Why Conservatives Love the Founders

Why Conservatives Love the Founders

By James Lewis

A Salon writer wonders, “What’s the conservative fetish with the Founding Fathers?”

It’s because we read history, my sadly ignorant friend. So did the Founders.
History is full of Obamas, and the people who idolized such power-hungry self-glorifying narcissists. The Founders understood human history in their very bones, because they read history from the Bible to the Roman Empire, Europe’s bloody and tyrannical history, and the Americas. If you want to understand Obama, just look at any idolized hero in Latin America: Chavez, Fidel, Bolivar, Juan Peron. Look at European monarchs. Look at Napoleon.
They are all the famous Man on Horseback, the hero of the hour who instantly turns into a tyrant. Even today Latin America is bedeviled by its own Obamas, who all demand to be idolized and worshipped. Obamas are a dime a dozen.
The Founders knew about abuse of power by arrogant and ignorant narcissists, over and over again in human history. They read it in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. They read it in the Book of Kings, where you can find out all about Saddam Hussein, because the politics of the Middle East hasn’t changed much. They saw it in the Middle East of their day, which was full of clan tyrannies and immense cruelty. Arab slavers were still raiding Britain when the Founders proclaimed the Declaration of Independence.
They read it in Plutarch’s Lives of the Ceasars. They read it in the history of Athens, torn between bloody factions, and constantly raising new Obamas to power.
You see, all you Salonistas, the Founders were profoundly educated people. They were passionate believers in the Enlightenment. They understood the role of free speech, free thought, free political debate, and free trade. They saw the benefits of freedom in their own lives.
The Founders knew about slavery in the South, and they were deeply ashamed of it. But unlike contemporary liberals, who are massively ignorant of everything but their navels, they also knew that slavery was the norm in the British Royal Navy, for example, which recruited its sailors by force, using press gangs in London and other port cities. The British Navy also kidnapped American sailors.
The Royal Navy abolished the African slave trade. But common British sailors were whipped to work every day. They slept in 28 inches of space, almost as bad as African slaves, and were kept in bondage (deserters were hanged), and drug-addicted on daily grog and beer. The Founders knew about slavery in Biblical times, and among Russia’s serfs. They knew about slavery in France and the German states, where violence was used routinely to keep peasants tied to the land. The Founders also knew about the mental slavery that comes from indoctrination, which is why they loved liberty, including liberty of faith.
The Founders understood that liberty had to come in stages. Only tyrants claim to create instant paradise. Practical statesmen work step by step. They created the intellectual and legal framework for the liberation of the slaves. When Abraham Lincoln came along, Americans were willing to fight a terrible war to free the slaves, even if more than half a million people had to die. Read the lyrics of the Battle Hymn of the Republic, and you can see the real campaign for human liberty, not the fantasy version liberals entertain today. Liberty is bought very dearly, in blood and suffering. (And it was Christian Abolitionists who created the campaign to liberate the slaves.)
America’s wars of liberation were real, not frauds like the Marxist ones. We brought liberty to Europe in World War I, in World War II, and in the Cold War. We brought liberty to American slaves in the Civil War. No other nation in history can claim anything close to that.
The Founders created the first land of liberty in human history. To be sure, they learned a great deal from British political thinkers like John Locke and Edmund Burke, and from the classical writers. They demanded for themselves the rights that were (theoretically) granted to Englishmen of their time. Meanwhile the French Revolution led to massive bloodshed and twenty years of bloody war to conquer Europe. Napoleon was another Obama idol.
Read your history, my friends. Real history, not the Leftist propaganda version.
America gave the first great opportunity in human history to start afresh. The Founders used that opportunity to create the greatest political foundation in history — because they understood that human nature hasn’t changed, and that there would be those (like Obama) who were so power-oriented that they would try to lord it over all Americans. The Constitution was carefully designed to stop and balance human power mongers, like Obama.  It has done so for two hundred years, and today it is the Marxist Left that is mounting a great assault on the US Constitution. But Marx never changed human nature.
The Left seems to believe that Karl Marx found a better way than the American Founders did. But look at the works of Marxism: The Soviets, Maoism, Pol Pot. One hundred million human beings killed by Marxist regimes in the 20th century alone. Look at North Korea, my sadly ignorant friends. Look at Robert Mugabe and his ilk. Look at the Nazis and their close affinity for Marxist totalitarians.
Karl Marx was just a throwback to all the slave-taking empires in history. Marx was born in Prussia, and idolized the chief propaganda philosopher of Prussia for his own “philosophy.” (That was Friedrich Hegel.) Marx wanted a militaristic state, run by an elite of Marx followers, who would indoctrinate all the workers to march in lockstep to the Central Commander. Is that what you want? It’s what Obama is creating for the United States today.
Read a little history, my poor friend, and you will see Obamas everywhere you look. Lenin was an Obama (and the Obama campaign deliberately used Lenin imagery for its propaganda). Stalin was an Obama. Mussolini was an Obama. Napoleon was an Obama. Putin is an Obama. Ahmadinejad is an Obama. Saddam was an Obama.
America never had a rock star president until the Obama campaign. George Washington made very sure no one would suspect him of being an Obama. Lincoln never claimed to be an Obama. None of our presidents have paraded themselves as Obamas — not until Obama came along and brought the psychology of self-glorifying narcissism to these shores. And the Left snapped to and saluted Obama, worshiped at his feet of clay in that ancient and corrupt way that humans have known for millenia.
Are rock stars your idea of an American president? If so, please go back to school and read a little history.
Russian president Medvedev said this last week – said it out loud, to the deaf, dumb and blind Leftists of the world:
“President Medvedev has issued a stinging repudiation of the Soviet Union, condemning it as a totalitarian state that had deprived Russians of their basic rights.  He also condemned Joseph Stalin’s record of repression before Victory Day celebrations on Sunday marking the 65th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany, an event that many elderly Russians attribute to the leadership of the Soviet dictator.
… “Stalin committed mass crimes against the people. And despite the fact that he worked a lot, despite the fact that under his leadership the country achieved successes, what was done to his own people cannot be forgiven.”…
Conservatives love the Founders because we read history. We know that you don’t read history. Obama doesn’t know history.
That’s why you liberals scare us.
Advertisements

Obama’s invisible Islam–Democrats refuse to admit who the jihadist enemy is

EDITORIAL: Obama’s invisible Islam

Democrats refuse to admit who the jihadist enemy is

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

During questioning before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, a visibly nervous Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. tried valiantly not to utter the expression “radical Islam.” The twisting began when Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican, asked whether the men behind three recent terrorist incidents – the Fort Hood massacre, the Christmas Day bombing attempt and the Time Square bombing attempt – “might have been incited to take the actions that they did because of radical Islam.”

Mr. Holder said there are a “variety of reasons” why people commit terror attacks. That can be true, but in these cases there was one reason: radical Islam. The attorney general said you have to look at each case individually. That’s fine, but when that is done, one comes face to face with radical Islam every time. He said that of the variety of reasons people might commit terror, “some of them are potentially religious.” Yes, like radical Islam. When pressed, what Mr. Holder would finally allow is, “I certainly think that it’s possible that people who espouse a radical version of Islam have had an ability to have an impact on people like [Times Square bomber Faisal] Shahzad.”

Mr. Holder mentioned Anwar al-Awlaki, the U.S.-born radical cleric now holed up in Yemen who has been mentioned in connection with all three attacks. Mr. Holder said that Mr. al-Awlaki “has a version of Islam that is not consistent with the teachings of [the faith].” Mr. Holder did not go into details to back up his assertion that Mr. al-Awlaki, an Islamic scholar, is somehow at odds with his own faith, nor did he pinpoint exactly what Muslim teachings he was referring to.

The Obama administration seems to have issued an internal gag order that forbids any official statements that might cast even the most extreme interpretations of the Islamic religion in a negative light. The “force protection review” of the Fort Hood massacre omitted any mention of shooter Nidal Malik Hasan’s openly radical Islamic worldview or the fact that he made the jihadist war cry “Allahu Akbar!” before opening fire. Initially, the Obama administration refused to even call the massacre an act of terrorism, much less radical Islamic terrorism.

Last year, the Department of Homeland Security Domestic Extremist Lexicon, which was pulled out of circulation in the wake of controversy with other department publications, listed Jewish extremism and various forms of Christian extremism as threats but made no mention of any form of Muslim extremism. The Feb. 1, 2010 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review discusses terrorism and violent extremism but does not mention radical Islam as a motivator, or in any context. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review likewise avoids any terminology related to Islam.

The Obama administration may not like to think of being at war with radical Islam, but the jihadists are definitely at war with the United States. Rather than running from the expression “radical Islam,” the administration should be openly discussing the ideological motives of the terrorists and finding ways to delegitimize them. Instead of hedging, obfuscating and ignoring, these Democrats should confront the challenge frankly, openly and honestly. Pretending that a radical, violent strain of Islam does not exist will not make it go away. To the contrary, it will make the situation much worse.

President Obama’s continuing solicitude toward the faith of Muhammad is inexplicable, and as these acts of denial continue, it is becoming dangerous. The United States will not defeat an enemy it is afraid to identify.

Obama’s Burden of “Brightness” touted by Left wing media

Obama’s Burden of Brightness

By John Dietrich

President Obama is frequently described as highly intelligent. His advisor Valerie Jarrett has described this as a “burden.” She announced at the John F. Kennedy School of Government that “[p]art of the burden of being so bright is that he sees his error immediately.” Advisor David Axelrod claimed, “He does have an incisive mind. This is someone who in law school worked with [Harvard professor] Larry Tribe on a paper on the legal implications of Einstein’s theory of relativity.” The president obviously shares this opinion, having told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid early in his Senate career, “Harry, I have a gift.”
The “progressive” media can be counted on to regurgitate this mantra. They have, in fact, surpassed it, and they have often entered the realm of idolatry or even adolescent infatuation. Chris Matthews is perhaps the leading example of this. Following one the president’s press conferences, Matthews claimed that “[t]he president showed his analytical mind. He was at his best intellectually. I thought it was a great example of how his mind works. What a mind he has, and I love his ability to do it on television. I love to think with him.” Matthews is famous for the frequent “thrill” that goes up his leg. He apparently also suffers from gender confusion. Watching Obama board a helicopter, Matthews gushed, “We agree, we girls agree. I don’t mind saying that. I’m excited. I’m thrilled.” Following Obama’s speech at the Democratic National Convention, reports on the president became so fawning that even Bill Maher, no right-winger, commented that “the coverage … that I was watching from MSNBC, I mean these guys were ready to have sex with him.” 
The commentators at MSNBC were not alone. Judith Warner, who writes for the New York Times, claimed that many women are dreaming of having sex with the new president. How did she know? Well, from personal experience. She shared her fantasy of finding President Obama in her shower. Was this news “fit to print”?
Another New York Times columnist, David Brooks, shared the experience of his first encounter with the President: “I remember distinctly an image of — we were sitting on his couches, and I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant,” Brooks reported, “and I’m thinking, a) he’s going to be president and b) he’ll be a very good president.” Evan Thomas, Newsweek editor, provided this analysis: “I mean, in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above — above the world…he’s sort of God.” Historian Michael Beschloss, who might be considered an expert on American presidents, claimed that the current president’s IQ is “off the charts.” When pressed to reveal what he thought the President’s IQ was, Beschloss could only say, “he’s probably the smartest guy ever to become president.” Even many of Obama’s critics have bought into the intelligence hype. FOX news contributor Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard claimed that “for all his brainpower,” he is a “slow learner.”
This adulation may cause a serious problem for supporters of the president. Joe Scarborough pointed this out on his MSNBC program: “I tell you my biggest fear for Barack Obama, he has been sainted. He is Saint Barack. The same mainstream media that tried so desperately to get him elected has engaged in hyperbole, engaged in exaggeration. They have deified this man. … They have set up such unrealistic expectations that no politician could meet those expectations.” Scarborough might blame the media for this hyperbole, but they are only willing accomplices. The president himself has set the bar rather high. On June 3, 2008, he announced that future generations would look back on his primary victory as “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”
It would be unfair to elaborate on all of the president’s gaffes in order to bolster the argument that he is not as intelligent as his supporters claim. It was unfair of the progressive media to pillory Vice President Dan Quayle for misspelling “potatoe.” It was unfair to highlight every instance of Ronald Reagan and George Bush misspeaking. But is it professional for the media to edit a president’s remarks in order to correct them? President Obama, speaking of the Somali pirates, stated, “And I want to be very clear that we are resolved to halt the rise of privacy in that region.” This was obviously a mistake. However, the major media reported that he vowed to “halt the rise of piracy” off the coast of Africa.
Can an individual who is obviously infatuated with a public figure provide an objective analysis of that figure’s policies? It seems unlikely.
John Dietrich is a freelance writer and the author of The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy (Algora Publishing).

Obama National Security Policy: Hope Their Bombs Don’t Work

Obama National Security Policy: Hope Their Bombs Don’t Work

May 6th, 2010

By Ann Coulter, Townhall

It took Faisal Shahzad trying to set off a car bomb in Times Square to get President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to finally use the word “terrorism.” (And not to refer to Tea Party activists!)

This is a major policy shift for a president who spent a month telling Americans not to “jump to conclusions” after Army doctor Nidal Malik Hasan reportedly jumped on a desk, shouted “Allahu Akbar!” and began shooting up Fort Hood.

After last weekend, now Obama is even threatening to pronounce it “Pack-i-stan” instead of “Pahk-i-stahn.” We know Obama is taking terrorism seriously because he took a break from his “Hope, Change & Chuckles” tour on the comedy circuit to denounce terrorists.

In a bit of macho posturing this week, Obama declared that — contrary to the terrorists’ wishes — Americans “will not be terrorized, we will not cower in fear, we will not be intimidated.”

First of all, having the Transportation Security Administration wanding infants, taking applesauce away from 93-year-old dementia patients, and forcing all Americans to produce their shoes, computers and containers with up to 3 ounces of liquid in Ziploc bags for special screening pretty much blows that “not intimidated” look Obama wants America to adopt.

Read More:

How close was the Times Sqauare bomber to getting away?

How close was the Times Sqauare bomber to getting away?

G. Wesley Clark, MD

How close did the Times Square bomber come to getting away? The FBI lost him from surveillance, and did not locate him until the final passenger list was submitted from Emirates airlines, after the doors of the plane were closed.Eric Holder says he “was never in any fear that we were in danger of losing him.”

According to the Obama official government version, as reported by AP and several other outlets, “he was in his seat and the plane was preparing to leave the gate. It didn’t. At the last minute, the pilot was notified, the jetliner’s door was opened and Shahzad was taken into custody.”

However, the actual flight controller recording shows otherwise. The plane was not at the gate, it was not just pushed back, it had taxied to the runway, and was “number one” for takeoff, had been switched to tower frequency for takeoff clearance, and the tower controller was actually in the middle of saying “position and hold” (on the runway for takeoff), when she ordered a return to the gate.

Meanwhile, the New York Times has a different version, alleges that bomber was removed from the plane, the plane taxied to runway, then was called back to remove two more passengers. Based upon the puzzled tone and query of the pilot talking with the controller, this sounds really fishy, and is most likely a CYA by the FBI or DOJ.

Thankfully, the Taliban is just slightly more incompetent at making bombs, than our government is at catching the bombers, and at protecting us.

Times Square Bomb Plot Revenge, Group Says Pakistani Taliban Claims Responsibility, Reports Claim

Pakistani Taliban Claims Responsibility, Reports Claim

Times Square Bomb Plot Revenge, Group Says

Updated: Sunday, 02 May 2010, 10:34 PM EDT
Published : Sunday, 02 May 2010, 2:32 PM EDT

  • ADRIAN CARRASQUILLO
    MYFOXNY.COM

MYFOXNY.COM – New York City’s police commissioner says there’s no evidence of a Taliban link to a failed bomb found in an SUV parked in Times Square but said he couldn’t rule them out.

On Sunday, Fox 5 reported on a Reuters story that the Pakistani Taliban has claimed responsibility for the bomb plot.


COMPLETE COVERAGE OF TIMES SQUARE CAR BOMB


According to Fox News, in a 1 minute video allegedly released by the Pakistani Taliban, the group says the attack is revenge for the death of its leader Baitullah Mehsud and the recent killings of the top leaders of al-Qaida in Iraq.

Images of the slain militants are shown as an unidentified voice recites the message. English subtitles are at the bottom of the screen.

According to the AP, an unidentified speaker on the tape also says the attack comes in response to American “interference and terrorism in Muslim Countries, especially in Pakistan.”

The claim could not be immediately confirmed andhe tape makes no specific reference to the attack nor does it mention that it was a car bomb or that it took place in New York City.

A text in gold letters on a black background at the start of the video congratulates Muslims for the “jaw-breaking blow to Satan’s USA.” As the speaker recites the message, images of the slain militants referred to flash across the screen. English subtitles are provided at the bottom of the screen.

The video was uncovered Sunday by SITE, which monitors militant websites and has been accurate with such militant claims in the past.

The Pakistani Taliban is one of Pakistan’s largest and deadliest militant groups. It has strong links to al-Qaida and is based in the northwest close to the Afghan border. The group has carried out scores of bloody attacks inside Pakistan in recent years, mostly against Pakistani targets, but it has made no secret of its hatred toward the United States.

The investigation into the Times Square bomb plot is ongoing. Mayor Bloomberg called the improvised device “amateurish”.

According to the New York Times, a 911 call on Sunday morning warned that the bomb plot was merely a diversion for a much bigger explosion that is set to happen at Times Square.

More information on these developments throughout Sunday. The FBI released the following statement:

The FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force in New York, along with the NYPD, has responded to Times Square in response to the vehicle and device. Bomb technicians, Evidence Response Team members, and investigators are on scene and a command post has been established. All of the resources of the New York FBI office are available to assist with this ongoing investigation. Numerous initial reports will be checked and authenticated and the appropriate leads will be set.

Question Authority (the Cartoon)