July 4th – Independence or Security?

July 4th – Independence or Security?

by Thomas E. Brewton

 

We have forgotten why the Declaration of Independence was signed.

 

In 1776, American colonists were willing to risk their lives, fortunes, and their sacred honor to maintain the self-government that they had laboriously established over the preceding century and a half.

Chief among their motivations, and the most common complaint from Georgia in the south to Massachusetts in the northeast, was protection of their private property rights. Hence the most famous of the War of Independence slogans: “No taxation without representation!”

In the succeeding two and a quarter centuries, liberal-Progressive-socialists have led our nation 180 degrees away from that orientation.

A letter-to-the-editors in the Wall Street Journal sums up the servility we now eagerly accept in order to worship our materialist god, the national political state:

“Ms. Shlaes is mystified that FDR is so revered; she fails to see the basic idea that FDR institutionalized — that our government is intended to protect our welfare. The first Roosevelt — Teddy — promoted this fresh idea in his New Nationalism speech in 1910. Then Progressive Republican TR supported Progressive Democrat FDR because he knew his ideas would finally be institutionalized. That is why TR is on Mount Rushmore, and FDR is revered — they made government-provided welfare a reality.”

President Roosevelt proudly proclaimed his abandonment of the founding ethos in his January 1944 annual message to Congress.

“The one supreme objective for the future…can be summed up in one word: Security….We can not be content, no matter how high the general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people…is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure. This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of of certain inalienable rights Ð among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty. As our nation has grown in size and stature, however – as our industrial economy expanded – these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness….

“We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all…Among these are: the right to a useful and remunerative job…The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation….The right of every family to a decent home; The right to adequate medical care…The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; The right to a good education. All these rights spell security.”

Security, however, amounts to selling one’s soul to the Devil for materialistic gain.

Hilaire Belloc described it in his 1912 book, “The Servile State.” He noted that, while the just-beginning socialist state in Great Britain was doing nice things for workers, it was at the price of their liberty to decide whether to work, when to work, or where to work…. Recipients of unemployment benefits, for example, had to report to employment offices and take whatever jobs were offered to them, or face punishment….

Socialism is a form of slavery, or more accurately, a sort of neo-feudalism in which the individual has no rights independent of the figurative “piece of ground” to which the political state has assigned him.

Assuredly, that is not what motivated members of the Continental Congress in 1776, nor of the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Samuel Adams, while working to convene the first Continental Congress, wrote:

“Mr. Locke has often been quoted in the present dispute…and very much to our purpose. His reasoning is so forcible, that no one has ever attempted to confute it. He holds that “the preservation of property is the end of government, and that for which men enter into society. …… says he, it is a mistake to think that the supreme power of any commonwealth can dispose of the estates of the subject arbitrarily, or take any part of them at pleasure. The prince or the senate can never have a power to take to themselves the whole or any part of the subject’s property without their own consent: for this would be in effect to have no property at all.” – This is the reasoning of that great and good man. And is not our own case exactly described by him?”

John Jay, in Federalist No. 1, stated the purpose of the Constitution:

“…THE ADDITIONAL SECURITY WHICH ITS ADOPTION WILL AFFORD TO THE PRESERVATION OF THAT SPECIES OF GOVERNMENT, TO LIBERTY, AND TO PROPERTY.”

Servility of welfare-state security was not even on the radar screen in 1776 and 1787.

Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776
http://www.thomasbrewton.com/

Email comments to viewfrom1776@thomasbrewton.com

 

New Media Alliance Television

 

A Muslim Manifesto for America?

by Alan Caruba

A Muslim Manifesto for America?

October 30, 2006 02:00 PM EST

It’s always hard to pinpoint when a historic shift takes place. It is rarely as easy as Martin Luther’s posting of his 95 thesis that launched the Reformation and loosed the grip of the Catholic Church on the governance of Europe or when Henry VIII pushed Rome out of England to create the Anglican Church.

When, however, did the tiny Muslim community in America, estimated to be between two and three million—by contrast there are some six million Jews in America—begin to assert its takeover? I am going to mark it from October 19, 2006 when the Star-Ledger, New Jersey’s largest circulation daily, ran an article, “She’s got it covered: Designer seeks to dress the style-conscious Muslim woman” in its feature news section.

“Many Muslim women wear hijab as an expression of the Islamic tradition of modesty,” noted the article about a 27-year old American Muslim fashion designer. Born to a Jewish mother and a Catholic father, she had converted to Islam as a student at New York University after she married her husband, a Muslim.

When the media begin to find ways to offer up a positive image of Islam, you know they have probably decided that the game is over and we in the West have lost. The American media is expert at showing the white flag of surrender. They have been trumpeting the end of the world for decades now.

Wrong about the Soviet Union right up to the day it imploded. Wrong about the predictions that the Earth could not sustain six billion people. Wrong about the availability of mineral and energy resources. Wrong about global warming. Wrong about cutting taxes. Wrong about the current excellent state of the U.S. economy.

And now the surrender-addicts are ready, like our European cousins, to concede that Western civilization should just roll over and give up in the face of the worldwide Islamic jihad.

Europeans stopped attending Europe’s churches and stopped having enough babies to replace themselves in favor of creating totally unsustainable welfare states. Instead, they imported millions Muslims to do the work they became too old or too lazy to do themselves.

The United States, too, has created a cradle-to-grave socialist system that is going broke at an alarming rate even while the economy is thriving. The Bush administration is conspiring with Canada and Mexico to erase our national borders in order to create a North American Union that will throw our national sovereignty down the rat-hole of a vast bureaucracy that will not have to be responsive to those awful American voters.

As Mark Steyn says in his brilliant new book, America Alone, “We are living through a rare moment: the self-extinction of the civilization which, for good or ill, shaped the age we live in.”

The British, part of the European Union, should have paid heed in 1990 when “The Muslim Manifesto: A Strategy for Survival” was promulgated to create the Council of British Muslims to act as “a Muslim parliament” in a nation that gave us the Magna Carta, detailing the rules of property rights and individual freedoms. These days, the nations with the least amount of freedom are predominately Muslim.

Britain’s Muslim Manifesto made it clear that “Political and cultural subservience goes against their grain” because “at its inception Islam created a political platform from which Muslims were to launch themselves on a global role as founders of great states, empires and a world civilization and culture.”

Why should an article in a leading U.S. newspaper mark the beginning of the end? According to the UK’s Muslim Manifesto, “The fact is that a Muslim woman cannot be a western woman.” The problem for Muslims in Great Britain was that “There are laws on the British Statute Book that are in direct conflict with the laws of Allah.”

“We are Muslims first and last.”

“Jihad is a basic requirement of Islam and living in Britain or having British nationality by birth or naturalization does not absolve the Muslim from his or her duty to participate in jihad: this participation can be active service in armed struggle abroad and/or the provision of material and moral support to those engaged in such struggle anywhere in the world.”

“Islam is our guide in all situations.”

Ultimately this became clear to the non-Muslim citizens of England when on July 7, 2005, born-and-bred Muslim British citizens killed some of them in London’s subways and buses. This year in August it scared a lot of people to learn that British Muslims were planning to destroy ten commercial airliners and kill thousands of travelers.

Assimilation, according to the Manifesto, wasn’t even an option. Why need it be? By the early 1990s, there were already about 1,000 mosques in Great Britain, many of them former Anglican churches that had been abandoned and sold to Muslims.

As is the case of France today, the Manifesto recommended that “The Muslim community may have to define ‘no go’ areas where the exercise of ‘freedom of speech’ against Islam will not be tolerated.”

In the now famous words of Pogo, “We have met the enemy and they are us.” If America, the lone superpower, does not hold out against the march of Islam, it will fall into the Dark Ages of Muslim control, a place where born-and-bred Americans like the fashion designer will determine what American women will wear and other Muslims will impose the Sharia law of Islam upon all of us.

The next time you want to mock the “fundamentalist” Christians, famed for their patriotism, think again.

The next time you shrug when you hear your local school system has banned the playing or singing of Christmas carols, think again.

The next time you are inclined to say or think unkind things about American or Israeli Jews, think again.

The next time your neighborhood, community or city yields to some new Islamic demand to conform to their “religious” rules, think again.

The next time you read demands that something not be published or aired in America because it offends Muslim sensibilities, think again.

The next time anyone tells you that Islam preaches tolerance or peace, think again.

This is how nations and ultimately western civilization will slip-slide into a world no American would ever want for their children and grandchildren.

Alan Caruba writes a weekly column, “Warning Signs”, posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center, http://www.anxietycenter.com. His new book, “Right Answers: Separating Fact from Fantasy” has been published by Merril Press.

© Alan Caruba, 2006

What is Islam? Is the barbarity of September 11 rooted in the preaching of Muhammad? Or are the Islamists, the Islamic fascists bent on the destruction of all who disagree with them, merely an aberration, mixing politics, religion and violence in an appeal to the lowest psychological denominators of suicide bombers?


Turning swords in bombs
By Suzanne Fields
Monday, October 16, 2006

 

What is Islam? Is the barbarity of September 11 rooted in the preaching of Muhammad? Or are the Islamists, the Islamic fascists bent on the destruction of all who disagree with them, merely an aberration, mixing politics, religion and violence in an appeal to the lowest psychological denominators of suicide bombers?Historians, political scientists and psychologists are all over the place in supplying answers to these questions. Since most of the suicide bombers are young men whose minds have been drowned in propaganda, doomed to permanent adolescence, it’s easy to speculate that they are a maladaptive collective of perverse minds, having become twisted twigs of humanity feeding on hate. The historical forces at play are obvious. Bernard Lewis, a leading scholar of Islamist rage, places the fault line at the failure of the Muslim world to keep up with the West in the modern world. Diminishing Muslim power is both a humiliation and in Muslim minds a reversal of divine law, driving the losers to pick through the verses of the Koran to find justification for violence against winners. The decline of Muslim fortunes began with the fall of the Ottoman Empire and reached its nadir in recent times, encouraging the likes of Osama bin Laden, educated and wealthy, to play the David to the American Goliath.Other scholars blame Western colonialism and imperialism, along with Judeo-Christian traditions, as contributing to the violent mentality of the extremists. These aberrations, they say, cannot be found in the teachings of Muhammad. They reason that jihad initially was aimed at an inner quest for personal not political improvement, that Islamists distorted this phenomenon for their own malevolent ends, fusing politics and religion into an all-purpose aggression for the “long-suffering victims” of Western imperial expansion. But there’s another view. “The Middle East’s experience is the culmination of long-existing indigenous trends, passions, and patterns of behavior, first and foremost the region’s millenarian imperial tradition,” writes Efraim Karsh, a British scholar, in “Islamic Imperialism,” a provocative and persuasive book. “External influences, however potent, have played only a secondary role, constituting neither the primary force behind the Middle East’s political development nor the main cause of its notorious volatility.” He looks directly to the words of Muhammad, who in his farewell address to his followers ordered them to fight all men until they submit with the assertion that “There is no god but Allah.” It was not coincidence that Osama bin Laden echoed these words in his glee after September 11: “I was ordered to fight the people until they say there is no god but Allah and his prophet is Muhammad.” Muhammad proselytized with violence and used violence to consolidate conquest. Occupying territory was as important as converting or killing unbelievers. When the Jews of Medina resisted Muhammad in the 7th century, he beheaded the men and sold their women and children into slavery. The prophet, who claimed to derive his power and authority from Allah, was not only head of the captured states but was the single religious authority. “This allowed the prophet to cloak political ambitions with a religious aura,” writes Mr. Karsh, a professor at the University of London, “and to channel Islam’s energies into its instrument of aggressive expansion.” The ultimate goal would be for the world either to embrace Islam or live under its domination. This goal was realized in part with the establishment of the Ottoman Empire, which allowed certain other religions to exist but not prosper. Christians who sought domination, on the other hand, never invoked the teachings of Christ to justify violence. Early Christianity made clear the distinction between God and Caesar, spiritual and earthly power, even though such distinctions were not always honored. “If Christendom was slower than Islam in marrying religious universalism with political imperialism,” says Professor Karsh, “it was faster in shedding both notions.” The imperialistic impulse, rooted in the beginning of Islam, never fully retreated and is crucial today to understanding the shedding of blood now in the name of Allah. Although Muhammad forbade violence against the community of believers, it was easy in the chaos of the Middle East to initiate violence against differing sects with their different interpretations of the Koran. The interpretation of the Islamist mentality as rooted in Muhammad’s appeal to violence, and the Islamist determination for religious domination of the world, may not tell the whole story today, but it explains why, for millions of Muslims, the image of the warrior trumps the image of a prophet of peace — if, indeed, there ever was one.Suzanne Fields is a columnist with The Washington Times.

 

Dhimmitude for Dummies

Dhimmitude for Dummies
By Victor Sharpe
Front Page Magazine
Ask one hundred people in the
United States what a dhimmi is and perhaps two or three might know. In
Western Europe the number would be slightly higher because of latent memories of battles fought against invading Moslem armies over hundreds of years.

In 732, Charles Martel led his Frankish forces at Tours to victory against an Islamic invasion of
France, which nearly destroyed Christian Europe. Similarly, Islam was ousted from Spain in 1492 after an occupation of the
Iberian Peninsula by the Moslems for hundreds of years. Sadly, the Spanish Christian monarchs, Isabella and Ferdinand, and the Portuguese a few years later, also expelled the Jewish community although the Jews had lived in Spain and
Portugal for many centuries and had never posed a threat to either Moslem or Christian sovereignty.

In
Italy, Islamic power was brought to an end when the heavy Turkish galleys were defeated by Venetian galleasses at the great naval battle of Lepanto in 1571. And the Moslem Ottoman power, which at its height again threatened all of Western Europe, was barely turned back at the gates of
Vienna on 11 September 1683 by a coalition of European armies. Incidentally, could there be a connection between 9.11.1683 and 9.11.2001, or is it just coincidence?

These were four major defeats by Europe of Islamic attempts of conquest and subjugation set against a history of victorious Moslem invasions and conquests that had been the hallmark of Islam since its founding in the seventh century.

But what of the peoples and nations that fell under Islamic occupation? For them the story was one of forced conversions to Islam, slavery, death and the Islamic institution of dhimmitude.

This is the word that describes the parlous state of those who refused to convert to Islam and became the subjugated, non-Muslims who were forced to accept a restrictive and humiliating subordination to a superior Islamic power and live as second class citizens in order to avoid enslavement or death. These peoples and populations were known as dhimmis, and if such a status was not humiliating enough, a special tax or tribute, called the jizya, was imposed upon them and upon all dhimmis.

Dhimmitude is the direct outcome of jihad, which is the military conquest of non-Islamic territory mandated by Allah as a spiritual obligation for every individual Moslem and Moslem nation.

From its beginnings in the seventh century, Islam spread through violent conquest of non-Moslem lands. In the eighth century, a formal set of rules to govern relationships between Moslems and non-Moslems was created based upon Moslem conquests of non-Moslem peoples.
These rules were based upon jihad, which established how the Moslems would treat the conquered non-Moslems in terms of their submission to Islam.

Jihad can be pursued through force or other means such as propaganda, writing, or subversion against the perceived enemy. The so-called enemies are those who oppose the establishment of Islamic law or its spread, mission, or sovereignty over them and their land.

Propaganda and subversion are the very means now being employed against the West and Judeo-Christian civilization, and Islamists have shown themselves to be brilliantly adept at manipulating the gullible and uninformed western media in pursuit of their aims of world domination.

As I have written in previous articles, non-Islamic lands are considered the dar al-harb, the “house of war,” until they submit to Islamic rule and enter the dar al-Islam.
The ‘infidel’ falls into three categories: those who resist Islam with force, those living in a country that has a temporary truce with Islam, and those who have surrendered to Islam by exchanging land for peace.

Since the Oslo Accords, successive Israeli governments have been guilty of the now thoroughly discredited notion of “land for peace” in which
Israel gives away land but never receives peace. Even the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan are cold at best and the lands given away to
Lebanon and the Arab Palestinians has been a calamitous error.
The belief that Moslem Arab powers respond to overtures of peace by ending their aggression is but a mirage in the desert. This is proven time and again to be a delusion and is, in fact, a classic example of the mindset and behavior of the dhimmi.

A non-Moslem community forced to accept dhimmitude is condemned to live in a system that will only protect it from jihad if it is subservient to the Moslem master. In return, it is guaranteed limited rights under a system of discriminations that it must accept, or face forced conversion, slavery, or death.

In the early years of the Islamic conquests, the “tribute” or jizya was paid as a yearly poll tax, which symbolized the subordination of the dhimmi. Later, the inferior status of Jews and Christians was reinforced through a series of regulations that governed the behavior of the dhimmi. Jews and Christians were awarded a different status than other faiths. They were considered to be under protection as “people of the book.” People of non-monotheistic faiths, pagans, or atheists were simply to be exterminated.

According to Mitchell G. Bard, who has written extensively on the subject and produced the excellent rebuttal to Arab and pro-Arab propaganda in his book, Myths and Facts, “… dhimmis, on pain of death, were forbidden to mock or criticize the Koran, Islam or Muhammad, to proselytize among Moslems or to touch a Moslem woman (though a Moslem man could take a non-­Moslem as a wife).

Dhimmis were excluded from public office and armed service, and were forbidden to bear arms. They were not allowed to ride horses or camels, to build synagogues or churches taller than mosques, to construct houses higher than those of Muslims or to drink wine in public. They were not allowed to pray or mourn in loud voices as that might offend the Moslems.

“The dhimmi had to show public deference toward Moslems, always yielding them the center of the road. The dhimmi was not allowed to give evidence in court against a Moslem, and his oath was unacceptable in an Islamic court. To defend himself the dhimmi would have to purchase Moslem witnesses at great expense. This left the dhimmi with little legal recourse when harmed by a Moslem.

Dhimmis were also forced to wear distinctive clothing. In the ninth century, for example,
Baghdad’s Caliph al-Mutawakkil designated a yellow badge for Jews, setting a precedent that would be followed centuries later.”

By the twentieth century, the status of the dhimmi in Moslem lands had not significantly improved. H.E.W. Young, British Vice-Consul in
Mosul, wrote in 1909:

“The attitude of the Muslims toward the Christians and the Jews is that of a master towards slaves, whom he treats with a certain lordly tolerance so long as they keep their place. Any sign of pretension to equality is promptly repressed.”

The concept of jihad is not something now discarded by Islam as a quaint belief appropriate to the distant past. On the contrary, it is a cardinal belief in the 21st century for Moslems based upon Koranic injunctions. It is believed in by millions of Moslems around the Third world, as much as by Moslems living in America, Britain, Europe, Australia, New Zealand and
Canada. It is a belief, passionately held, that one day the entire world will become Islamic and accept completely the will of Allah.

It is vital, therefore, that the general public in every non-Moslem country be made aware that Moslems consider themselves in a perpetual state of war with their non-Moslem neighbors. If Islamic armies are unable to defeat what they consider the “infidels,” (that’s you and me), then a period of “truce” exists, which has several conditions. These include allowing Islam to be propagated, and if a non-Moslem nation forbids it or rejects mass proselytizing to Islam, then that nation will be considered as subject to holy jihad.

Sheikh Zayman al-Zawahiri, Al Qaida’s second in command, recently invited
America to embrace Islam. The invitation is always given, according to some experts, prior to a major assault upon the “infidel nation,” because any rejection is considered by Moslems as an empirical reason to wage war upon the non-Moslem state; in this case the
United States of America.

It is nearly impossible for sophisticated and secularized Western and European elites to understand or accept such medieval concepts, let alone the idea that a religious war is being waged against them. But their dismissal and amused disregard of what is taking place is as calamitous as that exemplified by the myopic politicians in Britain and
America before the Second World War.

The lone voice in the wilderness at that time, Winston Churchill, appealed in vain to the political leaders who had not the ears to hear or the eyes to see the growing fascist menace during the 1930s posed by Germany and
Italy. He called one such British politician an “epileptic corpse,” and reached back through his prodigious memory to find a poem, which characterized the failure of the
Baldwin government in 1935 to re-arm. The apt poem was, The Clattering Train, which could equally be applied to the later appeasement of Hitler by Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax.

“Those in charge of the clattering train, the axles creak and the couplings strain.
The pace is hot and the points are near and sleep has deadened the driver’s air.
The signals flash in the night in vain, for death is in charge of the clattering train.”

Western notions of peaceful co-existence between states, human rights and liberal democracy are all alien to the bin-Ladens and Zawahiris of the Islamic world. Hizbullah, Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hamas, Al Qaida, ad nauseum, all reject Judeo-Christian civilization as being in theological error. For them, the entire human race must embrace Allah’s pre-eminence and the Moslem believer is the divine instrument to bring about the Umma”  (worldwide Moslem community) in whatever way possible, including warfare and terror.

Jihad
has reappeared as a way of wiping out the humiliation the Arab and Moslem world has felt as Western power became ascendant, especially after the defeat of the Ottoman Turkish Empire at the end of the First World War.

With a fabulous and never ending flow of petrodollars pouring into Arab and Moslem coffers, the belief among Moslems is that the time is now right for Islam to reassert itself in dominating the world and bringing it to Allah through all out war, including nuclear war, if necessary.

The corollary to jihad is dhimmitude. This is what appeasement by non-Moslems to Islamist threats and terror leads to. Winston Churchill would have been shocked but not surprised at the craven appeasement displayed by today’s elitists in the European political echelons.

It is in marked contrast to the manner in which their ancestors confronted an earlier existential Islamic threat when they defeated decisively the Moslems at Tours, Iberia (Spain and Portugal), Lepanto and
Vienna.

But without a similarly decisive defeat of present day Islamist aggression and Islamo-fascism we may all be faced, sooner than we think, with the choice of forced conversion to Islam or subservience and wretchedness as dhimmis.

Better, therefore, for us all to be aware of the facts and not also be dummies.