Archive for the ‘Government’ Category

ISLAM: “FRIENDING” THE FOE (REVISED)

Monday, October 26th, 2015

Note (09NOV2015): On 31OCT2015, a Mohammedan group calling itself “ISIS” apparently exploded a bomb aboard a Russian airliner departing from Egypt. The blast then resulting crash killed all aboard. Economically, how much did the bombing cost the perpetrators? Almost nothing. How much will it cost Egypt? Hundreds of millions. A good bang for the buck.

On 11SEP2001, Mohammedans from Saudi Arabia destroyed the World Trade Center in New York City, killing thousands. Economically, how much did the bombing cost the perpetrators? Almost nothing. How much has it cost these United States of America — economically and politically? Billions of dollars spent. Basic civil liberties lost. Another good bang for the buck.

 Whether in the form of ISIS, al-Qaeda, Iran, or sundry other entities, Mohammedanism represents a clear and present danger to the rest of the world. Yet, the powers-that-be in the West are responding in a manner best characterized as suicidal. Worse, in the West many people are promoting and celebrating their own demise.

Science would say that such actions represent behavior under the control of ideological antecedents rather than realistic consequences. Ultimately, consequences always rule.

“There are none so blind as those who will not see.” -John Heywood (1546)

In homage to Mr. Heywood, this posting will run another week.

“Wherever the Mohammedans have had complete sway, wherever the Christians have been unable to resist them by the sword, Christianity has ultimately disappeared.” -President Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919)

Mohammedan migrants illegally are flooding into Europe by the hundreds of thousands. Their migrations amounts to a massive, unarmed invasion. How many are so-called jihadists no one knows, and no official asks.

Can Mohammedanism (aka/Islam) be the friend of Christianity, Judaism, other religions, and even atheism? In this new age of “social media”, can the phony “friending” of a sworn enemy become the basis of a truly effective foreign policy? If not, what’s the alternative?

“None so blind as those that will not see.” -Matthew Henry (1662-1714)

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Judaism and Christianity
After some considerable dispute, The Hebraic Bible, its books later rearranged by Christians into “The Old Testament”, became the foundation of The New Testament.(1) In fact, without that juxtaposition between old and new, The New Testament would have lost much of its meaning. Accordingly, pursuant to Christian dogma as posited by St. Augustine (354-430 AD), Christians should tolerate Judaism and Jews albeit in a subordinate position — a policy later adopted by Mohammedans.

Jesus of Galilee was born a Jew; lived as a Jew; and, according to history, died as a Jew. Reflected in the writings of the first disciples, he was a reformer, at the least; and a human-like, earthly representation of God Himself, at the most. As either, it is written that he preached peace.

Despite instances such as the Christian Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and the Nazis’ massacres, the essence of Christianity, as preached by its progenitor, is peace. For Judaism, less so. Furthermore, The Old Testament is based upon justice before mercy and consequences before intent. The New Testament is based upon mercy before justice and intent before consequences. The followers of Jesus’s preaching, thereby, are to act mercifully even to non-believers even though there may be some passages suggesting the contrary.

Mohammedanism (Islam)
Like Moses but unlike Jesus, Mohammed of Mecca (570-632 AD) is believed by the followers of his preaching, as written in The Koran, to have been not an earthly representation of God but merely a human prophet; in this case, transmitting the word of God (“Allah”) as dictated to him by the Angel Gabriel in 610 AD. Like The New Testament, The Koran ostensibly is based upon The Hebraic Bible with direct references to Abraham. Unlike The New Testament, however, The Koran explicitly rejects its immediate predecessor, Christianity, and specifically vilifies both Jesus and his mother, Mary.

“Those who say, ‘The Lord of Mercy has begotten a son,’ preach a monstrous falsehood, at which the very heavens might crack, the earth split asunder, and the mountains crumble to dust. That they should ascribe a son to the Merciful, when it does not become the Lord of Mercy to beget one!” -The Recital (The Koran), Mary: 19:88

The Koran varies in its prescription for the treatment of non-believers, referred to as “infidels” and “idolaters” . The chapter (“surah”) entitled Repentance, nevertheless, is consistently clear that it is the duty of every Mohammedan to slay every “idolater” while making some allowance for “People of the Book”; namely, practicing Christians and Jews. At best, both groups are to be tolerated in a subordinate position, and they are to pay tribute to the ruling Mohammedan theologians; at worst, they are to be slain.

“When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush for them everywhere. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way.” -The Recital (The Koran), Repentance 9:5

It should be of more than passing interest among the increasing number of Christians and Jews who have rejected their own, respective religions in favor of secular relativism and even outright atheism that Mohammedanism shows them no tolerance, whatsoever. They are regarded with revulsion as no different from pagans. The consequence of their apostasy is execution.

“The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures.” -The Recital (The Koran), The Proof 98:1

Whereas Jesus preached peace, Mohammed preached war; the bleating to the contrary of President Bush the Second and other Western apologists who never cite Koranic text, notwithstanding. In fact, the Mohammedan religion became the rationale for extensive military conquests by invading Arabs. In The Chambers, Repentance, and Victory, the text repeatedly addresses “Arabs of the desert”, whose tribes officially accepted Mohammedanism in 631 AD.

Barack Hussein Obama II and the rest of the pro-Mohammedan apologists talk of friendship and alliances; however, for a Mohammedan to accept an “infidel” as a friend or ally is to enter into an unacceptable relationship. At best, friendship is discouraged unless it be duplicitous.

“Believers, do not choose the infidels rather than the faithful as friends. Would you give God clear evidence against yourselves?” -The Recital (The Koran), Women 4:145

“Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number. God does not guide the wrongdoers.” -The Recital (The Koran), The Table 5:51

It is said that many roads lead to the House of God. The Mohammedans don’t believe it. Its Western apologists seem to believe that promoting mutual respect, understanding, and acceptance will open the doors of Mohammedanism to welcome non-believers as honored guests onto its territory and into its affairs.

Yet, for a Mohammedan to allow “infidels” even to enter mosques, let alone to visit the City of Mecca, never mind to occupy Mohammedan territory, is to countenance a reprehensible anathema. Apparently, President Bush the First and his advisors failed to appreciate this concept when they betrayed our erstwhile ally, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, then established military bases on “sacred” land, especially Saudi Arabian. The consequence? The rise of Al-Quaeda. (See “Categories/Foreign Relations/Did Bush Burn The Koran?”)

“None should visit the mosques of God except those who believe in God and the Last Day, attend to their prayers and render the alms levy and fear none but God. These shall be rightly guided.” -The Recital (The Koran), Repentance 9:18

For a Mohammedan to accept an “infidel” as an equal is an unforgivable sin constituting apostasy. In Mohammedan dogma, the only sin worse than non-belief is apostasy. The Koran instructs believers to deal harshly with non-believers.

“Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme.” -The Recital (The Koran), The Spoils 8:36

“Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. Know that God is with the righteous.” -The Recital (The Koran), Repentance 9:123

The Koran renders the term “fanatical Islamist” a redundancy. By its very nature, the religion demands intolerance, violence, and militancy. “Fanatical Islamists” only are practicing their religion as codified by Mohammed himself in The Koran. Furthermore, they are displaying the courage of their convictions unlike an increasing number of weak-willed Westerners who have neither courage nor convictions.

The current Mohammedan invasion of Europe, albeit unarmed, reflects these facts, even be it denied by Western politicians and apologists. How many actually have read The Koran? Do any recall the words of the King of Morocco, who boasted that the Mohammedans would conquer Europe via the womb? Are we witnessing blind ignorance, inconsistent “political correctness”, or blatant cowardice?

Admittedly, not all practicing Mohammedans may accept literally every word in The Koran. Even so, given that Mohammedans believe that it’s virtuous to lie in the name of Allah, how are we “infidels” to discriminate between those who do and those who do not?(2)

Besides, what percentage of “moderate Muslims”, while remaining non-violent, also remain sympathetic towards violent jihad? Estimates vary widely between 4% and 80% and depend upon country and source of data; i.e., nobody really knows. Moreover, how can a Mohammedan become “moderate” without rejecting much, if not most, of The Koran and, thereby, essentially rejecting his religion?

Science says, “Behavior has its consequences.” Judge our behavior by its consequences.

PART TWO

discrimination n.: the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently. –Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary(3)

Science says, “Every discrimination carries with it an implied set of instructions.”

“The traffic-light is red!”

“The house is on fire!”

“The Democratic-Republican establishment is destroying the nation!”

So, what are we “infidels” to do? Declare war against all Mohammedans? Declare war against only violent Mohammedans while tolerating the self-proclaimed “moderates”? Treat those who engage in violence as prisoners of war? Treat those who engage in violence as criminals? Perhaps, pursuant to The Koran,  submit to Mohammedanism ourselves although doing so would raise the question of which sect to choose and which sects to fight?

Critics of Obama’s policy toward Mohammedan nations claim that his policy has failed as confirmed by current events in the Middle East and Africa as well as Afghanistan. With his failure has come rising anti-Americanism and rising threat to these United States of America. Apparently, “friending” has failed. In fact, Obama’s critics claim that all talk has failed. Even bribery has failed.

So, what do they propose instead? Total withdrawal?  Total warfare? Something in-between? Actually, all of them and none of them.

With regard to total withdrawal, to paraphrase Shakespeare’s Macbeth, are we Americans too deep in blood simply to withdraw? If so, what specifically to do? Let’s analyze the situation-in-question from the orientation of biobehavioral science not politics nor ideology.

Analysis and Resolution
analysis:
Context: A worldwide, popular religion based upon preaching intolerance, violence, and military conquest.

Antecedents: Attacks against us “infidels” and our property, including “U.S. persons” as our own tax-collectors refer to us.

Behavior: Until recently, primarily verbal by our politicians as well as mostly ambiguous and confusing after entering into two, losing, undeclared wars in defiance of our own Constitution. Now, once again slipping by degree towards another, undeclared war although, once again, no American interests are under attack.

Consequences: Harm to American and other Western persons, property, and interests — harm increasing in frequency and magnitude.

resolution:
Problem: A deficit of effective behavior by these United States of America and others to reverse the current course of events adverse to our interests and well-being.

Goal: To have controlled or, hopefully, eliminated the current Mohammedan threat and future ones, including unarmed invasions and armed attacks.

Plan: ?

Measurement: Frequency and magnitude of instrumental and verbal attacks by Mohammedans against the interests of Americans and other “infidels”.

An Option
Currently, there is no organized plan. So, what could be one? Whatever it be, its consequences must be compelling and convincing to all Mohammedans.

“Sharp wounds cleanse away evil;
So do stripes that reach the inward parts.”
The Hebraic Bible, Proverbs 20:30

One option could be the following:
1) Notwithstanding the so-called agreement with a fanatical Iran, actually a treaty explicitly opposed by 214 flag-ranked military officers, Mohammedan aggression represents a most immediate and serious threat to our way of life and our lives themselves. Despite our refusal to believe Iranian words as confirmed by Iranian deeds, Iran explicitly is bent upon our destruction. Their stated goal is to have a Mohammedan flag flying above the White House.

The benefit of the so-called agreement is problematic; the risk frighteningly humongous. There is evidence that North Korea is working with Iran to assist its development of nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the so-called agreement does not address even Iranian nuclear development outside Iran.(4)

While dwindling time remains before Iran has “the bomb”, we can launch an immediate airborne attack against its nuclear installations. Forget NATO — a sick joke. Leave Israel out of the action in order to minimize the related issue of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Such an attack would send a real and, hopefully, convincing message to all Mohammedans. It would be followed by Obama requesting a Declaration of War against Iran, pursuant to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Why not a Declaration before the attack? Politicians cannot be trusted with secrets. As the saying went during World War II, loose lips sink ships; and, paraphrasing Justice Robert H. Jackson (1892-1954), the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Would there be Mohammedan reprisals? Probably. How would we deal with them?

Inform the world that any act of violence against these United States perpetrated, sponsored, or supported by any nation will be regarded as an act of war and dealt with accordingly. Bombs and bullets may prove more effective than “friending”. This time we will fight to win — completely and totally.

Unlike the shrinking Christianity in a divided North America and a dessicating Europe, Mohammedanism is a growing religion. It’s not going away; neither is its accompanying violence. Fighting fire with fire is a time-honored and effective strategy — literally and figuratively.

The working assumption of our foreign policy would be that it’s better for these United States to be respected than liked. Besides, will Mohammedans as a group ever like us no matter how much we “friend” them? Not if they follow the Koran.

Is “friending” then hoping and waiting proving to be an effective foreign policy? No. Perhaps, we “infidels” best face facts, unpleasant as they may be. The longer we wait, the worse the situation.

Would Obama be up to the task? If his past behavior is an indicator of his future behavior, the question answers itself.

2) Convene a meeting of the foreign ministers of the three pre-eminent, real international powers; namely, China, Russia, and the USA. If military forces from NATO assist in material and financial support against Iran, a representative from the unraveling, groveling EU could be included.

The goal of the meeting would be to have arrived at a consensus in dealing with violent Mohammedan individuals, groups, and nations — actual and potential. If no consensus can be reached, these United States will have no choice but to go it alone in a manner consistent with our Constitution and traditional American ideals and values as stated by our Founding Fathers (www.inescapableconsequences.com).

Could there be a better, comprehensive, long-term plan? Perhaps. If so, let its proponents state it clearly and succinctly — now not later. Why now? Because there may be no later.

Note & References
1) Carroll, J: Constantine’s Sword. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co. (2001).
2) See, for example, Ben Hammad, AR: The Religion of Truth.  Riyadh, KSA: The General Presidency of Islamic Researches, Ifta, and Propagation (1991).
3) Scientifically, one does not “discriminate against”; one may select against but not “discriminate against”. Governmental and ideological assassins of the English language have perverted the verb, to discriminate, in a way that only destroys its true meaning. One discriminates between or among but not against.
4) Scarborough R and Taylor G: “Iran-N. Korea cooperation on nukes feared.” The Washington Times, 21SEP2015, page 6.

-End-

 

DEMOCRACY? WRONG, MR. CHURCHILL

Monday, May 4th, 2015

“Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time . . . .” -Winston Churchill, House of Commons (11NOV1947)

Churchill, Sir Winston Leonard Spencer (1874-1965): statesman, British Prime Minister (1940-1945, 1951-1955)

Winston Churchill has become a curious and somewhat paradoxical hero to most Americans — most Americans, that is, with the notable exception of Barack Hussein Obama II. Yet, consider the following:

Churchill was a man who never met a war he didn’t like. By his own account, he suffered from recurrent depressions — his “black dog days” as he characterized them — for which he self-medicated with alcohol; a depressant and, therefore, an ill-chosen choice. One well might speculate that wars excited him; thereby, counteracting his vulnerability towards those painful periods.

From early in his long political career, Churchill was a man lowly trusted by his fellow politicians but highly distrusted. Many considered him brash, impulsive, and imprudent. The common notion among his detractors is that his impaired judgement revealed itself with deadly consequences for others, for example, during both the Great War then its sequel.

During World War I when Euro-Caucasians engaged in a massive self-slaughter, it was his attack at Gallipoli against Turkey, which he characterized incorrectly as “the sick man of Europe”. The antecedent for his attack was the plight of Russia, then an ally. The consequence was the bloodiest carnage of the war until that time, including of Australians and New Zealanders, ending in defeat.

During World War II when Euro-Caucasians decided to resume their massive self-slaughter, it was his attack against Italy, which he characterized incorrectly as “the soft underbelly of Europe”. The antecedent was the threat in North Africa to the Empire. The consequence was the Southern Front of the Wehrmacht being the only front still capable of fighting when the carnage, beginning in the Autumn of 1943, ended in the Spring of 1945. It proved the campaign with the most casualties of the entire war for the Americans and British.

His tactical mistakes notwithstanding, more misplaced was his overall strategy. Churchill’s long-held, primary, targeted goal was to have maintained the British Empire intact. As noted, that goal guided his decision to attack Italy, for example. In fulfilling that goal, Churchill hardly could have failed more completely, possibly even had Hitler won the war. Instead of bringing his behavior under the long-term consequence comprising his primary, targeted goal, he allowed his behavior to come under the control of an immediate antecedent — the military adventurism of Nazified Germany.

Antecedents-Behaviors-Consequences — the ABC’s

Science says. “According to the Law of Effect, behavior is under the control of its consequences.”

behavior n.: the manner of conducting oneself. –Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary

Ultimately, behavior comes under the control of its consequences, the events following a behavior. Ultimately, but not necessarily initially. Initially, the controlling factor can be an event preceding the behavior — the antecedent.

“The woman Folly is riotous; She is thoughtlessness and knoweth nothing.” -Proverbs 9:13

In his own way, Churchill allowed himself to commit a universal and timeless error in human behavior; namely, allowing attractive but fatal antecedents to control behavior not ugly but vital consequences. Doing so has been the ruin of many a person, good and bad.

Doing so was the ruin of Adolf Hitler. As the Winter of 1942 approached, the Wehrmacht had not secured the victory that they mistakenly had believed achieved earlier and easily. Instead, the Russians mounted a successful but costly resistance at Stalingrad — the antecedent. Hitler’s behavioral response? He refused to allow his ill-clad troops to withdraw to defensible positions. Consequence? He lost the battle and with it the war.

So, there are antecedents that precede and prompt behaviors. There are the behaviors themselves. There are the consequences that follow behaviors and either strengthen or weaken them. The ABC’s (www.inescapableconsequences.com).

Allowing behavior to fall under the control of its antecedents often ends ill. Maintaining behavior under the control of its consequences more often ends well. Hitler’s behavior illustrates the validity of this scientifically-documented concept.

PART TWO

Consequences For Churchill and Others

“I have always said that if Great Britain were defeated in war I hoped we should find a Hitler to lead us back to our rightful position among the nations. I am sorry, however, that he has not been mellowed by the great success that has attended him.” -Winston Churchill, The London Times (07NOV1938)

Despite the erroneous inferences drawn from this statement, Churchill never liked Hitler although he apparently admired the success that Germany was enjoying at the time under Hitler versus, say, the USA under Roosevelt. In September1939, Germany invaded Poland. The invasion was the antecedent for the British under then-Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and the French declaring war against Germany. The consequences would be the defeat of Germany; the end of European, colonial empires; and the occupation of Eastern Europe by the Soviet Union for the following seventy-five years.

With the advent of the state of war with Germany, Churchill might have re-read Hitler’s internationally best-selling book, Mein Kampf. Clearly, Hitler admired Britain and viewed her empire as a stabilizing force worldwide. Notes from a secret conference in 1937 attended by the Nazis’ highest leadership and general staff document that Hitler’s view for the world did not include destruction of the British empire nor even invasion of Britain herself. Hitler wanted Russia in order to provide Germans with lebensraum.

From September 1939 until April 1940, the opposing forces essentially remained idle militarily — the so-called Sitzkreig. Beginning in October 1939, Hitler made the first of several supposedly peaceful overtures to Britain and France — all summarily rejected.

Were they sincere? Some say yes; some say no. In that regard, it may be of interest to read views from the other side, such as the following:

http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/nothanks/wwr00.html .

In April 1940, Germany invaded Denmark as a launching pad to invade Norway. It had been no secret that Britain and France planned the same invasion in order to block German access to the North Atlantic. In May 1940, Germany invaded France via the low countries. Chamberlain’s government fell. Parliament elected Winston Churchill the succeeding Prime Minister.

Had Churchill withdrawn Britain from the war, would he have saved the British Empire and possibly the French Empire as well as France itself? Whatever might have been, like an English bulldog, he refused to release his grip on the pursuit of total warfare; thereby, ultimately destroying that which he prized above all else — the Empire.

Might he have obviated the mass murder of Jews, a decision made in 1942 at the Wannsee Conference — a conference attended by neither Himmler of the SS nor Hitler himself? Prior to the war, the Nazis had been only too pleased to allow Jews to emigrate voluntarily albeit with few possessions. Although plans had remained vague, the Nazis debated about a destination to which to deport the rest involuntarily. Murder had not been on the menu.

During the Great War, Turkish troops murdered surrendering enemy troops then treated the remainder harshly, including forced labor. Consequence? 70% of Allied troops in Turkish captivity died. The controlling factor was the economic context. Turkey could not afford to house, guard, and feed prisoners of war.

During its sequel, the context was the same. Germany could not afford to house, guard, and feed inmates of the concentration camps. The alternative selected was mass murder, at which the Germans were expertly efficient. Ironically, it had been a German-Jewish chemist, Fritz Haber, who had invented the precursor to the gas used later to murder his own people.

Had Churchill made peace with Germany at the start would the Nazis have committed such an atrocity? No one can say with certainty. Does Churchill’s decision make him responsible in any way for the Nazis’ decision? No, but the consequences of Churchill’s decision illustrate the unintended but inescapable consequences of behavior under the control of antecedents and short-term consequences, especially political behavior.

PART THREE

Democracy and the United Kingdom

In 1707, England and Scotland formally united to create the United Kingdom. At one time, its precursor, England, had been just that — a kingdom; not a democracy but a monarchy governed under “the divine right of kings”, a concept initiated in the late16th-century. Beginning, nevertheless, with the Magna Carta, initially drafted in 1215 with subsequent revisions, the British political system slowly evolved towards democracy to the point of neutering the House of Lords with recent calls even to abolish it.

In 1831 while writing of democracy in the newly-founded United States of America, the Frenchman, Alexis de Tocqueville, noted that a benefit of aristocracy is social continuity. Aristocracy weakens the tendency of a society to bring its behavior under the control of antecedents and short-term consequences and strengthens the tendency to bring its behavior under the control of long-term consequences.

In the Britain of 1940, had the House of Lords possessed ultimate power over the House of Commons, would Winston Churchill have become Prime Minister? Would Britain have pursued another war so destructive to her empire?

Of uncertain origin is the quip that the Sun never sets on the British Empire because God would not trust an Englishman in the dark. Truly, in governing their empire, the British had their faults but none compared to those of the Spanish or even the Belgians.

Also, it has been said that Britain brought civilization to the rest of the world. Thereto, a case can be made. Without British governance, India, for example, likely would have remained a collection of backward, feudal states without a common language.

If Britain brought civilization to the rest of the world, did democracy bring termination to the British Empire and to Britain herself? Here again, a case can be made.

Democracy and the United States of America
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” -John Adams (1725-1836)

Adams sentiments were echoed by many of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America, including Jefferson and Madison. To them, the word, democracy, represented an obscenity.

“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” -Winston Churchill

Despite Winston Churchill’s begrudging accepting of democracy as the least worst system of governance, he apparently held a jaundiced view of the voting public itself. That view supports the argument in favor of a participatory republic instead of a democracy.

Clearly, Churchill’s words merely echoed the views of both Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The respective goal of both was to have created not a democracy but a participatory republic. The Federalists prevailed overall, however. Who could participate in voting, they delegated largely to the States. Today, fulfilling the Anti-Federalists’ concerns, an overpowering, increasingly tyrannical, federal government has reversed that which the Federalists had tried to create.

The Constitution stipulates only one crime, sedition. Today, federal laws stipulate more than 3,000 comprising more than 23,000 pages of verbiage. Total laws exceed 40,000. Many of these laws contradict one another. The average American on an average day cannot arise from bed without breaking some law. Therein lies one of the bitter fruits of democracy.

“Well, Doctor, what have we got — a Republic or a Monarchy?” Benjamin Franklin was asked.

 “A Republic if you can keep it,” warned Dr. Franklin.

Americans could not. Instead, the nation has descended increasingly into the depths of democracy with all its predictable consequences.

The descent began a long tome ago in the 1880s with the rise of the so-called Progressives, a catchy name that ignores the obvious fact that progressive for one man may be regressive for another. Under the phony banner of democracy, the Progressives — notably via Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson — have dispossessed the majority and disestablished the Constitution of the United States of America and traditional American ideals and values. They have been replacing liberty with tyranny, all while waving their phony banner. Under Obama, who occupies a category of his own, the pace has been accelerating.

Churchill’s later sentiments notwithstanding, the founders of this nation believed that they were establishing a nation for Christian Euro-Caucasians based upon a written constitution reflecting English law and custom. The targeted goal of that constitution was to have protected life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Since the ratification of the Constitution then the Bill of Rights, the United States of America continuously has evolved from the orderly governance of a republic with limited but widespread participation towards the disorderly governance of a democracy racked by mob-rule among competing minorities — a nation on fire merely masquerading as the republic envisioned by the Federalists. Witness Negroes burning Korean-owned shops in Baltimore recently and in Los Angeles previously.

So, what to do? Complaining may feel good; it implies action, but it itself changes nothing. Only action changes context. Ah, but what action (www.inescapableconsequences.com)?

-End-

THE DISESTABLISHMENTARIANS

Monday, April 20th, 2015

democracy n: government by the people, especially rule of the majority. -Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary

republic n.: a government in which the supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.  -Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary

Recently, at age 91 Lee Kuan Yew died. He had been, one way or another, the authoritarian ruler of Singapore for almost two generations.

Lee Kuan Yew had led the transformation of a previously strife-ridden backwater racked by sectarian civil disorder among its heterogeneous population of mainly Chinese with Malay and Indian minorities into a thriving, prosperous, clean, orderly, modern city-state devoid of debt and self-degradation. The cost? Freedom to disestablish via the ballot-box or other ways the creation over which he had presided.

With his death, there appeared those, such as the editors of the neo-conservative National Review, who bemoaned that which Lee Kuan Yew accomplished via authoritarianism. They bemoaned his steadfast refusal to allow democracy, an obscenity to the Founding Fathers of our own United States of America, to set that tiny nation on fire as American disestablishmentarians have set afire our own nation — a nation now in decline with deepening debt, serial military losses, and abominable self-degradation.

Democracy, especially in large countries such as the USA, long has been considered ultimately self-defeating. With rare exceptions, allowing all members of a large society to determine equally via the ballot-box the operation and destiny of a nation ultimately, by its nature, must become suicidal. Such was the belief of the renown political philosopher Montesquieu, for example, to whose writings the Founding Fathers looked for guidance.(1) Such has been the course of history as currently being confirmed by contemporary, Western societies.

The USA came into being as a participatory republic based upon the assumption of a moral; religious; Christian; Euro-Caucasian, mainly Nordic, citizenry living under a written constitution reflecting English law and custom. Today, historical revisionists dispute those true origins. Would that they recall the sentiments of the Founding Fathers such as John Adams, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and James Madison to disabuse themselves of their misconceptions.(2-5) That some of the Founding Fathers may have preferred Deism, popular during the Age of Enlightenment, does not belie their belief in God nor in morality reflecting Judeo-Christianity.

That theological perspective remained through subsequent generations. Contrary to the current propaganda of secular relativists, President Abraham Lincoln, for example, declared Thanksgiving as a religious holiday. These disestablishmentarians may pervert history according to their newly-concocted, idiosyncratic, ephemeral fashions, but they cannot change its facts.

Unlike religion, however, democracy not only is not for everyone, it is for hardly anyone. In 1787 during the writing of a new constitution, Federalists and Anti-Federalists agreed on that matter. Accordingly, the new constitution would be based upon the notion of a participatory republic. Ah, but who was to participate?

Women? Negroes? Who?

The Federalists’ theory at the time was that the learned class would comprise most members in Congress; thereby, tempering the momentary passions of the mob.  Small farmers and small businessmen would comprise most voters. Determining who actually was eligible to vote and under what conditions remained vaguely worded, essentially delegated to the States albeit with limited and only rare federal alteration.

“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time make or alter such Regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.” -Article I, Section 4

Such went theory, but how went practice? Over the years and confirmatory of the concerns of the Anti-Federalists, increasingly the federal government has encroached on that right of the States via the revengeful, anti-Southern ratification of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments following the Civil War, legislative laws without constitutional authority, judicial decisions based upon judges’ own invocation of judicial review, and unconstitutional executive orders.

As Chester A. Riley, a fictional character played by William Bendix in an old, radio-series often said, “What a revoltin’ development this is!”

Regarding the now ever-present, often-cited, all-important Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, would the vengeful congressmen of the victorious Union even have proposed those Amendments had not John Wilkes Booth performed the greatest disservice to the South in its entire history by assassinating Lincoln? Let us not forget, despite the bleating of historical revisionists, that Lincoln had proposed that the wounds inflicted by both sides be forgotten and that the nation be reunited essentially as it had existed prior to the awful carnage but without slavery. Had he survived, would the “carpetbaggers” with their pillage of the South likely have occurred? As for the two Amendments, let us not forget that Lincoln had considered returning the freed slaves to Africa, whence they had come. Had those Amendments ever passed the Congress, might not he have vetoed them?

The consequences of federal encroachment? A political system essentially confirming the concerns of the Anti-Federalists and disproving the Federalists’ assumptions and their codification in their Constitution. The United States of America continuously has evolved from the orderly governance of a republic with limited but widespread participation towards the disorderly governance of a democracy racked by mob-rule among competing minorities — a nation on fire merely masquerading as the republic envisioned by the Federalists.

What, then, of Singapore? Should disestablishmentarians there succeed in transforming it into a democracy, what would be the consequences? For the most likely answer, look to the past.

Science says, “Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior.”

So, if not democracy in Singapore, what? A participatory republic composed of an individually responsible, moral citizenry with protection for life and property determined in an orderly fashion via the ballot-box? A democracy conferring equal voting rights upon everyone with those who live off the creativity and productivity of others possess an equal right to vote themselves their own largesse as they now do in the United States?

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist only until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury.” -Alexander Tyler (1747-1813)

Science says, “Behavior is a function of its consequences.”

B = f(x). So it has been with this magnificent experiment in liberty known as the United States of America So it will be with Singapore.

References
1. de Montesquieu (1689-1755).  French lawyer, philosopher, and politician.
2. John Adams (1735-1826). American lawyer and 2nd President of the United States of America (1797-1801). Agreeing with James Madison, Adams stated that only pure religion and austere morals are capable of maintaining a republican form of government.
3. Samuel Adams (1722-1803). American revolutionary patriot. Adams played an early and crucial part in inciting a war to make the thirteen colonies a Christian country free from ties to England [See, for example, Stoll, I: Samuel Adams: A Life.  Old Tappan NJ: Free Press (2008)].
4. Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790). American statesman, philosopher, and inventor. With regard to religion as an integral thread in the new American fabric, during the Convention of 1787, for example, Franklin openly argued in favor of prayerful piety.
5. James Madison (1751-1836). American statesman, political theorist, and 4th President of the United States of America (1809-1817). Madison tried to create a balance between tyranny by an aristocratic class and tyranny by the mob, using one against the other — members of the House of Representatives were elected by popular vote; whereas, members of the Senate were elected by the legislatures of each State. Moreover, he was of the opinion that historically the only republics to enjoy any success were those that he characterized as puritanical republics.

 

A FAILURE OF FORTITUDE

Monday, December 1st, 2014

“It is an abomination for presidents to commit wickedness;
For their office is established by righteousness.” -adapted from Proverbs 16:12

FACT: Barack Hussein Obama is a Mulatto with a Caucasoid-Jewish maternity and a Negroid paternity that itself is clouded, at best.

FACT: Barack Hussein Obama partially was reared as a Mohammedan in Indonesia.

FACT: Barack Hussein Obama said, “The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer.”

FACT: Barack Hussein Obama chose for his pastor and mentor of 20-years a Negroid minister who screamed “God d*mn America!”

FACT: Barack Hussein Obama and his wife both involved themselves with Marxist-oriented organizations and associated with Marxist-oriented, criminal revolutionaries.

FACT: Barack Hussein Obama promised to have changed America by the end of his reign.

FACT: Barack Hussein Obama repeatedly has lied to the American public.

FACT: Barack Hussein Obama has populated his administration at the highest levels with an inordinate number of Negroes and members of other minorities.

FACT: Barack Hussein Obama consistently has responded to his own failures by blaming subordinates.

QUESTION: Were a Christian Euro-Caucasian with the background and record of Barack Hussein Obama to have sought the presidency then sought reëlection, would he have been successful?

Amnesty n.: (derived from the Greek meaning forgotten) an act of an authority by which a pardon is granted to a large group of individuals. –Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary

Truly, Barack Hussein Obama is not the first occupant of the White House to lie to the American people. Even though previous presidents have done so, Obama’s lies outweigh the others’ because the consequences of his lies are to promote his one, great truth — to have changed America — to have changed America from a predominantly Christian, Euro-Caucasian nation based upon English law and custom to . . . to what? To a nation ruled by an all-powerful, Marxist-oriented, central government — to a nation divided by diversity into a host of minorities espousing diverse values, speaking different languages, and competing against each other to rob one another via the ballot-box?

“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” -The Constitution of the United States of America (Article1, Section1)

“I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone.” -Barack Hussein Obama

In order to fulfill his self-proclaimed goal to have changed America, Barack Hussein Obama must ignore the U.S. Constitution and take from the U.S. Congress some of its legislative power. He is doing so with abandon. Will he attempt to take all?

In days passed, politics notwithstanding, the legislators in Congress would defend its legislative power from attack by the executive. No longer. Today, cowardly politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike, slink away from their constitutional responsibilities in favor of ceding their constitutional power to an unelected judiciary via unelected lawyers. The consequences of their failure of fortitude in the face of a clear and present presidential attack long will be suffered by this nation — this nation in decline with mounting debt; serial, military defeats; and abominable self-degradation — this nation on fire (www.inescapableconsequences.com).