One world leader lectures another on the importance of reducing government debt

Unfortunately, it’s Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, explaining how economic liberty works to B. Hussein Obama, “leader” of what used to be the most powerful economic engine in history.  It’s stunning how decades of contra-constitutional government spending, borrowing, taxation, and regulation can destroy a free people.

Here‘s an excerpt:

Chancellor Angela Merkel championed German export strength as “the right thing” for her country, spurning President Barack Obama’s call to boost private spending as both leaders prepare for Group of 20 talks.

Merkel, addressing a business audience in Berlin today, said she told Obama in a phone call that cutting government debt is “absolutely important for us,” exposing a second point of contention ahead of the June 26-27 G-20 summit in Canada.

Reducing the budget deficit by 10 billion euros ($12 billion) per year “won’t put a brake on the world’s economic growth,” Merkel said, relating what she told Obama yesterday. Germans are more likely to spend money if they feel the government “is taking precautions” to ensure solid finances, she said.

A second American Revolution

Massachusetts.  What an appropriate place for it to begin!

Actually, public discontent has been building a long time, but it boiled over all around the nation last year, as evidenced by the numerous Tea Parties across the country, private citizens emasculating their elected officials in local events, and the huge political defeats for the Democrats in the gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey.

Ironically (sadly? encouragingly!), Democratic reaction to their stunning humiliation last night portends even more intransigence in the push toward Socialism. President Obama explained away Brown’s victory to people’s being upset about not just the last couple of years, but the last eight years. In effect, Mr. Obama is crediting George W. Bush with putting Scott Brown in “Ted Kennedy’s seat”! How’s that for self-awareness!

(Senator-elect Brown’s reply that the seat he sought to fill was not Kennedy’s but “the People’s seat” illustrates perfectly the chasm between our elected officials and us: Contrary to what they think, they work for us.  We are not their slaves.)

It is true that without Republican malfeasance during much of President Bush’s time in office (and his endorsement of it), there is no way B. Hussein Obama would have been elected president (his personal charisma, good looks, and skills notwithstanding).

While the awakening of the American people in defense of its Liberty is encouraging, it cannot stop now.  It must continue until every self-aggrandizing, pompous, condescending tyrant who believes that We the People exist to provide him position — rather than his position existing to protect our Rights — is removed from office.

We the People must know and cherish those self-evident truths articulated powerfully in the Declaration of Independence, America’s creed.  We must understand and defend the principles of limited government and individual rights codified in our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  And we must keep ourselves informed of what the foxes are doing — especially in the federal hen house — since traditional media will not tell the truth about their co-ideologues in office.

We must elect honest men and women who will obey our Constitution and actually serve the People, not themselves.

Is it too much to hope that We the People not only can prevent a national euthanasia (Leftists like killing, except when it involves punishing criminals and terrorists; why do mass murderers have a greater right to life than babies, again?), but even roll back decades of Leftist usurpations of individual Liberty?

Don’t think we’re not keeping score, brother

Let’s go to Mr. Obama for his reaction:

The (literally) Undocumented-Worker-in-Chief threatens Americans, prosecutes those who “mistreat” agents of the genocidal pedophile Muhammad, calls the Founding Fathers “potential domestic terrorists,” and bankrupts and disarms the Republic.

Rather than treating our enemies in such a manner, instead he bows, embraces, surrenders, and apologizes to Leftist and Muslim tyrants.

It looks like someone’s noticing.

As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide

The election of B. Hussein Obama was a self-inflicted wound.

Both time and the courage of the American patriot will tell whether it’s mortal or not.

We have the Enemy Within, both the leftist who wants America crippled and disgraced, begging for scraps from foreign masters, and the Muslim — imported and homegrown — who seeks to usurp our Constitution and replace it with the most vile, totalitarian, and hellish ideology ever thrust upon the Earth.

In Obama, it looks like we got two-for-the-price-of-one.  What a deal!

Who applauds B. Hussein Obama’s Nobel Appeasement Prize? Those are not friends of America cheering his “achievements,” which so far have been bankrupting and disarming the Republic; bleeding our military by binding them with suicidal Rules of Engagement; eating ice cream while civilians protesting against Muslim tyranny in Iran are butchered in their streets; responding to our military’s request for more troops in order to avoid losing in Afghanistan by going to Denmark to beg for an Olympics that would divert billions in federal money to his fellow criminals in Chicago; and apologizing to, groveling at the feet of, and defiling the sacrifices of more than two centuries of free men in deference to every two-bit, tinpot leftist and Muslim tyrant on the globe.

Stop the bleeding, America. We need in positions of leadership informed and honest men. Tom McClintock understands what makes America great, and what must be done to save it.

From here:

When he was 28 years old, Abraham Lincoln posed this haunting question to the Young Mens Lyceum of Springfield:

He asked, “At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it?– Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never!–All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.

“At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.[“]

Today, THIS generation of Americans has arrived at one of the great turning points of history. Upon the outcome of this struggle is nothing less than the question of whether America is to fade away as yet another failed socialist state, or whether this generation of Americans will rescue, redeem and restore the founding principles that made the American Republic the most prosperous and successful in the history of the world.

It has now been nine months since the inauguration of the 44th President of the United States – with all the hope and trust that the American people placed in him for our future.

Think about what has happened in these nine months. And think about how far our country has strayed from what Jefferson called the “sum of good government.” — what he described as “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.”

Last year’s deficit of $450 billion has nearly quadrupled to $1.6 TRILLION.

Let’s put that in perspective. All of the debt accumulated by this nation from the very first day of the George Washington administration to the very last day of the George W. Bush administration, will now double over the next five years and nearly triple over the next ten under the budget that President Obama signed.
We all know that if you live well BEYOND your means today, you must live well BELOW your means tomorrow. And that is the tomorrow that our country is now facing unless his policies are quickly halted and reversed.

History cannot offer a single example of a nation that has spent and borrowed and taxed its way to economic prosperity. But it offers many, many examples of nations that have spent and borrowed and taxed their way to economic ruin and bankruptcy. And history warns us that bankrupt nations don’t last very long.

This administration has set in motion conditions that threaten to destroy not only the solvency of our treasury but the very value of our currency itself. They have set the stage for a massive inflation not seen since the failed Presidency of Jimmy Carter.

They introduced the biggest single spending bill in the history of the country at 11:00 one night and adopted it by 2:00 the next afternoon. If you want to know how 4,000 stimulus checks could possibly be sent to prison inmates – there’s your answer.

We were promised this unprecedented spending would hold the nation’s unemployment rate to eight percent. Today, $787 billion later, the national unemployment rate is 9.7 percent.

They have seized control of automobile manufacturers and dealers, banks and financial service companies and last week voted to seize the student loan industry.

They have used our tax money to bail out failed corporations, paying out huge bonuses to the very people who created the mess on Wall Street in the first place.

They have taken one of the most despotic concepts in the history of bad government – the Russian concept of the Czar – and injected it into every aspect of what was once a constitutional government of limited and enumerated powers.

We have watched the President of the United States apologize for American “arrogance” to some of the most despicable tyrants on the planet. Just this week he looked out upon an audience that included Ahmadinejad and Qaddafi and condemned America for “torture.” (The President uses that word rather loosely – especially in that company — I might add — to describe a process that produced no physical injuries – but volumes of critical intelligence that saved American lives).

And while this administration conducts criminal investigations against intelligence officials who acted to keep our nation safe – it turns a blind eye to the utterly reprehensible enterprises of ACORN.

Now they want to take control of our families’ health care and 1/8 of our economy.

And we’re supposed to believe that the same government that pays $400 for hammers and $600 for toilet seats is somehow going to keep our health care costs down.

We’re supposed to believe that the same government that runs FEMA is going to make our doctor’s offices more efficient.

We are supposed to believe that the same government that runs the IRS is going to bring compassion and understanding to our health plans.

We know what will result because we’re watching the nightmare unfold in countries like Britain and Canada – massive cost overruns followed by the government rationing of care.

They tried to strong-arm it through the Congress so that the American people would have no chance to see it or to debate it. But they failed.

And when Americans across this country stood up to protest, they were called “un-American” by Nancy Pelosi; they were called “evil-mongers” by Harry Reid; and they were called “potential domestic terrorists” by the Department of Homeland Security.

But this isn’t happening in a vacuum. Something is stirring across our nation – something that we haven’t seen in many decades – something that the Obama Left doesn’t understand and cannot possibly comprehend.

It is called the American Spirit – and it’s back.

It’s right here in this hall tonight. It’s in every town hall forum and taxpayer rally across the country. It has appeared every time our freedom has been threatened and it has returned now in our time.

Ladies and gentlemen, the debates in our nation’s Capitol are merely a reflection of a much larger debate that is going on across the country – at coffee shops and town hall meetings – over backyard fences and family dinner tables — that will determine the fate of our nation for generations to come.

Many times a day I’m asked a simple question by folks who have never been involved in politics, who have never even attended a public meeting, but who sense their nation is in danger and who are rising to meet that danger. And the question simply is: “WHAT CAN I DO?”

There is only one answer to that question. It was first given by the great abolition leader, Frederick Douglass, to a young protégé who posed that question to him. He answered with three words: AGITATE, AGITATE and AGITATE.

There is only one way to meet the danger to our freedom from within and that is to rally the American people.

And that means taking an active role – every day – in the historic national debate that is raging around us.

Stand up at every public meeting you can get to and SPEAK OUT. Attend Town Hall Meetings. Call into talk shows. Write letters to the editor. Leave comments after every article that you read on line. E-Mail your friends. Link to information. Post on blogs, on Facebook and on Twitter. Support candidates and causes. AGITATE and AGITATE and AGITATE in every forum you can find.

People say, “What difference will that make? Obama and Pelosi and Reid won’t listen. And that’s true.

But the voters are listening.

Lincoln once said, “If the voters get their backsides too close to the fire, they’ll just have to sit on the blisters a while.” It’s a painful experience. But it’s a learning experience. And at the end of that process, they will emerge sadder but wiser – and in time for the next election.

And until then, remember what you have accomplished in just three months.

The Cap and Trade bill – which would impose a devastating hidden tax on virtually every product that we buy for our families – limped through the House but has stalled in the Senate.

The government takeover of our health system was supposed to have been passed and signed into law BEFORE the summer recess. They didn’t dare to take it to the floor for a vote. And now they’re talking about, “Well, maybe next month.”

And the polls reflect that debate. According to the Rasmussen poll, Barack Obama’s Presidential Popularity Index stood at PLUS-28 on Inauguration Day. Yesterday he was MINUS-7.

The Obama Left might have super-majorities in both houses. They might have the most left-wing President in the history of our country. They might have the media and the union bosses and ACORN.

BUT THEY HAVE LOST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Your voices in every forum that you can find – every day – have made the difference, and if you will just keep it up – keep doing what you are doing today every day – history guarantees this outcome – YOU will have saved our country.

We have the most powerful message in the history of mankind. It is freedom.

Nine years before he became Governor of California, Reagan put it this way during a commencement address to his alma mater. He said, “This is a simple struggle between those of us who believe that man has the dignity and sacred right and the ability to choose and shape his own destiny and those who do not so believe. This irreconcilable conflict is between those who believe in the sanctity of individual freedom and those who believe in the supremacy of the state.”

Lincoln said much the same. He said, “That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles – right and wrong – throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time; and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity, and the other is the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, ‘You work and toil and earn bread, and I’ll eat it.’ No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.”

And today, our country again faces this tyrannical principle in actual practice.

The Left would condemn our children to the failure of government schools run by teacher unions. We would liberate parents to select the school and the teacher that best meets their child’s needs and hold the school and the teacher accountable for the results.

The Left would condemn our families to sky-high energy prices; we would free America’s vast energy reserves and limitless supplies of clean, cheap electricity through nuclear power, hydro-electricity and clean coal.

The Left would condemn our health care to bureaucrats who’ll decide what treatments we may have and when we may have them. We would provide the tax credits to bring a basic health plan within the financial reach of every family – a health plan they could chose, they could own, and they could change if it failed to serve them.

The Left would deny union members the right to a secret ballot; we would free employers to pay bonuses to union members above and beyond their union contract.

The Left would plunder our children of their prosperity tomorrow to pay for the unprecedented expansion of government today. We insist on a government that does what families do every day: work hard, waste not and live within our means.

The Left offers stifling central planning to manage every aspect of our lives; they offer higher and higher taxes and more and more costly regulations. We offer freedom.

And to those who say we have no messengers – look around at each other. Yes, Ronald Reagan was a great communicator, but as William Saracino has said, “He wasn’t communicating cookie recipes.” And if we learned anything at all from that great man, it was that every one of us needs to be a messenger.

In February of 1861, Abraham Lincoln’s inaugural train paused in Indianapolis and he spoke these words: “Of the people when they rise in mass on behalf of the Union and the liberties of their country, it may be said ‘The gates of hell shall not prevail against them’. I appeal to you constantly to bear in mind that not with the President, not with the office-seekers, but with you is the question, ‘Shall the liberties of this country be preserved to the latest generation.’”

Ladies and Gentlemen, that is our clarion call. What has happened to our nation has happened on our generation’s watch, and it is our generation’s responsibility to set things right.

Does anyone here have any doubt how this battle will end as long as we stand firm? I think the Left is starting to figure that out too, and behind the smarmy smirks of condescension, their real sentiments are showing through.

The Department of Homeland Security refuses to use the word “terrorist” to describe Al Qaeda. It has replaced the term, “acts of terrorism” with the term, “man-made disaster” so as not to offend Islamic extremists. But it doesn’t hesitate to declare returning veterans and every American who believes in the second and tenth articles of our Bill of Rights to be “potential domestic terrorists.”

That offers real insight into the Left. Churchill put it this way: “They are afraid of words and thoughts. Words spoken abroad, thoughts stirring at home – all the more powerful because forbidden – terrify them. A little mouse – a little tiny mouse – of thought enters the room and these mighty potentates are thrown into panic. They make frantic efforts to bar out thoughts and words; they are afraid of the workings of the human mind.”

Think about what terrifies the Left: A silent majority no longer willing to remain silent. That means letters to the editor; calls to talk shows; blogs on the Internet; comments after newspaper editorials; taxpayer tea parties.

Why did they react so viscously to the tea parties? You remember the tale of the “Emperor’s New Clothes” – once the townspeople realized that there were many others who believed as they believed, the façade collapsed and the charlatans were run out of town.

Our opponents hope that we will vent our frustrations at events like this and then go home. And that will be the end of it.

I’ve got news for them. This is just the beginning. Yes, we’re going home. But we’re going home to organize and educate and agitate in every forum we can find.

When the American Founders adopted the Declaration of Independence, they pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. They were speaking quite literally. When they pledged their lives, they meant it. The King had already warned that a noose awaited every one of them. When they pledged their fortunes, they meant it. Lewis Morris had just received word that his estate in New York had been burned to the ground, that his family had become refugees and that his two sons had enlisted in the rag-tag army around General Washington.

How little history demands of our generation in defense of those same principles. We aren’t asked to pledge our entire fortunes – just a small portion of our earnings in support of the causes and candidates we believe in. We aren’t asked to pledge our lives – only a small portion of our lives until we have set things right.

But our sacred honor – that history demands of us in full: that we leave today highly resolved not to fail or falter until we have restored freedom as the cornerstone of our government. Because if we fail to do that, then what history will demand of our children and grandchildren is unthinkable.

So let us honor the memory of Reagan and Lincoln and Jefferson and all those placed freedom above security and principle above politics.

And then let us together write the next chapter of the American Republic: that just when it appeared that the principles of American freedom were faltering, this generation rediscovered them, rallied to them, revived them, restored them, polished them and passed them on shining and inviolate to the many succeeding generations that followed.”

More eloquence in two sentences than in all of Obama’s teleprompters

More truth, too.

So am I.

A real American

A few million more like this one, and it’s game over for the socialists.

And the jihadists.

Discovered at this excellent site.

California’s avoidable Greek tragedy

Tom McClintock would have been a much better choice as California’s governor, as will become obvious upon reading his recent comments below.

California needs him as its chief executive — and unless the current revolt against socialist tyranny grows permanent, the nation will need him too.

In the present political climate, with the Governator and the liberal Legislature breaking the Golden State and the Disaster-in-Chief’s bankrupting and disarming the nation, Tom McClintock seems prescient and a God-send.

Congressman Tom McClintock offered the following remarks in Washington, D.C. last Friday to the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Pacific Research Institute that clearly illustrate why California is facing such a large fiscal mess.

[. . .]

“I know that everybody likes to poke fun at California – but I can tell you right now that despite all of its problems, California remains one of the best places in the world to build a successful small business. All you have to do is start with a successful large business.”

[. . .]

Laugh if you will, but let me remind you that when these policies finish wrecking California, there are still 49 other states we can all move to – and yours is one of them.

I should also warn you of the strange sense of déjà-vu that I have every day on the House floor as I watch the same folly and blunders that wrecked California now being passed with reckless abandon in this Congress.

We passed a “Cash-for-Clunkers” bill the other day – we did that years ago in California.

Doubling the entire debt every five years? Been there.

Increasing spending at unsustainable rates? Done that.

Save-the-Planet-Carbon-Dioxide restrictions? Got the T-Shirt.

To understand how these policies can utterly destroy an economy and bankrupt a government, you have to remember the Golden State in its Golden Age.

A generation ago, California spent about half what it does today AFTER adjusting for both inflation and population growth.

And yet, we had the finest highway system in the world and the finest public school system in the country. California offered a FREE university education to every Californian who wanted one. We produced water and electricity so cheaply that many communities didn’t bother to measure the stuff. Our unemployment rate consistently ran well below the national rate and its diversified economy was nearly recession-proof.

One thing – and one thing only – has changed in those years: public policy. The political Left gradually gained dominance over California’s government and has imposed a disastrous agenda of radical and retrograde policies that have destroyed the quality of life that Californians once took for granted.

The Census Bureau reports that in the last two years 2/3 of a million more people have moved out of California than have moved it. Many are leaving for the garden spots of Nevada, Arizona and Texas.

Think about that. California is blessed with the most equitable climate in the entire Western Hemisphere; it has the most bountiful resources anywhere in the continental United States; it is poised on the Pacific Rim in a position to dominate world trade for the next century, and yet people are finding a better place to live and work and raise their families in the middle of the Nevada and Arizona and Texas deserts.

I submit to you that no conceivable act of God could wreak such devastation as to turn California into a less desirable place to live than the middle of the Nevada Nuclear Test Range. Only Acts of Government can do that. And they have.

You can trace the collapse of California’s economy to several critical events: the rise of environmental Ludditism beginning in 1974; the abandonment of constitutional checks and balances that once constrained spending and borrowing; and the rise of rule by public employee unions . There are other factors as well: litigation, taxation, illegal immigration – but for the sake of time let me concentrate on the big three.

The first was the rise of environmental Ludditism with the election of a radical new-age leftist named Jerry Brown as governor of the state – an election that also produced overwhelming liberal majorities in both legislative houses.

Like Obama today, Brown lost little time in pursuing his vision of California – an incoherent combination of pastoral simplicity, European socialism and centralized planning. At the center of this world view was a backward ideology that he called his “era of limits” — the naïve notion that public works were growth inducing and polluting and that stopping the expansion of infrastructure somehow excused government from meeting the needs of an expanding population.

Conservation replaced abundance as the chief aim of California’s public works, and public policy was redirected to developing irresistible incentives for the population to concentrate in dense urban cores rather than to settle in suburban communities.

Brown infused his vision into every aspect of public policy, and it is a testament to his thoroughness and tenacity that its basic tenets have dominated the direction of California through both Republican and Democratic administrations.

He cancelled the state’s highway construction program, abandoning many routes in mid-construction. He cancelled long-planned water projects, conveyance facilities and dams. He established the California Energy Commission that blocked approval of any significant new generating capacity. He enacted volumes of environmental regulations that created severe impediments to home and commercial construction, empowering an incipient no-growth movement that began on the most extreme fringe of the environmental cause and quickly spread.

This movement reached its zenith with Arnold Schwarzenegger and the enactment of AB 32 and companion legislation in 2006. This measure gives virtually unchecked authority to the California Air Resources Board to force Draconian reductions in carbon dioxide emissions by 2020.

This has dire implications to entire segments of California’s economy: agriculture, baking, distilling, cargo and passenger transportation, cement production, manufacturing, construction and energy production, to name a few.

We, too, were promised an explosion of “green jobs,” but exactly the opposite has happened.

Up until that bill took effect, California’s unemployment numbers tracked very closely with the national unemployment rate. But since then, California’s unemployment rate began a steady upward divergence from the national jobless figures. Today, California’s unemployment rate is more than two points above the national rate, and at its highest point since 1941.

The second problem is structural: the collapse of the checks and balances and other constitutional and traditional constraints on government spending and borrowing.

Let me mention a few of them.

The State Supreme Court decision in Serrano v. Priest severed the use of local revenue for local schools and invited the state take-over of public education. AB 8 of 1979 – the legislature’s response to Proposition 13 – essentially did the same thing to local governments generally.

This means that vast bureaucracies have grown up over the service delivery level, wasting more and more resources while hamstringing teachers in their classrooms, wardens in their prisons and city councils in their towns.

Next, constitutional constraints on fiscal excesses began to fall. In 1983, Gov. George Deukmejian approved legislation to remove the governor’s ability to make mid-year budget corrections without having to return to the legislature. The loss of this provision exposed the state to chronic deficit spending by removing any ability of the governor to rapidly respond to changing economic conditions.

In 1989, Deukmejian sponsored Proposition 111 that destroyed the Gann Spending Limit that had held increases in state spending to inflation and population growth. If that limit had remained intact, California would be enjoying a budget surplus today.

The disastrous tax increases by Pete Wilson in 1991 and Arnold Schwarzenegger this year were made possible by this tragic blunder.

Finally, we’ve watched the constitutional budget process that had produced relatively punctual and relatively balanced budgets for nearly 150 years collapse in favor of an extra-constitutional abomination called the big five.

That new process, that began under Pete Wilson and has culminated under Arnold Schwarzenegger bypasses the entire legislative deliberative process in favor of an annual deal struck between the governor and legislative leaders behind closed doors and handed to the legislature as a fait accompli.

This short-circuits the separation of powers that is designed to discipline fiscal excess and it literally bargains away the line-item veto authority of the governor. It is a process that allows legislative leaders to extract concessions from the executive that would not be possible if the separation of powers were maintained.

With the checks against excessive spending broken down, borrowing became the preferred method of public finance. The Constitutional requirement that all taxpayer-supported debt be approved by voters began to erode in the 1930’s, when a depression-era Supreme Court decision allowed the state to run a temporary deficit in the event of an economic down-turn — as long as the shortfall was addressed in the following fiscal year. This practice was narrowly construed until the Wilson administration began using it to justify spreading out a single year’s budget deficit over several years.

During the 1980’s, Gov. Deukmejian began employing a legal fiction called a “lease revenue bond,” to circumvent constitutionally required voter approval.

Although Proposition 13 still protects property owners from unsustainable increases in their property taxes, most of the other fiscal constraints are now gone, and California has entered a period of unprecedented public debt to finance an unprecedented expansion of state government.

The third factor that also can be traced back to the 1970’s was the radical transformation that took place in the nature and power of the state’s public employee unions. Until that time, state law prohibited public employee strikes against the public and prohibited collective bargaining or closed shops.

During the Jerry Brown era, a series of collective bargaining acts handed to public sector unions all the rights and powers of private sector unions – but without any of the natural constraints on private sector unions. The unions soon brought these newly-won powers to bear to elect hand-picked officials to state and local office.

Today, political expenditures by public employee unions exceed all other special interest groups, while they hold compliant majorities in the state legislature and most local agencies.

The result has been radically escalating personnel costs and radically deteriorating performance.

The impact on governmental services has been devastating. Despite exploding budgets, service delivery is collapsing. Firing incompetent teachers has become a virtual impossibility, adding to the deterioration of educational quality. Essential services can no longer be performed because labor costs have made it impossible to sustain those services.

Today, California is like the shopkeeper who leased out too much space, ordered too much inventory, hired too many people and paid them too much. Every month the shopkeeper covers his shortfalls with borrowing and bookkeeping tricks. Ultimately, he will reach a tipping point where anything he does makes his situation worse. Borrowing costs are eating him alive and he’s running out of credit. Raising prices causes his sales to decline. And there’s only so much discretionary spending he can cut.

That’s the state’s predicament in a nutshell. California’s borrowing costs now exceed the budget of the entire University of California and it is increasingly likely that it will fail to find lenders when it must borrow billions to pay its bills at the end of this month.

Ignoring dire warnings, Gov. Schwarzenegger and legislators from both parties earlier this year imposed the biggest state tax increase in American history.

And I can assure you that the Laffer curve is alive and well. In the first two months after the tax increase took effect, state revenues have plunged 33 percent.

Although there are many obsolete, duplicative or low priority programs and expenditures that the state can – and should – do without, there aren’t enough of them to come anywhere close to closing California’s deficit.

Sadly, California has reached the terminal stage of a bureaucratic state, where government has become so large and so tangled that it can no longer perform even basic functions.

Fortunately, we have a model that we know works. A generation ago, it produced a high quality of public service at a much lower cost. It maximized management flexibility and it required accountability at the service delivery level. It recognized that only when commerce and enterprise flourish can we finance the basic responsibilities of government.

Restoring this efficiency will require a governor and a legislature with the political will to wrestle control from the public employee unions, dismantle the enormous bureaucracies that have grown up over the service delivery level, decentralize administration and decision making, contract out services that the private sector can provide more efficiently, rescind the recent tax increases that are costing the state money and roll back the regulatory obstacles to productive enterprise.

Alas, we don’t have such leaders and even if we did, the systemic reorganization of the state government can’t be accomplished overnight. Restructuring the public schools would take at least a year; prisons at least two; and health and welfare three to five years before serious savings could be realized.

This brings us to the fine point of the matter. What Churchill called history’s “terrible, chilling words” are about to be pronounced on California’s failed leadership: “too late.”

A federal loan guarantee or bailout may be the only way to buy time for the restructuring of California’s bureaucracies to take effect, but the discussion remains academic until and unless the state actually adopts the replacement structures, unburdens its shrinking productive sector and presents a credible plan to redeem the state’s crushing debt and looming obligations.

Without these actions, federal intervention will only make California’s problems worse by postponing reform, continuing unsustainable spending and piling up still more debt.

In short, if California won’t help itself, the federal government cannot, should not and must not.

And before anyone gets too smug at California’s agony, remember this: Congress is now enacting the same policies at the national level that have caused the collapse of California. So whistle past this cemetery if you must, but remember the medieval epitaph: “Remember man as you walk by, as you are now so once was I; as I am now so you will be.”

The good news is there is still time for the nation to avoid California’s fate. If anything, the collapse of California can at least serve as a morality play for the rest of the nation – unfortunately in the form of a Greek tragedy.

Chains of Liberty

It’s time for another American Revolution.

Thomas Jefferson warned:

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

Break out those cains if you want to preserve the liberties you possess still.

Socialism is slavery.  It makes dependent those who receive the fruit of their fellow citizens’ labor, whose time and talent — in the form of their treasure — are confiscated at the point of a gun.

Humanly-speaking — for we can merit nothing before God, Christ is our Merit — if the State takes your wealth and uses it even accidentally for an occasional benevolent purpose, then it is no longer to your credit.

And what of when politicians hundreds and thousands of mile away use your wealth for immoral purposes?  Regarding that, Jefferson observed:

“to compel a man to furnish … money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.”

Politicians are not engaged in charity when they take your money and limit your freedom “for the public good.”  They’re thieves using your resources to maintain their position.  They think you exist to provide them power.

They work for you.

Government is Leviathan.  If it is not restrained, it will devour us all.

It’s time to start over as our Founders intended.  Remove all the filth politicians have codified into law and begin again from just the United States Constitution.

Let’s also add term limits for Congress, end their benefits, and certify place of birth for presidential candidates, while we’re at it.

The great Larry Elder nails it:

Assisting the needy in health care is a “moral imperative” – not a constitutional right. The two are as different as a squirt gun and an Uzi.

If something is not permitted under our Constitution, the federal government simply cannot do it. Period. The Founding Fathers vigorously debated the role of the federal government and defined it in Article I, Section 8 – spelling out the specific duties and obligations of the federal government. Most notably, this included providing a military for national security, coining money, establishing rules for immigration and citizenship, establishing rules for bankruptcy, setting up a postal system, establishing trademark and copyright rules, and setting up a legal system to resolves disputes, in addition to a handful of other matters.

Charity is not there.

Congress began ignoring its lack of authority for charity before the ink dried on the Constitution. When Congress appropriated $15,000 to assist French refugees in 1792, James Madison – a Founding Father and principal author of the Constitution – wrote, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

But what about the Constitution’s general welfare clause?

Madison said: “With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers (enumerated in the Constitution) connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

And consider government welfare’s effect on people’s willingness to give. During the Great Depression – before the social programs that today we accept as givens (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) – charitable giving increased dramatically. After FDR began signing social programs into law, charitable giving continued, but not at the same rate. People felt that they had given at the office and/or that government was “handling it.”

Government “charity” is simply less efficient than private charity. Every dollar extracted from taxpayers, sent to Washington, and then routed to the beneficiary “loses” about 70 cents in transfer costs – salaries, rent and other expenses. The Salvation Army, by contrast, spends 2 cents in operating costs, with the remainder going to fundraising and the beneficiary. They achieve this, among other ways, by relying on volunteers to do much of the work.

Following Hurricane Katrina, private companies, including The Home Depot and Wal-Mart, provided basic needs, such as water and shelter, faster than did government. What were their motives? Generosity? Positive public relations – a form of “selfishness”? Does it matter?

What about the issue of “moral hazard”? Does government welfare distort behavior and cause people to act irresponsibly? In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson launched a “War on Poverty.” “Anti-poverty” workers literally went door to door to inform women of their “right” to money and services – provided the recipients were unmarried and had no men living in their houses. Out-of-wedlock births skyrocketed. In 1960, before the “War on Poverty,” out-of-wedlock births accounted for 2 percent of white births and 22 percent of black births. By 1994 – just three decades after Johnson began his “War” – the rates had soared to 25 and 70 percent, respectively.

Numerous studies conclude that children of “broken homes” with absentee or nonexistent fathers are more likely to commit crimes, drop out of school, do drugs and produce out-of-wedlock children. In 1985, the Los Angeles Times asked both the poor and non-poor the following question: Do you think those on welfare have children to get on welfare? More poor people (64 percent) said “yes” to that proposition than did non-poor (44 percent).

If not taxation, how then?

In 1871, the city of Chicago burned to the ground. Contributions, with virtually no money from government, rebuilt the city. After 9/11, so many Americans gave money that the Red Cross used some contributions for non-9/11 purposes. Christianity Today wrote in January 2002: “Suddenly awash in a sea of money, relief agencies such as the Salvation Army need help. So much money – $1.5 billion so far – has come in that charities are having a hard time spending it.” And Americans donated an even greater sum to those affected by hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Three in four families donate to charity, averaging more than 3 percent of their income, with two-thirds going to secular charities. In total, Americans give more than $300 billion a year – more than the gross domestic product of Finland or Ireland. More than half of families also donate their time.

Absent (unconstitutional) government programs, individuals and charitable organizations can, will and – in many cases – already do provide services to the needy. A limited government – one that taxes only to fulfill its permissible duties – would allow even more disposable time and money.

People-to-people charity is more efficient, less costly, more humane and compassionate, and more likely to inspire change and self-sufficiency in the beneficiary. People can and would readily satisfy society’s “moral imperative.”

Obama is god

The blaspheming tyrant has done it again.

And you thought Rush was only joking.

Being “ready to rule from Day 1,” was bad enough, for with that, Obama made himself a king over free men.

Now, he’s made himself equal with God:

“We are God’s partners in matters of life and death . . . .”

This is evidence of Obama’s pathological, self-deifying narcissism.

It’s also proof that Obama thinks that the devout are idiots to be manipulated.

Isn’t this also an expression of the fact that liberals worship the State as god? Power above all else?

Obama on Health Care being Like Post Office, Private Insurance like UPS and FedEx

Ronald Reagan observed correctly that government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem.

Every once in a while, despite the best of efforts, the truth slips out:

If you have a voice, you have a weapon in defense of Liberty. Use it!

The opposition to socialized medicine is not a “conservative, right-wing thing.”

It is a “Liberty thing,” which is why leftists and other cowards don’t get it.

It’s a matter of life-and-death:

Mike Sola is a hero.

Here‘s the article to which he refers.

Those on the Left care about politics, because they want to exercise power over others.

The rest of us don’t want politics, we care about Right and Wrong, about Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

You’d think that at least a few of our elected officials would actually believe in that.

And this what you see in the video below: Members of AARP, older citizens who would seem most easily-tempted by collectivist promises of security, realizing the danger of encroaching government tyranny, waking up and talking back.

Notice also the speaker’s condescension to her audience: The “public” has to be quiet while she tells them what they are to think.

Just like the president, “ready to rule from Day One.”

We need patriots of all ages to wake up to politicians’ decades-long-but-recently-exploded usurpation of our Constitution.

Don’t wallow in self-pity lamenting, “What can someone like me do?”

The fight has commenced. Go to fighting or get away! (And start digging your grave.)

The unborn and the elderly are ObamaScare’s first victims. Only one has the voice to engage in this fight:

If you have a voice, you have a weapon in defense of Liberty. Use it!

The concentration camps are next.

Obama’s vision of America: Somewhere between Stalin and Hitler.

"Radicals" aren’t "exploiting" Qur’an, they’re just reading it

Maxtrue, in his impassioned defense of Islam, doesn’t quite live up to his name.

Perhaps “MaxPropaganda” or “MaxGullible” or “MaxUsefulIdiotDhimmi” or “MaxPoliticalCorrectness” or “MaxLogicalFallacies” — though not as eloquent — would be more accurate (and less tragically-ironic).

He observes:

your analogy is ludicrous. Hitler wasn’t governed by a religious doctrine but by HIS false interpretation of reality and history. He exploited national greivences following the defeat in WW1 and directed them towards Jews and his neighbors who he claimed either took German land or imposed unfair terms of surrender.

Muhammad was governed — or rather, governed others — by “HIS false interpretation of reality and history.” He exploited Man’s vilest impulses and directed them at Jews, Christians, the rest of the non-Muslim world, apostates, women, and little girls.

What do you know about the “religious” doctrines of Islam?

Are you going to plead, “But I have a Muslim dentist, and he’s a real nice guy”? Or, as Hugh Hewitt told Brad Thor recently, “I did a special on so-and-so and interviewed typically-good-natured-erudite-and-charming-moderate-Muslim-what’s-his-name? and he asked, ‘When are you going to give us our due?'” implying that you can define Islam by its apostates.

By what was Hitler governed? What did he seek to accomplish? Who were his allies in that effort?

Hitler sought total domination, the eradication of the Jews, and it was Hitler’s mufti, not Hitlers’ Pope.

Here’s your buddy Muhammad’s desire for total domination:

“Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone (in the whole of the world). But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do” (Qur’an 8:38; ayah 39 from Noble Qur’an).

Here’s his desire to eradicate the Jews:

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him“‘” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177).

“. . . We were (sitting) in the mosque when the Messenger of Allah . . . came to us and said: (Let us) go to the Jews. We went out with him until we came to them. The Messenger of Allah . . . stood up and called out to them (saying): O ye assembly of Jews, accept Islam (and) you will be safe.

[. . .]

“he killed their men, and distributed their women, children and properties among the Muslims, except that some of them had joined the Messenger of Allah . . . who granted them security. They embraced Islam. The Messenger of Allah . . . turned out all the Jews of Medlina. Banu Qainuqa’ (the tribe of ‘Abdullah b. Salim) and the Jews of Banu Haritha and every other Jew who was in Medina.

[. . .]

“It has been narrated by ‘Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah . . . say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim” (Muslim Book 19, Number 4363-4366).”

Maxtrue continues:

There is not one dictator directing more than a billion Muslims, nor do Islamic despots even have clear control of their populations as Hitler did. We see tonight not “death to Israel” but “death to Russia” and “death to China” on the streets of Tehran. Neda who many Muslims have made the poster girl of resistance was wearing a cross when she died.

Muhammad and his allah “direct [potentially] more than a billion Muslims.”

What do they command? Nothing less than slavery and death for those who refuse the “invitation” to Islam:

“the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: ‘Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them . . .'” (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

“fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . ” (Qur’an 9:5).

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).

“Allah’s Apostle said: ‘I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle . . . ‘” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

And those people protesting in Iran do so with various goals in mind. Many of them protest against the Islamic rule that you (apparently unknowingly) defend here.

With regard to Neda Soltani, were you aware that media had removed the cross from photos of her?

Why is that, I wonder?

Max adds:

What Muslim nation poses such enormous risk to the Western world as Hitler did?

9/11.

7/7.

3/11.

Mumbai, repeatedly.

Constantinople, 1453.

Gates of Vienna, 1683.

The Battle of Tours, 732.

Iran with a nuke.

Jihadists gain control of Pakistan’s nukes.

Threat? What threat?

Who’s killed more American civilians, Hitler or Muhammad?

Muslims obeying Allah’s commands and his prophet’s example to wage war against “those who disbelieve” took more American civilian lives in one morning than Hitler could in four years.

And that Tuesday was only one morning’s work.

Devout Muslims emulating Muhammad’s example have carried out nearly 14,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11 alone.

Do you honestly think that the US, Russia and China are no match for Iran, HIzb’Allah or Hamas? Your comparisons while couched in selective history completely ignore the historical differences between Germany and a Greater Islam. Certainly Jews would prefer the Muslim Spain they experiance to the Catholic one they were thrown out of.

Such a conclusion shows your ignorance of dhimma and what Jews endured under your “Islamic Golden Age.”

You’ve been propagandized, Max, and you don’t even know it.

Here’s what one of those lucky Jews had to say about legendary (literally) Islamic tolerance in glorious Al-Andalus:

“Remember, my coreligionists, that on account of the vast number of our sins, God has hurled us in the midst of this people, the Arabs [Muslims], who have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us … Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they….”

-Maimonides, victim of Islam in conquered Spain

Here begins the flood of Max’s logical fallacies:

Are you trying to tell us that more than 1 million Muslim Israelis embrace your literal interpretation of the Koran?

And what about the Old Testament? Are you suggesting that Jews around the world accept a literal interpretation of the Old Testament? Are jews of a singular mind? Ultra Orthodox Jews are against Israel whereas some Jews are for a greater Israel.

A straw man and red herring: I’ve never mentioned what “1 million Muslim Israelis embrace” nor what “Jews around the world accept.”

Argumentum ad hominem: It’s not “my literal interpretation” of Islam’s “sacred” texts that matter. It’s how Muslims have interpreted them traditionally, which is, literally, the way Muhammad intended.

Where have I claimed that anyone is of a “singular mind”?

I focus on the Source and Sustenance of nearly one and one-half millennia of global jihad, which is the word of Allah and the example of Muhammad. When I mention individual Muslims from history or current events it is to illustrate Muslim obedience to those dictates and emulation of that example.

And you can’t analyze Islam as you would analyze Judaism, for they are directed by diametrically-opposed moral standards.

Max continues with a stunningly ignorant — and false — moral equivalence:

Do you accept the literal interpretation of the New Testament? And if you do, why are you not as equal a threat to Jews as you say Muslims are?

Perhaps because Jesus commanded, “Love your neighbor as yourself” (every person is my “neighbor”), “Treat others the way you want to be treated,” and, “Love your enemies.”

On the other hand, Allah says:

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).

So, it’s not me saying “Muslims are a threat to Jews” . . . it’s Muhammad.

Here comes utter cluelessness, bad logic, and an outright lie:

How many Muslim nations help us in our struggle with radical Islam? How many Muslims serve in our military forces and don’t you insult them by characterizing them falsely?

Where have I “characterized falsely” Muslims in our military?

Paper is not people. Texts are not human beings.

You’re lying. Retract it.

Which Muslim nations actually “help” us? Saudi Arabia, whose royals fund “radical” Islam here and abroad and supported the 9/11 attack? Pakistan, which takes our money gleefully while falling to shari’a? Iraq, whose prime minister celebrated our departure as a “victory”?

Some friends you’ve got there, Max.

Here’s a false tu quoque:

And what slaughter was carried out in the name of Jesus or by communist regimes? Did they not kill, rape and murder far more human beings than all killed by Muslims?

Speaking of “peddling nonsense under the pretense of a lecturing historian”!

No Christian ever murdered, raped, or enslaved in obedience to Christ’s commands, only in violation of them, proving themselves criminals.

Communism has slaughtered scores of millions, but only in the last century.

On the other hand, in obedience to Allah’s command and in emulation of Muhammad’s example, Islam has been enslaving, raping, and butchering non-Muslims, apostates, women, and little girls for nearly one and one-half millennia.

Here’s another false moral equivalence from Max:

Again, shall I quote for you from the Bible?

Please do.

I guarantee you’ll find no command from Christ (or Moses) to enslave, rape, or slaughter those who refuse the “invitation” to Christianity (or Judaism).

It is one thing to say that the literal interpretation of the Koran is used by radicals to promote jihadist thinking, but quite another in extending such thought to all of Islam thus proving to the critical “moderates” that Westerners are just as crazed as Islamic radicals.

Where have I tried to “extend such thought to all of Islam”? The texts say what they say. Muhammad did what he did. His followers conquered, enslaved, raped, brutalized, and butchered whomever they could. Do you know nothing of the spread of Islam?

Talk to the more than ninety-percent of official Islam which upholds offensive jihad against non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

More historical illiteracy from Max:

You prove to them an equivalency of ideology when the way we will eventual triumph against radicalism is not by killing a billion Muslims, but through reformation.

How are you going to “reform a billion Muslims”?

What are you waiting for? You’d better get started!

Quoting their own texts does not “prove an equivalency of ideology.”

Neither did I say, “kill a billion Muslims.” Do you lie habitually?

If you’re referring to the European “Reformation,” that was a return to obedience (more or less, depending on the confession) to the Biblical texts.

You are seeing a comparable Islamic “reformation” in those Muslims who seek to obey Allah’s commands to convert, subjugate and humiliate, or slaughter the non-Muslim world.

And what do you do with the fact that in the Islam Mr. Obama demands we respect, no major school of Sunni jurisprudence (nor Shi’ite) rejects offensive warfare against the non-Muslim world?

Another ad hominem, this time in the form of guilt-by-association:

And your remarks on Hitler are astounding given the apparent alliance between many on your flank with neo-Nazis.

You have no apparent moral reservations about committing libel.

At least you imply (accidentally!) that I despise Hitler.

You’re lying again. Retract it, if you have any integrity.

My comments about Hitler are “astounding” only to the ignorant and the malicious, for I hate tyranny from wherever it comes, whether from a twentieth-century psychotic anti-Semite, or a seventh-century one.

A silly non sequitur from Max:

Do you believe all who do not accept Jesus Christ are going to Hell? Do you believe that woman was created from the rib of Adam? Do you believe Homosexuals sin? Do you believe Jews killed Christ? Why cannot Muslims ask this of Christians? Why cannot Muslims ask if YOU see them as heathens regardless of Jihad?

I am happy to address everyone’s theological questions, since I desire all people to trust in Christ for their salvation.

For the purposes of this discussion, I am concerned less about what Muslims wonder is going on in my head than what they believe their god and prophet require them to do with my head.

You do realize Muhammad commanded beheading non-Muslims for as little as “mischief,” right?

And this is the worst part. Your mindset so angers centrist Westerners like myself, you divide the consensus needed to address the real threat which is the ability of radicals to exploit the Koran in an effort to extend THEIR hegemony. In this struggle we unquestionably need the many moderate Muslims on our side.

Yes, fairy tales are much more effective in winning wars.

Which “mindset,” telling the truth? If that’s so, then you’ve got bigger problems than the ramblings of a “lecturing nonsense peddler.”

Your ignorance of Islamic doctrine and historical practice retards our efforts at self-defense, for you accept unquestioningly the existence of “many moderate Muslims on our side.”

Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that your numbers are correct (“many”) and that they truly are “on our side.” How do those “many” moderates convince their coreligionists-in-doubt that theirs is the “true” Islam when the “radicals” can point to what Muhammad actually said and did?

If the texts say, “demand the jizya . . . subdue . . . kill . . . until all religion is for Allah,” then how are the radicals “exploiting” Qur’an? Aren’t they just reading it?

Your thinking and declarations are counterproductive as you move from reasonable threat assessment of the spread of radicalism into extremism that denies the reality of hundreds of millions of Muslims seeking no Jihad, no death to infidels.

They’re not my declarations, they’re Allah and Muhammad‘s.

You are confusing what Muhammad said and did for what Muslims say and do.

Are you unable to make that simple distinction?

How does confusing the underlying ideology of jihad for those who do not adhere to it help us?

Here comes another tired ad hominem. It seems as though Max is reading from Islamic Apologetics for Dhimmis:

Perhaps you should get out more and see the world. Instead you point to unquestionable Islamic militancy and then spin it to impose your simplistic dialectic on history rather than see history for what it is. How do you explain that the world has more liberty today than it did a thousand years ago? Are you really claiming that human nature does not conspire to be free?

Anyone who can read will see that I’ve not “pointed to unquestionable Islamic militancy,” but the words and works of Muhammad and his allah.

You’re not calling Muhammad an “unquestionable Islamic militant,” are you?

What are you, some kind of Islamophobe?

Or perhaps you’re just unable to admit what your lyin’ eyes are telling you when you read those texts.

As for human liberty? It is true that people want freedom for themselves.

Their neighbors? Not so much.

More often than not, they desire power over their fellows. Even in Ancient Greece, only some men were free.

The Liberty that the world enjoys today is the direct result of the teachings of Christ as embodied in the Declaration of Independence and of the courage and self-sacrifice of the American soldier, Marine, sailor, and airman.

Our Founding Fathers were nearly all orthodox Christians; even Thomas Jefferson — often brought up as a contrary example — confessed that he preferred Christ’s teachings to all others.

He stated:

“The Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they [the clergy] have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of it’s benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind.”

-Thomas Jefferson to Moses Robinson, 1801

An actual answer to the question "Can Muhammad and Jefferson Coexist?"

[This post was begun June 17, 2007.

Since America faces an existential threat at the hands of its own “president,” his co-ideologues in one of our two major political parties, and his coreligionists waging war against us within and without our borders, the points it raises about Islam and its incompatibility with the principles of the American Republic are as timely as ever, especially as our own leadership accelerates our descent into oblivion.

All citizens must find the zeal for Liberty embodied by Jefferson and his fellow Founding Fathers.]

In an article entitled, “Can Muhammad and Jefferson Coexist?” the author raises several factors that relate to the answer to that question. Perhaps it is intended to serve as a starting point for discussion, because the essay never really answers the question clearly.

The answer is: Only if Jefferson were to convert, submit, or die, for that is all Muhammad and his allah allow the “infidel.”

The comments were interesting in that though there was the usual politically-correct, multiculturalist, morally-relative nonsense, quite a few posts were very clearly on the side of reality.

Being that most of my time in the Comments at Townhall is spent at Hugh Hewitt’s site pointing out to him that his Islam is a false one (or to Mormons that their christ is a false messiah), it is refreshing and encouraging to see that others recognize the nature of Qur’anic, historical, traditional Islam.

Answering the question and refuting Jihad’s apologists, from here:

Terror is fundamental to Islam

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror.’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

and,

“Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): ‘I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them'” (Qur’an 8:12).

Be happy, free, and wrong

Steve wrote:

“Obviously, someone can be a bad Muslim as easily as someone can be a bad Christian. The issue isn’t what they claim to be, but rather what they are.”

But “good” and “bad” must be defined in light of each religion’s authoritative texts, not human opinion.

A “good” Christian will tell the truth, love, serve, do good, and refrain from harming others because that is what Christ commands.

A “good” Muslim will fight against, subdue and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims to establish the tyranny of Allah over all mankind because that is what his god requires and his prophet practiced:

“. . . the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: ‘Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya . . . If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them…'” (Muslim Book 019, Number 4294).

Steve continues:

“America claims to have a separation of church and state . . . .”

The separation to which Jefferson referred was a protection of religion against government, not a protection of government against religion.

“Men have used violence to serve their own glory for thousands of years, and expect obedience and honor from those they rule over. A Nazi, a communist, an Islamist and a democratic imperialist are all wired the same way, the only difference is the self-satisfying text that they reference.”

How naive. The difference between all those you name and a Muslim is that the followers of Mahomet have the permanent, unalterable, and “divine” commands to: “. . . fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . ” (Qur’an 9:5), and:

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).

Not only this, but the faithful Muslim also has the words and deeds of Mohammed — described by Allah as a “beautiful pattern of conduct” — to emulate. Mohammed said, “. . . ‘I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle . . . ‘” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

“Christ and Socrates would be crucified for their pursuit of virtue . . . .”

Christ was killed for speaking the words and doing the work of His Father.

“. . . Look at the resistance to amnesty for illegal aliens, for example. The door to the inn is still closed, and a child is born in a land with little compassion but with huge warehouses and grand houses of hypocrisy.”

That hypocrisy exists is true. That our nation lacks virtue is for growing numbers of our people also true.

That defending one’s borders and enforcing the rule of law (we still have quite generous legal immigration rules) is immoral or cruel is suicidally false.

To justify the destruction of American sovereignty and the end of the rule of law by conflating it with the birth of the Son of God is sacrilege.

In response to JFP

JFP observed:

“Theoretically, yes
Just as there are many interpretations of the Bible, so there can be many interpretations of the Qur’an.”

The many interpretations are the fault of human error, arrogance, and carelessness.

They are not indicative of any weakness or ambiguity in the Biblical texts.

The same is true of Islam’s authoritative documents. Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira say what they say. It is the ignorant and the liar who claim the texts say anything other than what they clearly do.

There is no indication from these *Islamic* records that Mohammad and his followers understood these texts should be taken in any way other than with fatal literalism.

The nearly fourteen centuries of Infidel blood spilled, their women and children raped and enslaved, and the destruction of their religions, cultures, and nations in obedience to those texts also demonstrate that Muslims traditionally take Allah and his apostle at their word.

“When this point is brought up to secularists, what do they say?
1. They call us racist, as though that solves the problem.
2. They say it is too remote a possibility to worry about . . . .”

Which should cause all thinking Infidels to question whether or not these people are really “secularists” in fear of non-Muslim over-generalizations or actually apologists for jihad deceiving ignorant and gullible people of good will.

In response to Phylo

Can Phylo’s arguments co-exist w/ truth? He writes:

“Can Jesus coexist with Jefferson?”

The answer is, clearly, “yes,” since Jesus commanded His people to “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and give to God what is God’s.”

(And in case this little fact eluded your apparently vigorous intellectual curiosity, the Founding Fathers were overwhelmingly Christians.)

Phylo continues:

“This article is pure demagoguery. It’s nothing but a play on his audiences fears and prejudices. I swear the Republicans are aching to start a war with the Muslims. This is crazy.”

And your argument here is an impassioned appeal to people’s cowardice and ignorance.

What is truly crazy is that six years out from 9/11 (and centuries out from America’s first taste of Muslim terror) so many people fail to realize that Islam is at war with us.

Phylo reinforces the impression he has no understanding of Christianity or Islam with:

“I wonder if any of you who read this article will recognize that the exact same question could be asked of Christians and Jews.”

An implied equivalence in the answers betraying either your deficient knowledge, reason, moral judgment, or some combination of the three.

Find some Methodists beheading girls on their way to school, shouting “Christ is LORD!” and citing their Biblical justification for it. Then we can talk.

Phylo:

“So how can a good Christian still honor Jefferson?”

[Considering Jefferson’s self-professed preference for the doctrines of Christ above all others, “vigorously,” I’d say.]

That is a different question. Was the switch intentional or accidental?

Of course, a “good” Christian will honor what is honorable. Much of Jefferson’s contribution to America and the world is quite remarkable.

Phylo continued:

“And how does Jesus’ admonition to sell everything and follow him comport with capitalism? Can Jesus and Adam Smith co-exist?”

Another false comparison. But that’s easy for one with little intellectual integrity to do.

The command from Matthew 19 (and the parallel accounts in Mark 10 and Luke 18) was given to a specific person, at a specific time, and for a specific purpose.

If ownership of property were immoral, Christ would not have forbidden stealing.

More from Phylo:

“And how can a good Jew live in a country that doesn’t stone gays to death?”

Another command taken out of its proper context! Your lack of truthfulness is disappointing.

Capital punishment for homosexual behavior (and many other sins) was for the nation of Israel living under the Mosaic Covenant. It was not a universal command.

An actual answer to the question "Can Muhammad and Jefferson Coexist?"

[This post was begun June 17, 2007.

Since America faces an existential threat at the hands of its own “president,” his co-ideologues in one of our two major political parties, and his coreligionists waging war against us within and without our borders, the points it raises about Islam and its incompatibility with the principles of the American Republic are as timely as ever, especially as our own leadership accelerates our descent into oblivion.

All citizens must find the zeal for Liberty embodied by Jefferson and his fellow Founding Fathers.]

In an article entitled, “Can Muhammad and Jefferson Coexist?” the author raises several factors that relate to the answer to that question. Perhaps it is intended to serve as a starting point for discussion, because the essay never really answers the question clearly.

The answer is: Only if Jefferson were to convert, submit, or die, for that is all Muhammad and his allah allow the “infidel.”

The comments were interesting in that though there was the usual politically-correct, multiculturalist, morally-relative nonsense, quite a few posts were very clearly on the side of reality.

Being that most of my time in the Comments at Townhall is spent at Hugh Hewitt’s site pointing out to him that his Islam is a false one (or to Mormons that their christ is a false messiah), it is refreshing and encouraging to see that others recognize the nature of Qur’anic, historical, traditional Islam.

Answering the question and refuting Jihad’s apologists, from here:

Terror is fundamental to Islam

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror.’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

and,

“Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): ‘I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them'” (Qur’an 8:12).

Be happy, free, and wrong

Steve wrote:

“Obviously, someone can be a bad Muslim as easily as someone can be a bad Christian. The issue isn’t what they claim to be, but rather what they are.”

But “good” and “bad” must be defined in light of each religion’s authoritative texts, not human opinion.

A “good” Christian will tell the truth, love, serve, do good, and refrain from harming others because that is what Christ commands.

A “good” Muslim will fight against, subdue and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims to establish the tyranny of Allah over all mankind because that is what his god requires and his prophet practiced:

“. . . the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: ‘Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya . . . If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them…'” (Muslim Book 019, Number 4294).

Steve continues:

“America claims to have a separation of church and state . . . .”

The separation to which Jefferson referred was a protection of religion against government, not a protection of government against religion.

“Men have used violence to serve their own glory for thousands of years, and expect obedience and honor from those they rule over. A Nazi, a communist, an Islamist and a democratic imperialist are all wired the same way, the only difference is the self-satisfying text that they reference.”

How naive. The difference between all those you name and a Muslim is that the followers of Mahomet have the permanent, unalterable, and “divine” commands to: “. . . fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . ” (Qur’an 9:5), and:

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).

Not only this, but the faithful Muslim also has the words and deeds of Mohammed — described by Allah as a “beautiful pattern of conduct” — to emulate. Mohammed said, “. . . ‘I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle . . . ‘” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

“Christ and Socrates would be crucified for their pursuit of virtue . . . .”

Christ was killed for speaking the words and doing the work of His Father.

“. . . Look at the resistance to amnesty for illegal aliens, for example. The door to the inn is still closed, and a child is born in a land with little compassion but with huge warehouses and grand houses of hypocrisy.”

That hypocrisy exists is true. That our nation lacks virtue is for growing numbers of our people also true.

That defending one’s borders and enforcing the rule of law (we still have quite generous legal immigration rules) is immoral or cruel is suicidally false.

To justify the destruction of American sovereignty and the end of the rule of law by conflating it with the birth of the Son of God is sacrilege.

In response to JFP

JFP observed:

“Theoretically, yes
Just as there are many interpretations of the Bible, so there can be many interpretations of the Qur’an.”

The many interpretations are the fault of human error, arrogance, and carelessness.

They are not indicative of any weakness or ambiguity in the Biblical texts.

The same is true of Islam’s authoritative documents. Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira say what they say. It is the ignorant and the liar who claim the texts say anything other than what they clearly do.

There is no indication from these *Islamic* records that Mohammad and his followers understood these texts should be taken in any way other than with fatal literalism.

The nearly fourteen centuries of Infidel blood spilled, their women and children raped and enslaved, and the destruction of their religions, cultures, and nations in obedience to those texts also demonstrate that Muslims traditionally take Allah and his apostle at their word.

“When this point is brought up to secularists, what do they say?
1. They call us racist, as though that solves the problem.
2. They say it is too remote a possibility to worry about . . . .”

Which should cause all thinking Infidels to question whether or not these people are really “secularists” in fear of non-Muslim over-generalizations or actually apologists for jihad deceiving ignorant and gullible people of good will.

In response to Phylo

Can Phylo’s arguments co-exist w/ truth? He writes:

“Can Jesus coexist with Jefferson?”

The answer is, clearly, “yes,” since Jesus commanded His people to “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and give to God what is God’s.”

(And in case this little fact eluded your apparently vigorous intellectual curiosity, the Founding Fathers were overwhelmingly Christians.)

Phylo continues:

“This article is pure demagoguery. It’s nothing but a play on his audiences fears and prejudices. I swear the Republicans are aching to start a war with the Muslims. This is crazy.”

And your argument here is an impassioned appeal to people’s cowardice and ignorance.

What is truly crazy is that six years out from 9/11 (and centuries out from America’s first taste of Muslim terror) so many people fail to realize that Islam is at war with us.

Phylo reinforces the impression he has no understanding of Christianity or Islam with:

“I wonder if any of you who read this article will recognize that the exact same question could be asked of Christians and Jews.”

An implied equivalence in the answers betraying either your deficient knowledge, reason, moral judgment, or some combination of the three.

Find some Methodists beheading girls on their way to school, shouting “Christ is LORD!” and citing their Biblical justification for it. Then we can talk.

Phylo:

“So how can a good Christian still honor Jefferson?”

[Considering Jefferson’s self-professed preference for the doctrines of Christ above all others, “vigorously,” I’d say.]

That is a different question. Was the switch intentional or accidental?

Of course, a “good” Christian will honor what is honorable. Much of Jefferson’s contribution to America and the world is quite remarkable.

Phylo continued:

“And how does Jesus’ admonition to sell everything and follow him comport with capitalism? Can Jesus and Adam Smith co-exist?”

Another false comparison. But that’s easy for one with little intellectual integrity to do.

The command from Matthew 19 (and the parallel accounts in Mark 10 and Luke 18) was given to a specific person, at a specific time, and for a specific purpose.

If ownership of property were immoral, Christ would not have forbidden stealing.

More from Phylo:

“And how can a good Jew live in a country that doesn’t stone gays to death?”

Another command taken out of its proper context! Your lack of truthfulness is disappointing.

Capital punishment for homosexual behavior (and many other sins) was for the nation of Israel living under the Mosaic Covenant. It was not a universal command.

A failure of Liberty or of government?

From here, in response to this:

how am I a “rupulsive piece of work”?

Is it because I dare to speak out against the great failure that is laissez-faire Capitalism. I know it’s not politically correct to say that laissez-faire has failed, but reality and history have consistently shown laissez-faire to fail the people and the very system.

I don’t see what either Cuba or China have to do with what I’m saying. I’m saying that a common sense system of regulation makes more sense than supply-side economics.

If you’re talking about the current economic situation, the problem is the federal government’s corrupt and incompetent manipulation of the free market.

This is not a failure of Capitalism, it is a failure of government (and of the people to monitor those whom we elect).

Every person has the right to use his time and talent as he sees fit and to enjoy the fruit of his labor. No politician has the right to steal from him.

Only tyrants and slaves would think otherwise.

A failure of Liberty or of government?

From here, in response to this:

how am I a “rupulsive piece of work”?

Is it because I dare to speak out against the great failure that is laissez-faire Capitalism. I know it’s not politically correct to say that laissez-faire has failed, but reality and history have consistently shown laissez-faire to fail the people and the very system.

I don’t see what either Cuba or China have to do with what I’m saying. I’m saying that a common sense system of regulation makes more sense than supply-side economics.

If you’re talking about the current economic situation, the problem is the federal government’s corrupt and incompetent manipulation of the free market.

This is not a failure of Capitalism, it is a failure of government (and of the people to monitor those whom we elect).

Every person has the right to use his time and talent as he sees fit and to enjoy the fruit of his labor. No politician has the right to steal from him.

Only tyrants and slaves would think otherwise.

Theology shapes ideology

For better in the case of Christianity and the American Republic.

For worse in the case of Islam and non-Muslims, apostates, women, and children everywhere.

Spurred by a patriot:

Freedom of speech is an excellent point at which to begin comparing and contrasting YHWH and His Christ — the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and the Prophets — with Allah, Muhammad’s deity.

The American conviction expressed in the Declaration of Independence — that all rights come from YHWH and are therefore, unalienable (cannot be transferred, sold, stolen, or given away), belong to all equally, and include Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness – is derived directly from the teachings of the Bible, especially the words and work of Christ.

In the Ten Commandments we find YHWH’s protection of human life (and other rights), and in the words of the Apostles we find that, “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free.”

We also receive from Jesus the concept of “Two Kingdoms” — civil government versus God’s rule in the Church, the invisible body of all Christians everywhere. Christ taught, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s [in context, money for taxes, and this to the Roman tyrant!], and give to God what is God’s” [faith, obedience, loyalty, everything else].

Because of these doctrines, under the American Constitution all citizens are guaranteed the right to practice freely the non-genocidal, non-totalitarian religion of their choosing, without government interference.

Compare and contrast Christ’s doctrines and the form of government derived from them with Allah’s:

First, according to Muhammad, Allah’s final revelations (these abrogate all previous statements allowing peaceful cooperation with non-Muslims) do not allow freedom of speech or religion. Muhammad slaughtered those who spoke against him (see, for example, Asma bint Marwan, whose murder at Muhammad’s instigation is recorded by Ibn Ishaq in his Sirat Rasul Allah). He also commanded that if anyone changes his Islamic religion, “then kill him” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57).

Second, according to Muhammad, he was ordered (and so are his followers) to fight against the people “until all religion is for Allah.” Muslims are to use any means necessary to establish the rule of Allah over all mankind. This means that unless a non-Muslim accepts the “invitation” to Islam – or slavery under it if they’re “lucky” enough to be a Jew or Christian (or perhaps, Zoroastrian, though they’ve been mostly wiped out by Islam) — he is to be slaughtered by the faithful:

“the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: ‘Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them . . .'” (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

Consider the stark contrast between any shari’a state in history and America. Even today’s Islamic nations, though not fully shari’a-compliant, are prime examples of utter barbarism, discrimination, and tyranny, while the United States of America (once the most Christian nation on Earth) is still the most free, even to the point of ending slavery within its borders (something of which Muhammad and his allah approve, especially if the infidel slave woman is really “desirable”).

Clearly, when human beings obey the principles found in the religion taught by Christ, freedom results.

Allah’s religion results only in slavery and death.

Theology shapes ideology

For better in the case of Christianity and the American Republic.

For worse in the case of Islam and non-Muslims, apostates, women, and children everywhere.

Spurred by a patriot:

Freedom of speech is an excellent point at which to begin comparing and contrasting YHWH and His Christ — the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and the Prophets — with Allah, Muhammad’s deity.

The American conviction expressed in the Declaration of Independence — that all rights come from YHWH and are therefore, unalienable (cannot be transferred, sold, stolen, or given away), belong to all equally, and include Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness – is derived directly from the teachings of the Bible, especially the words and work of Christ.

In the Ten Commandments we find YHWH’s protection of human life (and other rights), and in the words of the Apostles we find that, “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free.”

We also receive from Jesus the concept of “Two Kingdoms” — civil government versus God’s rule in the Church, the invisible body of all Christians everywhere. Christ taught, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s [in context, money for taxes, and this to the Roman tyrant!], and give to God what is God’s” [faith, obedience, loyalty, everything else].

Because of these doctrines, under the American Constitution all citizens are guaranteed the right to practice freely the non-genocidal, non-totalitarian religion of their choosing, without government interference.

Compare and contrast Christ’s doctrines and the form of government derived from them with Allah’s:

First, according to Muhammad, Allah’s final revelations (these abrogate all previous statements allowing peaceful cooperation with non-Muslims) do not allow freedom of speech or religion. Muhammad slaughtered those who spoke against him (see, for example, Asma bint Marwan, whose murder at Muhammad’s instigation is recorded by Ibn Ishaq in his Sirat Rasul Allah). He also commanded that if anyone changes his Islamic religion, “then kill him” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57).

Second, according to Muhammad, he was ordered (and so are his followers) to fight against the people “until all religion is for Allah.” Muslims are to use any means necessary to establish the rule of Allah over all mankind. This means that unless a non-Muslim accepts the “invitation” to Islam – or slavery under it if they’re “lucky” enough to be a Jew or Christian (or perhaps, Zoroastrian, though they’ve been mostly wiped out by Islam) — he is to be slaughtered by the faithful:

“the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: ‘Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them . . .'” (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

Consider the stark contrast between any shari’a state in history and America. Even today’s Islamic nations, though not fully shari’a-compliant, are prime examples of utter barbarism, discrimination, and tyranny, while the United States of America (once the most Christian nation on Earth) is still the most free, even to the point of ending slavery within its borders (something of which Muhammad and his allah approve, especially if the infidel slave woman is really “desirable”).

Clearly, when human beings obey the principles found in the religion taught by Christ, freedom results.

Allah’s religion results only in slavery and death.

Ode to the little green ostrich behind the curtain

What should a free people do about those whose ideology demands they enslave or slaughter you and yours? Who believe that in imitation of their “Ideal Man,” raping your nine-year-old daughter — and your wife just after they’ve beheaded you — pleases their deity? Who consider Beethoven, Shakespeare, and the Sistine Chapel examples of jahiliya? Who would replace the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution with totalitarian and discriminatory laws regulating every aspect of life? Who consider submission to edicts of hell preferable to the freedoms of speech and conscience and the equality of rights for all people?

Deportation of those who refuse to renounce in word and deed such seditious, treasonous, and murderous positions is not “mass murder,” it is self-defense. It is common sense. And it is certainly much less violent than free people having to exercise their Second Amendment right in defense of hearth and home (a right which would be denied also to non-Muslims under shari’a).

Would the little green ostrich behind the curtain have defended two million Nazis within America’s borders during World War II? Based on the acuity of his thought on today’s jihad and how to defend ourselves against it, the answer is obvious.

Islam is an ideology, not a race.

So, here is a tribute to the self-appointed arbiter of all things “American” (apologies to Emma Lazarus):

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates did stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

was the imprisoned lightning, and her name now

Mother of Infidels. From her now amputated hand

Glowed world-wide welcome; her mild eyes (all you can see of her)

above and below by black cloth framed.

“Keep ancient lands, your sympathy!” cries she

With silent lips and nose removed. “Keep your tired, your poor,

I’ve got huddled masses breathing shari’a;

The wretched refuse of my teeming shore

Did nothing while the moderates and mujahideen, Tempter-tost to me,

Lifted my head beside the golden door!”

What will it be now with President-elect B. Hamas Obama taking power?

It began as a battle cry.

All images property of their individual owners. The song belongs to Toby Keith.

The God-given, unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness belong to all Men.

What will it be now with President-elect B. Hamas Obama taking power?

It began as a battle cry.

All images property of their individual owners. The song belongs to Toby Keith.

The God-given, unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness belong to all Men.

What will it be now with President-elect B. Hamas Obama taking power?

It began as a battle cry.

All images property of their individual owners. The song belongs to Toby Keith.

The God-given, unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness belong to all Men.

Will you be slaves, or free?

Essential reflections on Liberty, and what it means to be an American from James Riley.

Every American-born, college-“educated” liberal needs to learn the same truths.

Americans Made Here

By James Riley

As I have told dozens of the teachers who visit our farm, when we first began conducting Revolutionary War field trips on Riley’s Farm, I thought we would perform–if we were lucky–perhaps 10 or 20 tours a year. I thought my own passion for 18th century history, and the whole story of universal human rights on display in the story of Lexington and Concord, would have–at best–a limited audience. I thought, in other words, I would be preaching to the choir for a few kindred souls who knew Sam Adams was more than a beer label.

I could not have been more wrong.

From January to the end of June and from October to the middle of December, we are performing the Revolutionary War Adventure for hundreds of visitors a day, five days a week. I had my first inkling of the story’s universal appeal one day when I was leading a group of Korean American boys through the orchard, in military formation, and I heard one of them shout it out behind me, “this is COOL!”

The simple truths are universal. They transcend all cultural, economic, and ethnic boundaries. An Italian American and an African American an Asian American a Mexican American and an Irish American and a Greek American all applaud long and loud when they hear Patrick Henry’s immortal words, “Give me Liberty or Give me Death!” When they stand on the battle line and I shout out the rallying cry, “will you be free or slaves?” they all respond, without hesitation, “free!” When I strike up the tune that was once “God Save the King,” but that is now “My country ’tis of thee,” the voices start in, and they begin to swell, and some afternoons you can hear hundreds of American voices singing, with deep conviction, “from every mountain side, let freedom ring.”

Again, the simple truths are universal. No one wants to be a slave. No one wants to have their parents rounded up and put in cattle cars. No one wants to be told who or where to worship. No one wants to have their earnings, their homes, their children stolen from them, by arbitrary, arrogant, un-bridled authority.

Thomas Jefferson had it right. We are endowed by our “Creator with certain unalienable rights.” This isn’t just an outdated baroque English notion–it’s a universal conviction–a granite pillar at the center of our souls. Tyrants can’t stand the notion that we–as Americans–derive our rights not from neighborhood committees, not from academic studies, not from tepid consensus, but from God Himself–from our “Creator.” Tyrants hate this conviction with a passion. That’s why China rounded up another 80 Christian pastors this week. That’s why Stalin and Hitler and Castro and Pol Pot had to subjugate their churches before they could subjugate and torture their own people.

Americans HATE tyranny and whether it takes the form of an English aristocrat or a Taliban zealot, they will–as Jefferson predicted–water the tree of liberty with the blood of the tyrant every time. Freedom is what we have in common as Americans, and that is what we teach here. I’m struck–over and over again–by how completely universal that notion is. Left, right, or middle of the road– Americans lock arms on the story of liberty.

We spend a lot of time these days talking about–and even celebrating our differences, and I love some of those differences. I married a Greek girl and she feeds me well–with foods that I never grew up with as a child. I love Mariachi bands and German Oktoberfests and Irish music. I am fiercely proud of my pioneer stock–of ancestors who braved the wilderness in four different American centuries. I love New England architecture, but I also love Spanish courtyards and Swedish log cabins and Irish stone walls.

I will tell you, though, that–as Americans–there is one difference we should NOT celebrate. There is nothing particularly joyful about Castro’s Cuba or the moral lethargy of modern day France. I see no real cause for celebration in pondering Saudi Arabia’s total lack of religious tolerance or the brutal rape squads of the Sudanese Muslims. The canine appetite for power demonstrated by China’s political leaders isn’t something I quietly celebrate whenever I order–and thoroughly enjoy–Mushu Pork. America’s immigrants should be taught that their cultural traditions are valuable, but their political assumptions should be left at the border. They left slaves; they arrive sons and daughters of Liberty. It isn’t about the differences between the cultures and the ethnicities; it’s about people who believe in freedom and those who don’t.

And, perhaps just as important, they need to know that Americans fight for that liberty. A friend of mine has a ministry to recently arrived Christians from the middle east. These are folks who have endured tyrannical Muslim majorities most of their lives, and some of them don’t really believe any government will ever truly honor freedom and promote justice, but immigrants from all nations need to know that Americans will gladly lock arms with people of every color to protect what their ancestors have purchased with blood. Americans don’t stand quivering at the door, asking quietly for their God given rights. They demand them. As one commentator put it, liberty is not really ever given. It is taken.

Well, at Riley’s Farm, we teach that story. Along with their teachers, and their parents, we are happy to be teaching a new generation of children the most vital of American truths, and in so doing, we are proud to be, literally, making new Americans every day.

Will you be slaves, or free?

Essential reflections on Liberty, and what it means to be an American from James Riley.

Every American-born, college-“educated” liberal needs to learn the same truths.

Americans Made Here

By James Riley

As I have told dozens of the teachers who visit our farm, when we first began conducting Revolutionary War field trips on Riley’s Farm, I thought we would perform–if we were lucky–perhaps 10 or 20 tours a year. I thought my own passion for 18th century history, and the whole story of universal human rights on display in the story of Lexington and Concord, would have–at best–a limited audience. I thought, in other words, I would be preaching to the choir for a few kindred souls who knew Sam Adams was more than a beer label.

I could not have been more wrong.

From January to the end of June and from October to the middle of December, we are performing the Revolutionary War Adventure for hundreds of visitors a day, five days a week. I had my first inkling of the story’s universal appeal one day when I was leading a group of Korean American boys through the orchard, in military formation, and I heard one of them shout it out behind me, “this is COOL!”

The simple truths are universal. They transcend all cultural, economic, and ethnic boundaries. An Italian American and an African American an Asian American a Mexican American and an Irish American and a Greek American all applaud long and loud when they hear Patrick Henry’s immortal words, “Give me Liberty or Give me Death!” When they stand on the battle line and I shout out the rallying cry, “will you be free or slaves?” they all respond, without hesitation, “free!” When I strike up the tune that was once “God Save the King,” but that is now “My country ’tis of thee,” the voices start in, and they begin to swell, and some afternoons you can hear hundreds of American voices singing, with deep conviction, “from every mountain side, let freedom ring.”

Again, the simple truths are universal. No one wants to be a slave. No one wants to have their parents rounded up and put in cattle cars. No one wants to be told who or where to worship. No one wants to have their earnings, their homes, their children stolen from them, by arbitrary, arrogant, un-bridled authority.

Thomas Jefferson had it right. We are endowed by our “Creator with certain unalienable rights.” This isn’t just an outdated baroque English notion–it’s a universal conviction–a granite pillar at the center of our souls. Tyrants can’t stand the notion that we–as Americans–derive our rights not from neighborhood committees, not from academic studies, not from tepid consensus, but from God Himself–from our “Creator.” Tyrants hate this conviction with a passion. That’s why China rounded up another 80 Christian pastors this week. That’s why Stalin and Hitler and Castro and Pol Pot had to subjugate their churches before they could subjugate and torture their own people.

Americans HATE tyranny and whether it takes the form of an English aristocrat or a Taliban zealot, they will–as Jefferson predicted–water the tree of liberty with the blood of the tyrant every time. Freedom is what we have in common as Americans, and that is what we teach here. I’m struck–over and over again–by how completely universal that notion is. Left, right, or middle of the road– Americans lock arms on the story of liberty.

We spend a lot of time these days talking about–and even celebrating our differences, and I love some of those differences. I married a Greek girl and she feeds me well–with foods that I never grew up with as a child. I love Mariachi bands and German Oktoberfests and Irish music. I am fiercely proud of my pioneer stock–of ancestors who braved the wilderness in four different American centuries. I love New England architecture, but I also love Spanish courtyards and Swedish log cabins and Irish stone walls.

I will tell you, though, that–as Americans–there is one difference we should NOT celebrate. There is nothing particularly joyful about Castro’s Cuba or the moral lethargy of modern day France. I see no real cause for celebration in pondering Saudi Arabia’s total lack of religious tolerance or the brutal rape squads of the Sudanese Muslims. The canine appetite for power demonstrated by China’s political leaders isn’t something I quietly celebrate whenever I order–and thoroughly enjoy–Mushu Pork. America’s immigrants should be taught that their cultural traditions are valuable, but their political assumptions should be left at the border. They left slaves; they arrive sons and daughters of Liberty. It isn’t about the differences between the cultures and the ethnicities; it’s about people who believe in freedom and those who don’t.

And, perhaps just as important, they need to know that Americans fight for that liberty. A friend of mine has a ministry to recently arrived Christians from the middle east. These are folks who have endured tyrannical Muslim majorities most of their lives, and some of them don’t really believe any government will ever truly honor freedom and promote justice, but immigrants from all nations need to know that Americans will gladly lock arms with people of every color to protect what their ancestors have purchased with blood. Americans don’t stand quivering at the door, asking quietly for their God given rights. They demand them. As one commentator put it, liberty is not really ever given. It is taken.

Well, at Riley’s Farm, we teach that story. Along with their teachers, and their parents, we are happy to be teaching a new generation of children the most vital of American truths, and in so doing, we are proud to be, literally, making new Americans every day.

We’re at the last stage, the beginning of the end of the West

This will be our lament — if there’s anyone left to mourn.

From Alexander Fraser Tyler, warning the Founding Fathers of the dangers of democracy, since the Athenian republic had fallen because of an inherent weakness in democracy . . . allowing the ignorant, easily-manipulated [or selfish] common people to determine government policy:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.

“From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

“The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back again into bondage.”

And here is Aldous Huxley in the Forward to Brave New World, describing the end of the American experiment:

“Only a large-scale popular movement toward decentralization and self-help can arrest the present tendency toward statism . . . A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and schoolteachers.”

We’re at the last stage, the beginning of the end of the West

This will be our lament — if there’s anyone left to mourn.

From Alexander Fraser Tyler, warning the Founding Fathers of the dangers of democracy, since the Athenian republic had fallen because of an inherent weakness in democracy . . . allowing the ignorant, easily-manipulated [or selfish] common people to determine government policy:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.

“From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

“The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back again into bondage.”

And here is Aldous Huxley in the Forward to Brave New World, describing the end of the American experiment:

“Only a large-scale popular movement toward decentralization and self-help can arrest the present tendency toward statism . . . A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and schoolteachers.”

Socialism is slavery, in Jefferson’s own words

Socialism is a form of statism that plays upon muddied, emotional misconceptions of charity and equality to justify appealing to others’ greed and sense of entitlement for their votes.

The one who works and has the fruit of his labor taken from him at the point of a gun is made a slave to the State; the one who receives from the State the fruit of others’ labor is made not only a dependent, but a thief.

The responsibility to earn one’s daily bread is transferred to the State; the Christian responsibility for charity is transferred away also.

In matters of self-defense and national security, the same abdication of individual responsibility occurs. A citizen threatened by another calls for police rather than defend himself, and it is easy for a man to think to himself when his nation is at war, “Why should I go to fight? We have people who are paid to do that.”

(What will become of that large, professional, standing army in the hands of a tyrant?)

The best solution for preserving Liberty is a militia, free men fulfilling their individual responsibilities to defend hearth and home, as our forefathers did.

From here:

On April 13, every American should raise a champagne glass high to toast the farmer, architect, scholar, revolutionary and American president born that spring day in 1743: Thomas Jefferson. One of our greatest Founding Fathers, Jefferson lovingly carved much of the government and character of his precious gem, America.

He penned numerous documents extolling the revolutionary ideas of his time, including the stirring words on the parchment that is the soul of America, “The Declaration of Independence.” Yet how many of our current citizens – and elected officials – truly understand its meaning?

The Declaration launched the first country in history based on the principle that every individual possesses certain “unalienable” rights. According to Jefferson’s writings, “free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their Chief Magistrate.” No tyrant can violate the rights of man, nor can any majority vote in Congress. “[T]he majority, oppressing an individual,” says Jefferson, “is guilty of a crime … and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.”

Our rights belong to us as individuals, with each of us possessing the same rights. There are no “rights” of groups to any special favors or privileges. It is inappropriate, for example, for pizza eaters to lobby Congress for a “right” to a free pizza every Thursday. If Congress grants their wish, out of concern for their nourishment or their votes, it acts outside of its proper function. According to Jefferson, “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated [in the Constitution].”

Our rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness are rights to take action; they are not entitlements to the goods and services of others. Jefferson defined liberty as “unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.” This means we may act in our own behalf, for example, to earn money and buy a house, but we may not expect the government to tax others to provide us with a house for free.

Life requires productive work and effort to sustain it, a fact that Jefferson considered to be our glory. When his Monticello farm fell on hard times, he began producing nails, and did so proudly because “every honest employment is deemed honorable [in America]. … My new trade of nail-making is to me in this country what an additional title of nobility … [is] in Europe.” He scorned the “idleness” of the European aristocracy, calling their courts “the weakest and worst part of mankind.” What would he think of our current government’s grants and handouts to countless special interest groups, a practice that rewards people for non-effort?

Our right to property means we have the right to keep the things we acquire. Does a rich person have less of a right to property than a poor person? According to Jefferson: “To take from one because it is thought his own industry … has acquired too much, in order to spare others who … have not exercised equal industry and skill is to violate the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” What would he think of the persistent cries of today’s politicians to “tax the rich,” thereby depriving them of their property and the pursuit of their happiness?

Jefferson ardently championed the spiritual and intellectual independence of the individual. He was so proud of authoring the “Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom” in Virginia that he had this fact etched on his tombstone. The bill ended the practice of paying the clergy with public funds because “to compel a man to furnish … money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.” Jefferson believed that religion was a completely private matter and fought for a “wall of separation between church and state.” He was “against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another”; and he swore “eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” What would he think of today’s attempts by religious lobbyists and elected officials to dictate public policy based on their faith?

Since, all laws are the codification of someone’s morality, and American Liberty is founded upon the doctrines of Christ, the author’s intent here is unclear. She continues:

Because we possess rights, governments are instituted. Wise government, explains Jefferson, “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.” Government acts only to protect us from acts of force or fraud, apprehending perpetrators who pick our pockets or break our legs; otherwise, it does not regulate or control our lives in any way. Jefferson was “for a government rigorously frugal and simple … and not for a multiplication of officers and salaries merely to make partisans. …” What would he think of the 150,000-page Code of Federal Regulations and the swarms of agencies, commissions and departments that today swallow 40 percent of our national income?

Jefferson believed citizens to be capable of self-sufficiency because they possess reason. “Fix reason firmly to her seat and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion.” He expected people to use their minds to overcome obstacles and control their own lives. He gently chastised his 15-year-old daughter when she had difficulty reading an ancient text on Roman history without the aid of her teacher. “If you always lean on your master, you will never be able to proceed without him. It is part of the American character to consider nothing as desperate – to surmount every difficulty. …” Americans, he continued, “are obliged to invent and to execute; to find the means within ourselves and not to lean on others.” To do otherwise, his daughter would be “thought a very helpless animal, and less esteemed.” What would he think of today’s entitlement programs, which destroy a person’s capacity to think and act for himself, and transform him into a helpless dependent?

Within a mere page in the calendar of history, the powerful doctrine of individual rights led to the abolition of slavery, the suffrage of women and the spread of freedom to many countries around the globe. It all began with the founding of America.

Jefferson fought for a country in which the government had no power to encroach on the mind, the life, the liberty or the property of the individual. He fought for a country in which the individual was unshackled for the first time in history and could live for the pursuit of his own happiness, instead of being a pawn in the hands of the state. The way to pay tribute to Jefferson – and to ourselves – is to protest the hammering of our rights by officials who can’t tell a diamond from a rhinestone, to hold dear the jewel that is America, and to polish the ideals for which Jefferson in the Declaration pledged his life, his fortune and his sacred honor.

Socialism is slavery, in Jefferson’s own words

Socialism is a form of statism that plays upon muddied, emotional misconceptions of charity and equality to justify appealing to others’ greed and sense of entitlement for their votes.

The one who works and has the fruit of his labor taken from him at the point of a gun is made a slave to the State; the one who receives from the State the fruit of others’ labor is made not only a dependent, but a thief.

The responsibility to earn one’s daily bread is transferred to the State; the Christian responsibility for charity is transferred away also.

In matters of self-defense and national security, the same abdication of individual responsibility occurs. A citizen threatened by another calls for police rather than defend himself, and it is easy for a man to think to himself when his nation is at war, “Why should I go to fight? We have people who are paid to do that.”

(What will become of that large, professional, standing army in the hands of a tyrant?)

The best solution for preserving Liberty is a militia, free men fulfilling their individual responsibilities to defend hearth and home, as our forefathers did.

From here:

On April 13, every American should raise a champagne glass high to toast the farmer, architect, scholar, revolutionary and American president born that spring day in 1743: Thomas Jefferson. One of our greatest Founding Fathers, Jefferson lovingly carved much of the government and character of his precious gem, America.

He penned numerous documents extolling the revolutionary ideas of his time, including the stirring words on the parchment that is the soul of America, “The Declaration of Independence.” Yet how many of our current citizens – and elected officials – truly understand its meaning?

The Declaration launched the first country in history based on the principle that every individual possesses certain “unalienable” rights. According to Jefferson’s writings, “free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their Chief Magistrate.” No tyrant can violate the rights of man, nor can any majority vote in Congress. “[T]he majority, oppressing an individual,” says Jefferson, “is guilty of a crime … and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.”

Our rights belong to us as individuals, with each of us possessing the same rights. There are no “rights” of groups to any special favors or privileges. It is inappropriate, for example, for pizza eaters to lobby Congress for a “right” to a free pizza every Thursday. If Congress grants their wish, out of concern for their nourishment or their votes, it acts outside of its proper function. According to Jefferson, “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated [in the Constitution].”

Our rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness are rights to take action; they are not entitlements to the goods and services of others. Jefferson defined liberty as “unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.” This means we may act in our own behalf, for example, to earn money and buy a house, but we may not expect the government to tax others to provide us with a house for free.

Life requires productive work and effort to sustain it, a fact that Jefferson considered to be our glory. When his Monticello farm fell on hard times, he began producing nails, and did so proudly because “every honest employment is deemed honorable [in America]. … My new trade of nail-making is to me in this country what an additional title of nobility … [is] in Europe.” He scorned the “idleness” of the European aristocracy, calling their courts “the weakest and worst part of mankind.” What would he think of our current government’s grants and handouts to countless special interest groups, a practice that rewards people for non-effort?

Our right to property means we have the right to keep the things we acquire. Does a rich person have less of a right to property than a poor person? According to Jefferson: “To take from one because it is thought his own industry … has acquired too much, in order to spare others who … have not exercised equal industry and skill is to violate the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” What would he think of the persistent cries of today’s politicians to “tax the rich,” thereby depriving them of their property and the pursuit of their happiness?

Jefferson ardently championed the spiritual and intellectual independence of the individual. He was so proud of authoring the “Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom” in Virginia that he had this fact etched on his tombstone. The bill ended the practice of paying the clergy with public funds because “to compel a man to furnish … money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.” Jefferson believed that religion was a completely private matter and fought for a “wall of separation between church and state.” He was “against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another”; and he swore “eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” What would he think of today’s attempts by religious lobbyists and elected officials to dictate public policy based on their faith?

Since, all laws are the codification of someone’s morality, and American Liberty is founded upon the doctrines of Christ, the author’s intent here is unclear. She continues:

Because we possess rights, governments are instituted. Wise government, explains Jefferson, “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.” Government acts only to protect us from acts of force or fraud, apprehending perpetrators who pick our pockets or break our legs; otherwise, it does not regulate or control our lives in any way. Jefferson was “for a government rigorously frugal and simple … and not for a multiplication of officers and salaries merely to make partisans. …” What would he think of the 150,000-page Code of Federal Regulations and the swarms of agencies, commissions and departments that today swallow 40 percent of our national income?

Jefferson believed citizens to be capable of self-sufficiency because they possess reason. “Fix reason firmly to her seat and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion.” He expected people to use their minds to overcome obstacles and control their own lives. He gently chastised his 15-year-old daughter when she had difficulty reading an ancient text on Roman history without the aid of her teacher. “If you always lean on your master, you will never be able to proceed without him. It is part of the American character to consider nothing as desperate – to surmount every difficulty. …” Americans, he continued, “are obliged to invent and to execute; to find the means within ourselves and not to lean on others.” To do otherwise, his daughter would be “thought a very helpless animal, and less esteemed.” What would he think of today’s entitlement programs, which destroy a person’s capacity to think and act for himself, and transform him into a helpless dependent?

Within a mere page in the calendar of history, the powerful doctrine of individual rights led to the abolition of slavery, the suffrage of women and the spread of freedom to many countries around the globe. It all began with the founding of America.

Jefferson fought for a country in which the government had no power to encroach on the mind, the life, the liberty or the property of the individual. He fought for a country in which the individual was unshackled for the first time in history and could live for the pursuit of his own happiness, instead of being a pawn in the hands of the state. The way to pay tribute to Jefferson – and to ourselves – is to protest the hammering of our rights by officials who can’t tell a diamond from a rhinestone, to hold dear the jewel that is America, and to polish the ideals for which Jefferson in the Declaration pledged his life, his fortune and his sacred honor.

Death by a thousand cuts

James Madison identified succinctly the strategy of many of our democratically-elected “public servants” (and their counterparts in the slow jihad):

“Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

For several generations, American Education has been in the hands of those who despise Liberty and the God Who gave it to us. Science (fiction) and the Media have pounded the same rhythm, and the Church has cowered.

Since at least FDR (or Lincoln — still thinking about that), the American president has violated (or done little to restore) the Constitutional limitations placed upon his power.

And not only the Executive, but also the Legislative and Judicial branches have gone far beyond the chains set upon them by the Constitution. What government official doesn’t violate its principles in attempting to satiate his or her lust for power (McClintock, Thomas, and their few fellow patriots in power excepted)?

And in our ignorance, greed, and apathy, We the People not only allow this usurpation of our Rights won for us (and preserved today) by much better men (and women), we continue to vote for thieves and tyrants, surrender to them our birthright, and then thank them for the privilege of doing so.

[Seeing the success of America’s own God-haters (mostly atheists, Communists, Socialists, and the sexually deviant), what approach has Islam adopted in its goal of establishing the tyranny of Allah over the United States?

Taking down our Towers has gotten many of them killed (have fun in Paradise, devils!), so most Muslims continue the slow jihad against us in our courts, legislatures, executive offices, financial institutions, and media.]

President Bush was supposed to be a Conservative. Considering the contempt for the Constitution and American sovereignty he shares with most Democrats, the only difference between President Bush and a liberal is that he expresses a muddled religiosity without supporting abortion or overtly hating the military.

On President Bush’s perfidy, from here:

When President Bush expressed disappointment with the Supreme Court ruling that said neither he nor the World Court had the authority to order a Texas court to reopen a death penalty case involving a foreign national, I was a little puzzled.

I know it was Bush who sided with international law over U.S. sovereignty to set up the case. I know it was Bush who sided with a brutal murderer-rapist over state courts to set up the case. I know it was Bush who sided with Mexico and the World Court over common sense, decency and the rule of law.

But I was still a little taken aback by Bush’s continued protests – even when the highest court in the land had rebuked him in a 6-3 decision.

Why was I surprised about Bush’s reaction to the ruling in the case of Ernesto Medellin v. Texas that will clear the way for the execution for his part in a gang rape and murder attack on Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Peña, 15, as they walked home from a friend’s home?

Well, I couldn’t help think about the first time I met George W. Bush – before he became president. This was the one and only meeting I needed to know, without a doubt, Bush was clueless – destined, if elected, to be an inept leader faithless to the principles of American independence and self-government.

It was in that meeting that someone asked the former governor of Texas what he would do if a piece of legislation clearly unconstitutional arrived on his desk at the White House.

I will never forget Bush’s chilling answer to that question.

“How will I know if it’s unconstitutional?” he asked.

Perhaps in the last nine years Bush has realized that every American – and certainly every elected official – has an obligation to consider the Constitution, a duty to understand it and the intellectual integrity to determine whether our laws live up to the founding document of our republic.

Back then, he apparently thought only Supreme Court justices were qualified and empowered to make that determination. Last month, when the Supreme Court in convincing fashion stood up to Bush, the World Court, Mexico and the injustice they were all trying to ram down Americans’ throats, apparently Bush believed the justices decided wrongly.

It was the right decision.

And it was a little surprising given the dangerous predilection of several members of the court to consider foreign laws in their deliberations.

While we should be encouraged by the ruling, Americans should be very concerned by the way elected leaders like Bush and appointed officials like some of our Supreme Court justices actually believe there are earthly, man-made laws higher that our own Constitution.

If that is so, then Americans are no longer a people in control of their own destiny. We are no longer a people empowered to govern ourselves. We no longer have a government of the people, by the people and for the people. We no longer have a government accountable to the will of the people and the rule of law.

Obviously, that is where globalists like Bush want to take America – where foreigners can dictate to Americans how they will mete out justice, where foreigners will tell Americans how to take care of their own property and manage their own environment, where foreigners will instruct Americans on how to conduct their foreign and domestic affairs.

This is the tragedy of the times in which we live. Our founders told us that only a moral people, only an educated people, only a freedom-loving people, only a people willing to sacrifice were suited to the kind of government they gave us. I’m no longer sure the American people are capable of self-government. I’m no longer sure the American people are worthy of the opportunity for self-government.

I’m reminded of what Judge Learned Hand wrote in 1944: “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.”

In the context of slavery, Thomas Jefferson said:

“can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever . . . .”

Americans make themselves slaves.

Death by a thousand cuts

James Madison identified succinctly the strategy of many of our democratically-elected “public servants” (and their counterparts in the slow jihad):

“Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

For several generations, American Education has been in the hands of those who despise Liberty and the God Who gave it to us. Science (fiction) and the Media have pounded the same rhythm, and the Church has cowered.

Since at least FDR (or Lincoln — still thinking about that), the American president has violated (or done little to restore) the Constitutional limitations placed upon his power.

And not only the Executive, but also the Legislative and Judicial branches have gone far beyond the chains set upon them by the Constitution. What government official doesn’t violate its principles in attempting to satiate his or her lust for power (McClintock, Thomas, and their few fellow patriots in power excepted)?

And in our ignorance, greed, and apathy, We the People not only allow this usurpation of our Rights won for us (and preserved today) by much better men (and women), we continue to vote for thieves and tyrants, surrender to them our birthright, and then thank them for the privilege of doing so.

[Seeing the success of America’s own God-haters (mostly atheists, Communists, Socialists, and the sexually deviant), what approach has Islam adopted in its goal of establishing the tyranny of Allah over the United States?

Taking down our Towers has gotten many of them killed (have fun in Paradise, devils!), so most Muslims continue the slow jihad against us in our courts, legislatures, executive offices, financial institutions, and media.]

President Bush was supposed to be a Conservative. Considering the contempt for the Constitution and American sovereignty he shares with most Democrats, the only difference between President Bush and a liberal is that he expresses a muddled religiosity without supporting abortion or overtly hating the military.

On President Bush’s perfidy, from here:

When President Bush expressed disappointment with the Supreme Court ruling that said neither he nor the World Court had the authority to order a Texas court to reopen a death penalty case involving a foreign national, I was a little puzzled.

I know it was Bush who sided with international law over U.S. sovereignty to set up the case. I know it was Bush who sided with a brutal murderer-rapist over state courts to set up the case. I know it was Bush who sided with Mexico and the World Court over common sense, decency and the rule of law.

But I was still a little taken aback by Bush’s continued protests – even when the highest court in the land had rebuked him in a 6-3 decision.

Why was I surprised about Bush’s reaction to the ruling in the case of Ernesto Medellin v. Texas that will clear the way for the execution for his part in a gang rape and murder attack on Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Peña, 15, as they walked home from a friend’s home?

Well, I couldn’t help think about the first time I met George W. Bush – before he became president. This was the one and only meeting I needed to know, without a doubt, Bush was clueless – destined, if elected, to be an inept leader faithless to the principles of American independence and self-government.

It was in that meeting that someone asked the former governor of Texas what he would do if a piece of legislation clearly unconstitutional arrived on his desk at the White House.

I will never forget Bush’s chilling answer to that question.

“How will I know if it’s unconstitutional?” he asked.

Perhaps in the last nine years Bush has realized that every American – and certainly every elected official – has an obligation to consider the Constitution, a duty to understand it and the intellectual integrity to determine whether our laws live up to the founding document of our republic.

Back then, he apparently thought only Supreme Court justices were qualified and empowered to make that determination. Last month, when the Supreme Court in convincing fashion stood up to Bush, the World Court, Mexico and the injustice they were all trying to ram down Americans’ throats, apparently Bush believed the justices decided wrongly.

It was the right decision.

And it was a little surprising given the dangerous predilection of several members of the court to consider foreign laws in their deliberations.

While we should be encouraged by the ruling, Americans should be very concerned by the way elected leaders like Bush and appointed officials like some of our Supreme Court justices actually believe there are earthly, man-made laws higher that our own Constitution.

If that is so, then Americans are no longer a people in control of their own destiny. We are no longer a people empowered to govern ourselves. We no longer have a government of the people, by the people and for the people. We no longer have a government accountable to the will of the people and the rule of law.

Obviously, that is where globalists like Bush want to take America – where foreigners can dictate to Americans how they will mete out justice, where foreigners will tell Americans how to take care of their own property and manage their own environment, where foreigners will instruct Americans on how to conduct their foreign and domestic affairs.

This is the tragedy of the times in which we live. Our founders told us that only a moral people, only an educated people, only a freedom-loving people, only a people willing to sacrifice were suited to the kind of government they gave us. I’m no longer sure the American people are capable of self-government. I’m no longer sure the American people are worthy of the opportunity for self-government.

I’m reminded of what Judge Learned Hand wrote in 1944: “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.”

In the context of slavery, Thomas Jefferson said:

“can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever . . . .”

Americans make themselves slaves.

Slavery acknowledged and abolished ultimately by Christianity

From here, in response to doubt about what the Scriptures say regarding slavery.

The spread of the Christian religion resulted in the abolition of Slavery as a global institution (though it exists still under Islam).

The belief that all people have a Divine right to Liberty is powerfully expressed in the words of the American Declaration of Independence:

“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.”

God is not indifferent to the injustice of slavery. His word makes it clear that His intention for Man has always been Liberty:

-God created the first man and woman truly free.

-His Commandments protect an individual’s life, reputation, rights, and property.

[-He came down to save His people from slavery in Egypt.]

-The Mosaic Law recognizes the ubiquitous and permanent nature of the “peculiar institution” and legislates to ameliorate its effects.

-The New Testament urges respect and dignity among fellow Christians, reminding the enslaved believer that he is truly free and the free believer that he is Christ’s slave.

-Believers are to be content in whatever their circumstances at the time of their conversion (even if in slavery, for the goal of the Christian life is to bear witness to the Son of God; millions of slaves in armed rebellion would have done little to promote the Gospel).

-They are urged to gain their freedom, if possible.

-And though speaking of the greater freedom from sin, death, and the devil, we are told, “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free.”

Those who seek to justify slavery from the Biblical texts must misrepresent them to do so.

Slavery acknowledged and abolished ultimately by Christianity

From here, in response to doubt about what the Scriptures say regarding slavery.

The spread of the Christian religion resulted in the abolition of Slavery as a global institution (it exists still under Islam).

The belief that all people have a Divine right to Liberty is powerfully expressed in the words of the American Declaration of Independence:

“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.”

God is not indifferent to the injustice of slavery. His word makes it clear that His intention for Man has always been Liberty:

-God created the first man and woman free.

-His Commandments protect an individual’s life, reputation, and property.

-He came down to save His people from slavery in Egypt.

-The Mosaic Law recognized the ubiquitous and permanent nature of the “peculiar institution” and legislates to ameliorate its effects.

-The New Testament urges respect and dignity among fellow Christians, reminding the enslaved believer that he is truly free and the free believer that he is Christ’s slave.

-Believers are to be content in whatever their circumstances at the time of their conversion (even if in slavery, for the goal of the Christian life is to bear witness to the Son of God; millions of slaves in armed rebellion would have done little to promote the Gospel).

-They are urged to gain their freedom, if possible.

-And though speaking of the greater freedom from sin, death, and the devil, we are told, “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free.”

Those who seek to justify slavery from the Biblical texts must misrepresent them to do so.

Timeless courage

The Battle of Thermopylae.

300 free men standing in defense of Liberty against an enemy which would enslave or slaughter all who resist.

Their example can be no more timely.

Timeless courage

The Battle of Thermopylae.

300 free men standing in defense of Liberty against an enemy which would enslave or slaughter all who resist.

Their example can be no more timely.

Timeless courage

The Battle of Thermopylae.

300 free men standing in defense of Liberty against an enemy which would enslave or slaughter all who resist.

Their example can be no more timely.

Christian Liberty versus the tyranny of Allah

“A culture that gave the world the novel; the music of Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert; and the paintings of Michelangelo, da Vinci, and Rembrandt does not need lessons from societies whose idea of heaven, peopled with female virgins, resembles a cosmic brothel. Nor does the West need lectures on the superior virtue of societies in which women are kept in subjection under sharia, endure genital mutilation, are stoned to death for alleged adultery, and are married off against their will at the age of nine . . . .” -Ibn Warraq

Some cultures are better than others.

Christian Liberty versus the tyranny of Allah

“A culture that gave the world the novel; the music of Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert; and the paintings of Michelangelo, da Vinci, and Rembrandt does not need lessons from societies whose idea of heaven, peopled with female virgins, resembles a cosmic brothel. Nor does the West need lectures on the superior virtue of societies in which women are kept in subjection under sharia, endure genital mutilation, are stoned to death for alleged adultery, and are married off against their will at the age of nine . . . .” -Ibn Warraq

Some cultures are better than others.

Christian Liberty versus the tyranny of Allah

“A culture that gave the world the novel; the music of Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert; and the paintings of Michelangelo, da Vinci, and Rembrandt does not need lessons from societies whose idea of heaven, peopled with female virgins, resembles a cosmic brothel. Nor does the West need lectures on the superior virtue of societies in which women are kept in subjection under sharia, endure genital mutilation, are stoned to death for alleged adultery, and are married off against their will at the age of nine . . . .” -Ibn Warraq

Some cultures are better than others.