks, thus rescuing hundreds the Americans were taken into captivity. Even Pope Pius VII said the Americans, after gaining such a victory, “had done more for the cause of Christianity than the most powerful nations of Christendom have done for ages.”

The author has this final message for Obama.

So yes, Islam is part of America’s fabric, from its founding: it introduced to America the deception of Islam, and the nature of Jihad.

Read the full story here.

.

.

.

Share

What Thomas Jefferson Knew That Paul Krugman Never Learned

Share

federal-reserve

 

And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, May 28, 1816.

H/T to Robert Gore of the Straight Line Logic blog

Of course, Thomas Jefferson wasn’t an economist with a Nobel prize; so what did he know? He knew the risks ofdeficit financing, that’s what!

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

.

.

Share

The Life & Times of Thomas Jefferson

Share
Thomas Jefferson 003
Thomas Jefferson, 2nd President of the United States, author of The Declaration of Independence and founder of the University of Virginia

Thomas Jefferson came into this world on April 13, 1743 in Shadwell, Virginia. He was born into a very prestigious family, with near royal lineage on his mother’s side. His father gave him his work ethic, and it seems he passed his intelligence down to Thomas.

Jefferson was born into one of the most prominent families of Virginia’s planter elite. His mother, Jane Randolph Jefferson, was a member of the proud Randolph clan, a family claiming descent from English and Scottish royalty. His father, Peter Jefferson, was a successful farmer as well as a skilled surveyor and cartographer who produced the first accurate map of the Province of Virginia. The young Jefferson was the third born of ten siblings.

As a boy, Thomas Jefferson’s favorite pastimes were playing in the woods, practicing the violin and reading. He began his formal education at the age of nine, studying Latin and Greek at a local private school run by the Reverend William Douglas. In 1757, at the age of 14, he took up further study of the classical languages as well as literature and mathematics with the Reverend James Maury, whom Jefferson later described as “a correct classical scholar.”

In 1760, having learned all he could from Maury, Jefferson left home to attend the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia’s capital. Although it was the second oldest college in America (after only Harvard), William and Mary was not at that time an especially rigorous academic institution. Jefferson was dismayed to discover that his classmates expended their energies betting on horse races, playing cards and courting women rather than studying. Nevertheless, the serious and precocious Jefferson fell in with a circle of older scholars that included Professor William Small, Lieutenant Governor Francis Fauquier and lawyer George Wythe, and it was from them that he received his true education.

Jefferson becomes a lawyer and marries quite well.

Martha Jefferson
Martha Jefferson

After three years at William and Mary, Jefferson decided to read law under Wythe, one of the preeminent lawyers of the American colonies. There were no law schools at this time; instead aspiring attorneys “read law” under the supervision of an established lawyer before being examined by the bar. Wythe guided Jefferson through an extraordinarily rigorous five-year course of study (more than double the typical duration); by the time Jefferson won admission to the Virginia bar in 1767, he was already one of the most learned lawyers in America.

From 1767-’74, Jefferson practiced law in Virginia with great success, trying many cases and winning most of them. During these years, he also met and fell in love with Martha Wayles Skelton, a recent widow and one of the wealthiest women in Virginia. The pair married on January 1, 1772. Thomas and Martha Jefferson had six children together, but only two survived into adulthood: Martha, their firstborn, and Mary, their fourth. Only Martha survived her father.

His early political life was perceived as ‘radical’ at the time. I would compare him to a Ted Cruz or a Rand Paul or a Marco Rubio of our times, in that his views of personal liberty, private property rights and limited government were at odds with the British loyalists of the day.

Thomas Jefferson was one of the earliest and most fervent supporters of the cause of American independence from Great Britain. He was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses in 1768 and joined its radical bloc, led by Patrick Henry and George Washington. In 1774, Jefferson penned his first major political work, “A Summary View of the Rights of British America,” which established his reputation as one of the most eloquent advocates of the American cause. A year later, in 1775, Jefferson attended the Second Continental Congress, which created the Continental Army and appointed Jefferson’s fellow Virginian, George Washington, as its commander-in-chief. However, the Congress’s most significant work fell to Jefferson himself.

Thomas Jefferson went on to have quite a storied life. He authored the Declaration of Independence, served as Governor of Virginia, Minister to France, Secretary of State, Vice President and ultimately President of the United States.

One would think that was an accomplished-enough life, but Jefferson went on after his two terms as President to found the University of Virginia. That school served as a model, if you will for all modern universities.

He died on the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, coincidentally it was the same day that John Adams died.

Jefferson died on July 4, 1826 — the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence — only a few hours before John Adams also passed away in Massachusetts. In the moments before he passed, John Adams spoke his last words, eternally true if not in the literal sense in which he meant them, “Thomas Jefferson survives.”

On his tombstone, he had engraved the actions for which he wished to be remembered.

jefferson tombstone

Read his full biography here.

Share

The Story of our Declaration of Independence

Share

eagle flag 001

On this, the most quintessential of American Holidays, I wish to delve a bit into the subject that is the Declaration of Independence. It was penned by the great Thomas Jefferson when he was but thirty three-years old. He was one of a committee of five that were formed to bring forth the reasons for our separation from Great Britain. The committee members were (in no particular order):

  • Thomas Jefferson
  • John Adams
  • Benjamin Franklin
  • Robert R. Livingston
  • Roger Sherman

A vote was taken by the committee as to who would draft the statement and Jefferson came in first followed by Adams. An interesting footnote is that Adams presented Jefferson with his reasons as to why he ought to be the one to pen the document.

John Adams, 2nd President of the United States
John Adams, 2nd President of the United States

“Reason first—You are a Virginian, and a Virginian ought to appear at the head of this business. Reason second—I am obnoxious, suspected and unpopular. You are very much otherwise. Reason third—You can write ten times better than I can.”

Jefferson wrote the document in his residence where he occupied the entire second floor of a three story house owned by a bricklayer named Graff. It was said that after Jefferson’s death the baby infant of Graff was consistently told that he had often sat on a great man’s knee.

The writing itself took place in the parlor of Jefferson’s domicile on a desk that contained a small writing box that was of Jefferson’s own design. He had previously rented from a cabinet maker who constructed it from drawings made by Jefferson. During the last year of his life, he gave it to the husband of his favorite granddaughter, Ellen Randolph. He was to have said about the box, “It claims no merit of particular beauty. It is plain, neat, convenient and, taking no more room on the writing table than a moderate quarto volume, it displays itself sufficiently for any writing.” (Quarto volume is what we recognize as a middle-sized hardbound book.)

Jefferson never claimed originality of the idea of governance, “of the people, by the people and for the people,” instead he remarked that he was only distilling “common sense” on the subject. True the idea of democracy dates back to the Romans and the Greeks, but in Jefferson’s time, it was a very hot topic. Jefferson expounded on the idea of natural law and the nature of government.

In the second paragraph, Jefferson articulated an entire system of philosophy with his theory on that natural law and governance issue. It stems from property

Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States and author of the Declaration of Independence
Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States and author of the Declaration of Independence

rights and builds upon that. Jefferson did not separate property rights from political rights. For he felt that if one is denied property rights, then one cannot truly have political rights. Property is of course more than just what one owns, it goes to what one does to obtain property. Therefore property, as expressed by Jefferson is one’s individuality. If a government takes 40 or 50% (or more) of a person’s income (property), then that person is not truly free. For when half of one’s work goes to the government, it ceases to belong to that person.

This idea is expressed in what is possibly the most famous sentence in the American lexicon:

“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.”

But when presented to Congress, over twenty five percent of Jefferson’s original document was deleted. In what was at the time, a controversial move, Congress struck out what they viewed as a scathing indictment of the slave trade. Of course, Jefferson resented the changes and said that the passages were “struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves & who on the contrary still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe, felt a little under those censures; for tho’ their people have very few slaves themselves, yet they have been pretty considerable carriers of them to others.” Congress also got rid of passages that conveyed a censure on the people of England. Jefferson’s reaction? “…the pusillanimous idea that we had friends in England worth keeping terms with still haunted the minds of many.”

At least Congress left the ideas of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. However, they did change it from “We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable…” to “We hold these truths to be self-evident…”

fireworks flag

Lastly, Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence wasn’t really a declaration of independence at all. Rather it was an explanation of the actual declaration formally approved by Congress two days before, on July 2, 1776. That declaration was written by Richard Henry Lee, an active and respected patriot of Virginia’s congressional delegation.

It was titled: “A Declaration by the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in General Congress assembled.” Therefore our actual declaration of independence wasn’t even called that. And ironically, John Adams was known to have said in a now-famous letter to his wife that future generations of Americans would celebrate America’s independence from England on July 2nd and it would become a great American holiday. Of course, as we all know and history has shown, we celebrate our independence on the date that Jefferson’s document explaining our reasoning behind our declaration of independence was announced, July 4th.

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. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Thomas Jefferson 001

Share

The Story of our Declaration of Independence

Share

On this, the most quintessential of American Holidays, I wish to delve a bit into the subject that is the Declaration of Independence. It was penned by the great Thomas Jefferson when he was but thirty three-years old. He was one of a committee of five that were formed to bring forth the reasons for our separation from Great Britain. The committee members were (in no particular order):

  • Thomas Jefferson
  • John Adams
  • Benjamin Franklin
  • Robert R. Livingston
  • Roger Sherman

A vote was taken by the committee as to who would draft the statement and Jefferson came in first followed by Adams. An interesting footnote is that Adams presented Jefferson with his reasons as to why he ought to be the one to pen the document.

“Reason first—You are a Virginian, and a Virginian ought to appear at the head of this business. Reason second—I am obnoxious, suspected and unpopular. You are very much otherwise. Reason third—You can write ten times better than I can.”

Jefferson wrote the document in his residence where he occupied the entire second floor of a three story house owned by a bricklayer named Graff. It was said that after Jefferson’s death the baby infant of Graff was consistently told that he had often sat on a great man’s knee.

The writing itself took place in the parlor of Jefferson’s domicile on a desk that contained a small writing box that was of Jefferson’s own design. He had previously rented from a cabinet maker who constructed it from drawings made by Jefferson. During the last year of his life, he gave it to the husband of his favorite granddaughter, Ellen Randolph. He was to have said about the box, “It claims no merit of particular beauty. It is plain, neat, convenient and, taking no more room on the writing table than a moderate quarto volume, it displays itself sufficiently for any writing.” (Quarto volume is what we recognize as a middle-sized hardbound book.)

Jefferson never claimed originality of the idea of governance, “of the people, by the people and for the people,” instead he remarked that he was only distilling “common sense” on the subject. True the idea of democracy dates back to the Romans and the Greeks, but in Jefferson’s time, it was a very hot topic. Jefferson expounded on the idea of natural law and the nature of government.

In the second paragraph, Jefferson articulated an entire system of philosophy with his theory on that natural law and governance issue. It stems from property rights and builds upon that. Jefferson did not separate property rights from political rights. For he felt that if one is denied property rights, then one cannot truly have political rights. Property is of course more than just what one owns, it goes to what one does to obtain property. Therefore property, as expressed by Jefferson is one’s individuality. If a government takes 40 or 50% (or more) of a person’s income (property), then that person is not truly free. For when half of one’s work goes to the government, it ceases to belong to that person.

This idea is expressed in what is possibly the most famous sentence in the American lexicon:

“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.”

But when presented to Congress, over twenty five percent of Jefferson’s original document was deleted. In what was at the time, a controversial move, Congress struck out what they viewed as a scathing indictment of the slave trade. Of course, Jefferson resented the changes and said that the passages were “struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves & who on the contrary still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe, felt a little under those censures; for tho’ their people have very few slaves themselves, yet they have been pretty considerable carriers of them to others.” Congress also got rid of passages that conveyed a censure on the people of England. Jefferson’s reaction? “…the pusillanimous idea that we had friends in England worth keeping terms with still haunted the minds of many.”

At least Congress left the ideas of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. However, they did change it from “We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable…” to “We hold these truths to be self-evident…”

Lastly, Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence wasn’t really a declaration of independence at all. Rather it was an explanation of the actual declaration formally approved by Congress two days before, on July 2, 1776. That declaration was written by Richard Henry Lee, an active and respected patriot of Virginia’s congressional delegation.

It was titled: “A Declaration by the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in General Congress assembled.” Therefore our actual Declaration of Independence wasn’t even called that. And ironically, John Adams was known to have said in a now-famous letter to his wife that future generations of Americans would celebrate America’s independence from England on July 2nd and it would become a great American holiday. Of course, as we all know and history has shown, we celebrate our independence on the date that Jefferson’s document explaining our reasoning behind our declaration of independence was announced, July 4th.

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. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Share

Founding Fathers’ Quotes on the People’s Right to Bear Arms

Share

Just three days after the horrible shooting in Newtown Connecticut, progressive forces are in full “never let a crisis go to waste” mode to advance their anti-gun agenda.  They have allowed no time for mourning and are striking while the iron is hot.  It’s a selfish and shameful act that is driving the national debate towards gun control and the away from the root cause of our problem; the devaluing of human life.  I decided that the best people to help make the case for those of us who cherish America and our second amendment rights are our founding fathers.  Below are some quotes from the founders on the people’s right to bear arms.  Take a few minutes to read them.

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …”
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them.”
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot’s Debates, vol. 3 “The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.”

“… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms”
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …”
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, “Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State”

“Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
George Washington
First President of the United States

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.”
Thomas Paine

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

“The great object is that every man be armed.” and “Everyone who is able may have a gun.”
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

“Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.”
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … “
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

“The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8

H/T cap-n-ball.com

The federal government should not be injecting itself in this issue.  First off they have no constitutional authority to restrict gun ownership no matter what President Obama believes.  Secondly this is a states issue and should be addressed at the local level.  A cookie cutter approach will not work because of the uniqueness of each community across America.  My question is where was all the progressive outrage over Fast and Furious?  Something to think about.

Liberty forever, freedom for all!  .

Original Post:  The Sentry Journal

Share

Are we Capable of Self-governance Anymore?

Share

Thomas Jefferson once said, “Man is capable of living in society, governing itself by laws self-imposed, and securing to its members the enjoyment of life, liberty, property, and peace.”

Lately I’ve been doing a great deal of thinking on the topic of self-governance and I’m beginning to wonder if we’re capable of self-governance anymore. It you ask the five different people what self-governance means to them you will get five different answers.  The most common answer I hear is that self-governance means the people set up our own form of government to be governed by.  This response is not only incomplete but totally misses the mark.  Self-governance is much more than setting up a form of government and a system of laws to govern us; it’s about the inalienable rights we’re all born with and understanding that each of us is sovereign with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Governments, if deemed necessary are instituted to secure the blessings of these rights.  Have we forgotten this basic truth about the nature of self-governance and the role government plays in our lives?  By what I’m seeing these days the answer is yes.

Somewhere along the way in this great experiment we call America many of our citizens have become apathetic about liberty and self-governance.  They’re ok with the government whether on the state or federal level telling them what they can eat, what permits they need to set up a lemon-aide stand, what they can build on their own property, how much electricity they should be using, where they can hunt and fish, what kind of car they should buy and so on.  Government is the first entity they look to for solutions when a natural disaster occurs or when we experience a major economic downturn.  They look for the FEMA trailers or economic safeguards to give them peace of mind.  In fact people appear to be perfectly ok with having their lives completely regulated.  It absolves them from taking any personal responsibility for their actions and codifies everything they do in a nice of little rule book. It gives them a sense of security in an ever changing environment.

The problem is our lives have become so regulated and so managed by governments on the state and federal level our choices are now becoming limited as more and more regulations are imposed on us by politicians who feel it’s their duty to make life safer for all us. They believe they have some sort misguided responsibility to watch over us like children because we cannot be trusted to make to right choices or the choices they want us to make.  Let’s face it we are no longer practicing self-governance under these rules of engagement.  We’re living under what Mark Levin calls a “soft tyranny.” This is not the kind of self-governance our Founders were speaking of in their writings.

The Founders were greatly influenced by number of writings by noted philosophers of the period. They held in high regard British philosopher John Locke.  Locke was a staunch proponent of the concept of Natural Law and Natural Rights.  He believed that we are all the property of God and as such each of us is born with natural rights that are granted by God.  They included the rights of life, liberty, health and property. They are rights that we have in our natural state before any type of government is instituted.  All people from all walks of life share in these rights equally. Locke also believed that the individual was sovereign and was capable of self-governing their actions because people were generally good to each other in their natural state.  The only purpose for creating governmental institutions was to ensure these rights were secured for all people and individual sovereignty was not infringed upon.  Any government encroachment on these rights or individual sovereignty was viewed as an unacceptable condition and could not be tolerated.  This was one of the main reasons behind the constitution.  In fact Patrick Henry stated it best when he said “The Constitutionis not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”

How is it that this basic truth about self-governance is as foreign to the average citizen as calculus is to me? It doesn’t take a PhD in American History to find this information.  It is readily available to all on the internet.   I believe it’s because many people have become apathetic about both liberty and self-governance and would rather surrender their liberties to the government for the sake of some type of security.  It’s easier this way.  The life of a slave requires very little thinking.  You do as you are told and hope by the end of the day there’s enough left over to pay the bills and put food on the table.  This is rapidly becoming the American reality for many people; depending on the scraps the government throws our way.  How sad is that?

My fear is the more people become dependent on the government the less desire they will have to break free from this self-imposed slavery.  The government will continue to regulate every aspect of our lives and we will forget how to govern ourselves.  This is the end goal of the progressive left.  Create a class of non-thinking citizens who are dependent on the government for their basic needs.  It allows the government to grant and take away rights as they see fit and it destroys the sovereign individual.  This is the vision the progressive left has for America and each of us.  Until we get back to the basics and understand our rights are inalienable and nonnegotiable we will continue to march down the path towards tyranny.  And for me this is completely unacceptable.

We need to wake up and reestablish the constitution as the law of the land and restrain government as it once was in the past.  If we fail our children will be slaves of the state and will never taste the sweetness of liberty.

Liberty forever, freedom for all!

Original Post: The Sentry Journal

Share

Great Moments in Civil Discourse: Retroactive Redux

Share

If you thought that political discourse is bad now, let’s take a look back at the nineteenth century.  Reason TV took the words of two candidates for POTUS, and put them in campaign commercial form…

At any rate, there was never an age of genteel discussion, where gentlemen sipped tea and calmly discussed the divisive issues of the day.  American politics have always been cut-throat, and probably always will be.

Also, you might want to consider that there has not been a beating on the floor of the Senate for some time, unlike this infamous incident.

So, while our left decries “incivility,” while embracing it like a crack addict does his pipe, just remember that this is tame in comparison to our history.  However, rest assured that that will, in no way, prevent me from point out the lefts complete hypocrisy in that regard.

Share

Patrick Henry’s Finest Hour: Give me Liberty or give me death

Share

There comes a time in all of our lives when we must take a stand; when riding the fence just doesn’t get it done.   It was 236 years ago this past Wednesday when a passionate Virginia lawyer stood before 120 delegates at St John’s Church in Virginia and took a stand against tyranny.  This lawyer was Patrick Henry and if he was alive today the left and even some on the right would label him as an extremist.  He was indeed radical when it came to his love for liberty and freedom.  I for one believe this kind of passion should be honored and never forgotten.

It was the fourth day of the Virginia convention on Thursday on March 23rd 1775 when Patrick Henry facing a skeptical audience stood up to make the case for freedom over tyranny.  He had enough of the cowering down to King George and felt it was time to stand up for liberty.  It was time for the colonists to push back.  No more scraps, no more being treated as children; it was time for a change.  Every time I read his words I’m hopeful because I know that there was a time when such great men lived and that time can be again.  So to honor Mr. Henry I post his speech every year on the anniversary of it.  Please take the time to read it.  Hopefully it will inspire you as much as it has inspired me over the years.

March 23, 1775

Henry presented a proposal to organize a volunteer company of cavalry or infantry in every Virginia county. By custom, Henry addressed himself to the Convention’s president, Peyton Randolph of Williamsburg.

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free– if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Source: The University of Oklahoma College of Law

After the speech those who originally favored a more conciliatory approach in regards to mother England were moved by his words and when a vote came to the floor the majority voted to support his resolutions.  Words do matter.

It was Thomas Jefferson who described Patrick Henry as the man who “set the ball of Revolution rolling” in Virginia.

Powerful stuff folks.

Liberty forever, freedom for all.

Original Post: The Sentry Journal

 

Share

August 24, 1814: British Occupy, Burn Washington D.C.; Climate of Hate Blamed

Share

The Nation’s Capitol is burned, a victim of charged rhetoricIn a spectacular and daring move, British troops marched on Washington D.C. today and proceeded to burn the Executive Mansion, the Capitol and other buildings.

While a state of war does currently exist between the United States and Great Britain no motive was given for the burning.  Many are blaming the charged political rhetoric in the nation’s Capitol.

President Madison who is currently in hiding has taken much heat for the unpopular war from many in his own party.  Said Madison’s press secretary:

I blame ye olde talk print newspapers.  They are irresponsible and the things they say about the President probably caused some unbalanced people in the British army to want to burn the Executive Mansion down.

Still others in the administration had another explanation.  Said Madison’s Secretary of War James Monroe:

I think the fault lies with Sarah Palin.  I know that explanation sounds pretty far fetched, seeing as she hasn’t been born yet but I think I know what I’m talking aboutI’m not stupid.  Not like people say!

The President’s wife, Dolly Madison, who barely avoided capture by the British said:

I think we need a new era of civility in Washington.  I ask the Federalists to tone down their rhetoric.  My husband is not a midget!  He’s almost five feet three inches tall.  I hate Washington.  I just want to retire to our plantation in Virginia and make cupcakes.

Congressional leaders have vowed that if they ever return to Washington, their first priority will be to introduce a bill that would make it a crime to call the President a “midget, small person, differentially-sized or Thomas Jefferson’s bitch.”

General Robert Ross, officer in charge of the British troops that attacked Washington told reporters that

I thought I was doing the Americans a favor by burning the Capitol and the Executive Mansion.  Who builds their capitol in the middle of a swamp anyway?  Well, I’m off to attack Baltimore.  Classy city.  Classy ladies of the evening.

Federalist leaders could not be reached for comment but many deny responsibility for the attack.

Original Post: Manhattan Infidel

Share

Hamilton's Gamble, Jefferson's Fear, Our Challenge

Share

Alexander Hamilton is one of America’s first improbable success stories.  He was born out of wedlock in the West Indies which was still under British control.  Because the Church of England didn’t recognize the relationship between his mother and father, they wouldn’t allow him to attend the church’s school and forced him into tutoring.  His situation only got worse when his father abandoned the family and his mother’s ex-husband seized her estate.  He and his brother were eventually adopted by a cousin, Peter Lyon, who later committed suicide.  He was once again adopted, time separate from his brother, by a merchant named Thomas Stevens.

Hamilton became a clerk in order to make ends meet and took an interest in reading and writing.  Eventually he wrote an essay detailing the account of a hurricane that hit the area.  The Royal-Danish American Gazette published the essay which impressed the community leaders of his area.  Together they raised funds in order to have Hamilton educated in America.  Of course, we all know that Hamilton became one of the most influential people in American history, helping form and advise on the creation and expansion of our federal government.

Hamilton was many things, but nothing more notable than being President Washington’s closest and most trusted advisor.  If Washington was the head of the United States, Hamilton was the neck.  There were few interests and proposals of Hamilton that Washington didn’t promote or embrace.  Of course, the most prominent issue at that time was centered on the size and role of the new federal government.  Hamilton promoted his ideas on this issue through his newly established party – the Federalists.

Federalism was an important factor in early America.  Almost all agreed that the federal government needed to be strong in foreign affairs, but Hamilton took that a step further arguing that the federal government needed to give legitimacy to the nation’s finances.  He argued that we needed to create a national bank in order to pay off the states’ debts accumulated over the span of the Revolutionary War.  He met strong opposition from James Madison who had previously established the Republican Party.

The Republicans held to strict Constitutional principles and favored strong state governments.  They feared that centralized government was a road to monarchy or at best an aristocratic tyranny.  They were particularly alarmed with the idea of a federal government assuming the debts of the states.  Thomas Jefferson’s Virginia, for instance, had paid off the majority of its accumulated debt and felt that taxation on Virginians in order to pay off a combined debt was unfair.  Further, they felt the whole premise was unconstitutional.   The limited power of the federal government spelled out in the Constitution says nothing of creating banks or combining debts.

Madison and Jefferson lead a Republican campaign against the constitutionality of Hamilton’s proposals.  They both pulled quite a bit of weight in constitutional matters.  Madison was considered the “Father of the Constitution” and Jefferson was considered one of the most influential minds behind its creation, but Hamilton had some pull of his own.  The Federalists held the majority of the House and Senate, the Supreme Court, and perhaps more importantly, the news papers.   Hamilton’s greatest weapon was his pen and he put it to great use.

Hamilton argued that the federal government could create a bank to absorb the state debts through the “Necessary and Proper” clause.  “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States or in any Department or Officer thereof,” (Constitution Article I, Section VIII).  He deemed the absorption of these debts as being necessary and proper in order to carry out other powers of the federal government in the Constitution.  He further argued that there was nothing limiting the fed from this process.  Jefferson and Madison argued that this interpretation was too broad and could give an endless amount of power to those who could so easily justify it.  Further, they cite the enumerated powers and interpret the authority of the “Necessary and Proper” clause as authorizing expansion in only that which is tangentially-related to the enumerated powers.

In the end, Hamilton won and both a national bank and precedent were formed.  There is little doubt that Hamilton’s Federalists helped to establish a strong centralized government that helped us defend ourselves against strong outside forces and financial difficulties.  Few were fond of the confederation that struggled to stay coherent and aligned.  Federalism was the answer and thus the federation was created through the Constitution.

Federalism came with a price though.  The expansion that Jefferson feared has come true; the states’ powers have been reduced and too many have followed Hamilton’s lead in broad interpretations of the Constitution.  Today, Arizona is fighting their federal government to protect their borders, states are suing the fed because they’re being forced into a national health care, fiscally irresponsible states like California are getting federal dollars at the expense of those more responsible, and almost all of this is being justified by the broad interpretation of the “commerce clause”.  It’s all so Hamiltonian.

That’s the danger of government; it creates unintended consequences through policy.  Hamilton didn’t want a monarchy and he didn’t want a tyrannical federal government, but he was willing to creep toward that end for the purpose of what he felt was a greater good.  Allow me to rebut Hamilton over two hundred years later with the benefit of hindsight; the greater good is limited government.

I’m sure even Hamilton couldn’t have imagined the expansiveness of our current federal government.  In fact, I can’t get my mind wrapped around it.  It didn’t get this big over night. It took small, discreet steps to reach this point.  Each step was justified by some problem; many of which were created by some other form of government or bureaucracy.

It has become too common place to react to any problem with centralized answers.  Well intended people, like Hamilton, sit on both sides of the isle in Congress, ready to follow his lead in order to preserve our government in “necessary and proper” ways.  It is time we react as Jeffersonians and demand our states take back the power afforded to them in our Constitution and regulate the federal government’s powers as “few and defined”.

Original Post: The Sentry Journal

Share

The Jefferson Solution

Share

Last week we were all introduced to the “Slaughter Solution;” a procedural method that could be used to get around the requirements of the Constitution to pass a bill without actually voting on it.  I have read a number or articles both defending and condemning the move.

For me any attack on the Constitution needs to met with a swift and overwhelming response.  Most of us picked up the phone and called our representatives, and expressed our deep concerns to some nameless staffer who took down our information and promised to relay our frustrations to our congressman or congresswoman.  I have already done this twice so far this week.  Some have emailed lengthy rants to their representatives about how the Democrats are trying to destroy the Republic using unconstitutional procedures.  Ok I did that too.  It has been somewhat of a frustrating week for many of us and when I get this frustrated I turn to God and the Founders.

God sustains me and the Founders feed me.  I was thinking about how we have drifted so far away from the basic principles that this country was built on.  How we have let the enemies of liberty into the halls of congress to decide our fate.  The more I thought about the “Slaughter Solution” the angrier I became at myself for allowing it to reach this point.  You see I had become complacent as a citizen of this great country.  I failed to act when I saw the forces of progressivism creep back into our political arena.  I viewed it as a passing political fad that would never find traction in the United States of America.  How wrong I was.  I totally underestimated these forces that hid in the shadows, waiting for the right crisis to hit.  What looked like a fad, ended up being a well organized machine; a machine seeping with radicalism and one goal; to transform the United States into a wealth redistributive society.  This brings us to the real crisis; a Constitutional crisis we face today, that just might change the face of America forever.

So tonight I decided to turn to my favorite radical.  No not Saul Alinsky.  But a radical that stood up against tyranny and defiantly declared, “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;” Thomas Jefferson.  Thomas Jefferson is my favorite Founding Father for a number of reasons, too many to discuss in this post.  But the one thing I admire the most about this man is that he was an ardent supporter of states’ rights and limited government.  He embraced the notion that the people were the masters and the politicians were the servants.  This is the type of statesman we need now; a statesman that will stand up for the people.

I opened one of my books on Thomas Jefferson and found a few quotes that might provide us with our own solution to the problems we face with our Congress and Executive branch of government.  Please read with a clear mind and determined spirit.

I have no fear that the result of our experiment will be that men may be trusted to govern themselves without a master. Could the contrary of this be proved I should conclude either that there is no God or that He is a malevolent being. (1797)

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. (May 27, 1788)

The God, who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time. (1775)

The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object. (March 1801)

In questions of power let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. (1798)

A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities. (March 4, 1801)

How have we drifted so far away from this philosophy?  How can we get it back?  Where are the men and women in Congress that will take up the cause for liberty and say enough of this madness?  Perhaps they too should look to the past to find solutions to the problems we face today.  I looked and found the “Jefferson Solution.”  It’s really that simple.

Liberty forever, freedom for all!

Original Post: The Current

Share