Special to the Cape Charles Mirror by Paul Plante
Yes, people, “mislead,” that is indeed the word I intended to use no matter how disrespectful to Jemmy it might seem on the surface, where the “Jemmy” in question is James Madison, a Virginian and future U.S. president, who, writing as Publius, posted Federalist No. 10 “To the People of the State of New York” with the highly misleading title of “The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection” in the New York Packet on Friday, November 23, 1787, and where “mislead” is taken as a verb meaning to “cause (someone) to have a wrong idea or impression about someone or something.”
And mislead us he did, the people of the State of New York, anyway, when he told us that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by the Union of the United States of America over the States composing it.
As subsequent history, and especially what is going on the United States of America right now clearly demonstrates, Jemmy was dead wrong about the federal government of the United States of America controlling the effects of faction, as opposed to making those effects worse, as is the case now, and as history shows, Jemmy has been dead wrong since Tommy Jefferson and John Adams were contending for the office of United States president in 1800.
But by then, it was already too late.
The die had been cast, because in Federalist No. 10, by selling the people of the State of New York a BILL OF GOODS, Jemmy Madison did succeed in getting the people of the State of New York to ratify the United States Constitution which has us now mired in the factionalism that Jemmy Madison told us it would prevent.
And that takes us to lunacy, where lunacy is taken to mean “extreme folly or eccentricity,” and yes indeed, people, lunacy, for how else can one describe these times we now find ourselves in here in the United States of America, where for our choices for imperial president, or empress, we are stuck with stuck with a choice, and a damn poor one it is, between a loud-mouthed blowhard with a perpetual bad hair day on the one hand, who if elected will render the United States of America into an environmental and industrial wasteland reminiscent of Giedi Prime under the rule of Baron Vladimir Harkonnen, with its bio-resources depleted and its environment fouled with industrial pollution, and on the other, a shallow-thinking, pathological liar with extremely poor judgment but a very high opinion of herself, notwithstanding, each put forth by a minority of the population of the United States of America, and both of whom are disliked and reviled by a majority of the American people, and with good reason.
If that is in any way rational, then I am a hippopotamus.
But enough of that speculation, for I am not a hippopotamus at all, and back to Jemmy Madison and Federalist No. 10, and the BILL OF GOODS Jemmy Madison sold the people of the State of New York on Friday, November 23, 1787.
In his favor, I think Jemmy started out with good if not noble intentions in Federalist 10, when he started it thusly, and so caught our attention, big time:
“AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction.”
end quote
And let us face it, people, perhaps we people of the State of New York misled ourselves a bit when we took that to mean that the Constitution we now have in place was going to give us a us a “well constructed Union,” an advantage of which was to be its tendency to break and control the violence of faction.
Oh, how wrong we were to believe that crap, for crap is what it turned out to be with what is supposed to be our federal government mired in factionalism which has essentially shut down the proper functioning of our federal government and has given us a travesty instead.
But that is today.
Getting back to Jemmy Madison and Federalist No. 10 and the misleading of the people of the State of New York into ratifying something that has so obviously failed to break and control the violence of faction in the United States of America, Jemmy told us, indeed, warned us what woulod happen if we did not ratify the United States Constitution, as follows, to wit:
The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished.
end quotes
We, of course, took that to mean that the United States Constitution we were being asked to ratify was actually designed so as to prevent and preclude instability, injustice, and confusion from being introduced into the public councils, those being the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished.
Silly us for believing that, is my thought, anyway, as I look around me and see instability, injustice, and confusion in our public councils, especially at the federal level.
Getting back to Jemmy misleading us, or perhaps we misleading ourselves, Jemmy told us as follows about the times then confronting the people of the United States of America under the Articles of Confederation Jemmy wanted to replace with the United States Constitution:
Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.
end quotes
How today that sounds, doesn’t it, especially the part about the public good being continually disregarded in the conflicts of the two continually feuding rival parties in America today, the worthless Republicans and equally worthless Democrats, neither of which enjoys the support of more than a minority of the population of the United States of America.
Talk about tyranny, alright.
But back to Jemmy Madison and faction, which Jemmy defines as follows:
By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
end quote
Yes, people, that so defines the Republican and Democrat parties in the United States of America today, doesn’t it.
As to the causes of faction that the people of the State of New York were led to believe the United States Constitution would prevent, Jemmy gave is this in Federalist No. 10:
A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.
end quote
Right you were there, alright, Jemmy Madison!
With respect to where we are in the United States of America today, with this mockery of a presidential election between the two-most disliked presidential candidates in this nation’s history confronting us, Jemmy predicted it would be that way as follows:
Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.
end quote
Indeed, Jemmy had this to say about the political class in America we would be confronted with if we did not do as he wished, which to ratify the United States Constitution:
Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people.
end quotes
That, people is what the United States Constitution was supposed to prevent, or so we in our obvious naivete were led to believe.
And how wrong we were, as that is who we have in power in the United States of America today – both men and women of factious tempers, of local prejudices, and of sinister designs, who, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, which is to say, our votes, and then betray the interests of the people for those of their own faction.
In misleading the people of the State of New York, Jemmy Madison gave us this line of pure malarkey:
In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.
end quote
Did Jemmy himself believe that?
If he did, he obviously failed to consider, as did the people of the State of New York, the power that money would have in making it a veritable cake walk for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried. to the exclusion of men and women who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.
With respect to the United States Constitution, which is a failed experiment due to factionalism, Jemmy told us:
The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States.
end quote
Little did Jemmy Madison know, people, is my thought, as we find ourselves today confronted with control of our governments by the destructive factions known the Republican and Democrat parties in every level right on up to the top, where the president of the United States of America is the leader of a faction comprising a minority of the American people, as opposed to being the president for all the people.
And the only thing I can think is we brought it on ourselves.
As Jemmy Madison said, hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.
If only we had listened, but alas, people hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest, and so it goes, America.
When you look around you and wonder at the mess you are confronted with, comfort yourself with this one thought: we have no one to blame but ourselves!
For those unfamiliar with them, and why they might be of importance to us in the United States of America today, according to the Library of Congress of the United States of America, the “Federalist Papers” were a series of eighty-five essays urging the citizens of New York to ratify the new United States Constitution.
In our supposedly common American history, which does not seem to be common at all, especially in politics, and on the internet, the specific purpose of the Federalist Papers, including Jemmy Madisons’s Federalist No. 10, was to urge the citizens of New York to ratify the new United States Constitution.
By way of review, by the end of May 1788, proponents of the new federal Constitution under discussion in the Federalist Papers had secured the approval of eight state ratifying conventions.
But as TeachingAmericanHistory.org tells us, securing the ninth state was not going to be an easy task.
Everything rested on the three remaining states: New Hampshire, Virginia, and New York.
(North Carolina and Rhode Island did not ratify the Constitution until the First Congress sent twelve amendment proposals to the states for ratification.)
The best evidence suggests that going into these three ratifying conventions, the Federalist–Antifederalist delegate split was 52-52 in New Hampshire, 84-84 in Virginia and 19-46 in New York.
And all were scheduled to meet in June: Virginia on the 2nd, New York on the 17th, and New Hampshire on the 18th.
News that New Hampshire ratified came one week into the New York convention.
Chancellor Livingston of New York captured the moment: “The Confederation, he said, was dissolved.”
“The question before the committee was now a question of policy and expediency.”
News that Virginia had ratified reinforced Livingston‘s observation.
Yet the delegates continued debating for another three weeks!
On July 26, New York, by a vote of 30-27, ratified the Constitution and proposed 25 items in a Bill of Rights and 31 amendments.
According to TeachingAmericanHistory.org, among those delegates who defended the Constitution at the New York Ratifying Convention were:
1) Alexander Hamilton:
2) John Jay, joint authors of The Federalist Papers; and
3) Chancellor Livingston who administered the oath of office to President George Washington at the First Inaugural.
Opposing adoption of the Constitution were:
1) Melancton Smith;
2) John Lansing, a New York delegate to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia who left in protest after six weeks; and
3) and Governor George Clinton, author of the Cato essays and President of the Convention.
So why are they important to anyone outside of New York state, then, who is not a history buff of some kind?
That answer is simple, people: the Federalist Papers are considered one of the most important sources for interpreting and understanding the original intent of the Constitution.
That is why.
It is interesting that as we talk about the loss of Constitutional protections in this country as we go further into the era of the imperial presidency here in the USA, where the chief executive can now by-pass Congress and instead rule by executive fiat in the form of executive orders, that the same thing is happening in what is supposed to be our good friend and ally, Turkey, where according to a VOICE OF AMERICA article by Dorian Jones entitled “Turkey Extending State of Emergency Another 3 Months: Government” last updated October 03, 2016, the Turkish government says the state of emergency that went into effect following the failed coup on July 15 will be extended another three months, beginning October 19.
Not surprisingly, the main opposition CHP has condemned the move, and the dispute threatens rare political consensus between President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s ruling AK party and the CHP, forged out of opposition to the attempted military takeover that left more than 270 people dead.
As VOA informs us, on the night of the coup attempt, the leaders of Turkey’s main political parties united in condemning the attempted takeover; however, the government declaration of the initial state of emergency in the aftermath of the failed coup, with 30,0000 arrests and 100,000 people losing or being suspended from their jobs, dealt a near fatal blow to hopes of a new era of political consensus.
“If what is happening is the ‘Yenikapi Spirit,’ I want no part in it,” declared CHP leader Kemal Kilicdaroglu, in a briefing to foreign journalists Friday.
“We are in a process where the government is using the coup to expand its power and silence the opposition.”
During the briefing, Kilicdaroglu cited the arrest of more than 100 journalists, closure of media institutions and seizure of more than 200 companies as examples of abuses of emergency powers, which allow the government to rule by decree.
Last week, 20 more TV and radio stations were closed by decree, including a Kurdish children’s cartoon channel.
Kilicdaroglu has pledged to fight emergency rule in parliament and the constitutional court, but as Sinan Ulgen, a visiting scholar at Carnegie Europe in Brussels, said, “Erdogan will continue to rule, even if this is quite strident opposition from CHP, given that he can continue to rule by decree, by sidelining parliament.”
In that, Erdogan, a good friend and ally of Barack Obama, seems to be emulating Obama, as Obama sidelines Congress in this country, despite anything in our Constitution to the contrary.
Of importance to this discussion, where our executive branches are taking over the judiciary and making it an extension of executive power, much as King George III of England did when he was in charge here, the CHP has filed a case challenging government decrees issued under emergency rule; but, Kilicdaroglu has questioned whether the constitutional court will be able to challenge Erdogan’s AKP government, that being because thousands of judges have been detained under emergency rule, including two members of the Constitutional Court.
As to Obama’s buddy Erdogan, according to VOA, he argues his government faces an unprecedented challenge of trying to remove a vast network run by followers of U.S.-based Turkish cleric Fethullah Gulen from the state and society.
Note well those words “remove a vast network run by followers of U.S.-based Turkish cleric Fethullah Gulen from the state and society.”
How very much like Adolph Hitler that sounds, or perhaps Josef Stalin, and he is supposed to be our ally, so what does that say about us as a nation, people?
According to VOA, there still remains consensus between Turkey’s two main parties over the threat posed by Gulen’s followers, but CHP leader Kilicdaroglu argues the corruption of power now poses a greater threat to Turkey.
“They (government) can now close every institution they want, any newspaper they want; imprison whomever they want.”
“It can make every businessman go bankrupt and seize their properties,” Kilicdarolgu said.
“They are becoming addicted to this kind of power.”
“This is the greatest danger against our democracy process.”
Erdogan has promised his government will not let up on the crackdown, suggesting the state of emergency could extend beyond a year, saying the country is facing unprecedented dangers and that parliament is incapable of dealing with them.
Kilicdaroglu says they are preparing for the worst, warning his party too should expect to be targeted in the crackdown.
“This threat will come and find us, but we will not be silent against this threat.”
end quotes
Maybe it is just me, but somehow, I find all of that quite chilling.
No doubt we are in trouble but I don’t think we can blame it on Jefferson’s constitution . He was very clear that the Constitution was only good for one generation ( or about 20 years ) and needed to be rewritten for the times .
Good morning, Joseph Corcoran, nice to see you in here, joining the discussion.
I personally appreciate hearing your thoughts, but, Joseph Corcoran, Tommy Jefferson really didn’t write the U.S. Constitution.
James Madison, called the “Father of the Constitution,” wrote the document that formed the model for the Constitution.
Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, was serving as ambassador to France at the time of the Constitutional Convention, so he wasn’t even in the country at the time the U.S. Constitution was written.
But yes, you are correct when you say Tommy Jefferson thought there should be a revolution every twenty years or so.
With that said, let me come back and clarify that the real issue in here is not whether the Constitution needs to be re-written, which I would be a proponent of, especially with respect to the executive branch and the federal judiciary, but what it is that the Constitution really was meant to say in the first place.
My position is that we were sold not a BILL OF RIGHTS, but instead, a BILL OF GOODS.
That then becomes the basis of the need for change, as I see it, which is the point of this exercise.
I have been blogging on what could be called a “national” scale, starting on the John Kerry site in 2004, and proceeding forth from there to such diverse venues as the New York Times Empire blog and the New York Daily News, and in that time, based on experience, I have come to the conclusion that if you ask ten people on the internet what form of government we have in this country, you are liable to get twenty or thirty different answers, as people shift their positions back and forth based on what somebody else said, and if you ask one hundred people, the number of different answers will likely be heading for infinity, because in truth, in my experience, nobody any longer knows the answer.
With respect to Tommy Jefferson, who was actually an anti-federalist, and the drawing up of new state constitutions after separation from England in 1776, long before there was a United States Constitution, Jefferson, another son of Virginia along with James Madison, said in the spring of 1776, that was “the whole object of the present controversy.”
According to Jefferson, who was there and so would know, the American Revolution was not about simply becoming independent from British tyranny.
With their new state governments Americans at that time aimed to show the world how tyranny anywhere might be prevented.
That is the underlying thought Thomas Jefferson is lending to this vital discussion as to where exactly are we with respect to the political history of the United States of America, and how wrong history has shown Tommy Jefferson to be in that regard, that America was going to show the world how tyranny anywhere might be prevented, as our supposed good friend and ally Turkey is imposing a tyranny on its people as we speak.
And that takes us to a scholarly essay from the University of Richmond Law Review entitled “A VANISHING VIRGINIA CONSTITUTION?” by The Honorable Stephen R. McCullough, Judge, Court of Appeals of Virginia wherein he told us in no uncertain terms that in recent decades, the most fundamental rights protected for Virginians by the Virginia Constitution have been, for all practical purposes, steadily vanishing.
And that takes us to these statements by James Madison, to wit: “Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad,” and “If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”
With respect to the 2d Amendment of the United States Constitution, Jemmy Madison also said: “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
So while on the one hand, Tommy Jefferson was saying how with their new state governments Americans at that time aimed to show the world how tyranny anywhere might be prevented, Jemmy Madison on the other was telling us exactly how it would be that Tyranny and Oppression would come to this land, in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy, or in our case now, a veritable host of them.
So yes, Joseph Corcoran, as you say, no doubt we are in trouble, because we no longer have a common heritage nor do we have a common history.
On that there is no argument, nor could there be.
So, the question then becomes, where do we go from here?
And how?
Unless we elect Trump, we won’the need the Constitution. Obama did not use it so why would Hillary?
Obama does not “use” the United States Constitution because nobody in this country tasks him with using the United States Constitution, nor is he held to account when he doesn’t use it.
So what incentive is there for Obama to use it?
And accordingly, what incentive would there be for Hillary Clinton to abide by its provisions?
Or Donald Trump, for that matter?
In these presidential debates, we hear nothing at all from either candidate as to how they would restore constitutional government to this nation, because it is my belief neither intends to even try.
As has been mentioned elsewhere in these discussions, both candidates are essentially monarchists, or imperialists.
They intend to rule, not govern according to the out-dated precepts of the United States Constitution, which has become very tattered and torn over these last few decades.
And the root cause of that, I would say, is that the American people themselves no longer believe in Constitutional government, or else we would still have it in this nation.
“Last night a friend claimed that Donald Trump wouldn’t make a good
president; he is brash, he is racist, he is a loudmouth; you know the
normal things people learn to recite after being programmed by
television news. The one I loved was that,
“Trump is arrogant.” My friend questioned if one man could make “that
much difference in the world today.” To my friend’s credit, she was
respectful enough to let me respond when she asked, “Really, what has
Trump done?”
I said, “In June of last year, Trump
entered the race for president. In just a little over a year, Trump has
single handedly defeated the Republican party. He did so thoroughly. In
fact, he did so in such a resounding way that the Republican Party now
suffers from an identity crisis. He literally dismantled the party.
Trump even dismantled and dismissed the brand and value of the Bush
family.
Trump has Obama petrified that Trump will dismiss programs that weren’t properly installed using proper law.
Trump has single handedly debunked and disemboweled any value of news media
as we knew it—news now suffering from an all-time level of distrust and
disrespect.
Trump has leaders from all over the
world talking about him, whether good or bad. Trust me, powerful men who
have been president before weren’t liked by the global community. I
doubt Mikhail Gorbachev liked Reagan when Reagan said, “Tear down that
wall.”
Trump has expressly disclosed the fraud
perpetrated on the American public by Hillary Clinton. He has, quite
literally, brought Hillary to her knees—if you believe that nervous
tension and disorders offer physical side effects and damage.
Trump has unified the silent majority in a way that should be patently frightening to “liberals.”
As the press accuses Trump of being a house of cards, Trump has proven the
press is the real house of cards. He has whipped up the entire
establishment into pure panic. Trump has exposed them for who they are
and worse, what they are. George Clooney was right when he said Trump
draws live news coverage of his podium that he’s not yet approached.
Thanks, George, you were perfectly correct.
What we see as headline news today are actually the last bubbles from the
ship that is now sunk—meaning the standard news media, as a propaganda
machine, has been exposed. They have no more value.
In the same way Trump asked the African-American community this question, I
asked my friend, ”At this point, what do you have to lose?” We have
mass cop shootings, riots in our streets, ambushed cops, double digit
inflation, bombs blowing up in our cities, targeted police, #BLM,
a skyrocketing jobless rate, no economic growth, privately owned land
being seized by the federal government, the worst racial tension in my
lifetime, no God in schools, more abortions than ever, illegal aliens
pouring into our country, sick veterans receiving no care, and a debt
that doubled in seven years to $19 trillion. Are you really happy with
the condition of the current system?
One man has done all of this in one year—one guy, and on his own dime. And with
everything I’ve written above, you believe Trump hasn’t done anything?
You claim that you are afraid of Donald Trump? No wonder we’re in
trouble. You can say that Trump is a lousy presidential candidate.
That’s your right. Just don’t ever say he’s not effective.
That Megan Kelly, FOX News, CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, Rachel Maddow, the
Huffington Post, the New York Times, Raleigh’s News and Observer, the
AP, Don Lemon, Jake Tapper, and many more, failed to implement their
collectively orchestrated lie on the American people against Trump, is
actually a massive testament to Trump. The press colluded pure
propaganda to accomplish his demise … and they have collectively failed
and miserably.
Here’s just one example of how badly America is injured right now. There are high school football players on their knees during the national anthem simply because the press used as
propaganda to program those kids to do that very thing. But, these kids
are mimicking NFL stars the same way the same kids chooses which brand
of football shoe to purchase—they’re overtly brain-washed to do that
very thing.
Now, we have a generation of children who hate America.
America’s problem isn’t that little children are on their knee in collective
disrespect of America. Our problem is that America is on her knee from
collective disrespect by Americans.
You can disrespect America all you want. But, it’s high-time you respect the
silent majority. Because they’re not simply the “silent majority” as
you’ve been trained to believe when Hillary calls them “deplorables.”
The fact is, they are simply the majority. And now they’re no longer
silent either. Donald Trump changed all of that, single-handedly and
within one year.’
WOW!
I wish the vast majority of the population would be forced to read and comprehend that diatribe. We The People gave up and became very comfortable with a ‘Boss’. First our parents were The Boss, then we allowed teachers to be The Boss, then we allowed supervisors to be The Boss, we allow cops to be The Boss, we allow judges to be The Boss, we allow doctors to be The Boss, and feminized men allow their wives and children to be The Boss. At some point humans lost their voice. I have only One Boss and he is a Jewish Carpenter. I hope that a Trump presidency will encourage some to find the voice that they never knew they had.
Trump For President 2016
Hillary, Bill and Chelsea For Prison 2017
Wow indeed! I have never seen Mr. Bell speak/write so many words and with such skill before. I am amazed. And I must say, several of his points were spot on as well. However, and I get that the average American is angry, frightened, confused, overwhelmed, astonished and frankly overtaxed, overfed, overbought and under-waged. Now, who to vote for? Hm.
The best statement I saw Mr. Bell write, was “To my friend’s credit, she was
respectful enough to let me respond when she asked, “Really, what has
Trump done?” And truly, isn’t that what we are missing today? Respect for one another…such a lost art of etiquette from the days of yore. And with all due respect, Mr. Bell, neither candidate has much to offer on the table by my way of seeing.
The other thing I am missing from this election is the addressing of the real issues facing America today. Issues like our national debt. Issues like the money train being pulled by Wall Street and financiers and not actual product and living wages for the hard working honest American. Issues such as runaway speculation within the banking systems and why the government should feel the need to bail them out (at taxpayer’s expense!) instead of letting them fail and sending the whole upper echelon of management to jail (just some cushy little federal pen with eighteen holes and steam spa for five years would do) for their malfeasance. And I think hefted with a personal fine of oh…about five to forty million apiece ought to cover their actions as well. Put those golden parachutes back into the economy.
Instead, we get hammered with extraneous issues that have nothing to do with the average working American. I see those issues as being a smoke screen to divert our attentions away from what really matters to our daily lives, like Peace, Prosperity and Security. And it makes me wonder. It really does. Because either they can’t bring those back, or they don’t know how. Because it’s not going to happen on either’s watch. And again, Mr. Bell, to you this is addressed. Your candidate is running as a Washington outsider. The last outsider who ran was Jimmy Carter and we all know what the insiders did to him. Now, some might say Bill Clinton was an outsider. I would disagree. He may have portrayed himself as an outsider, but the insiders quickly had corralled him to do their bidding. He and Hillary, I consider insiders. So, I ask you, what do you expect Trump to do? And realize, he has only the Executive power, he cannot make law or enforce the law. He does not control the treasury and he does not control Congress, either Senate or the House. And until he appoints a conservative judge, the judicial is deadlocked. So, again, I ask, how would Trump do the things he says he’ll do. And as you said, the press seems to have it out for him, how would he keep the fourth estate off his back?
No, this election is in shambles and this nation is going to elect the first women president ever. Personally, I’d prefer another female over Hillary (she was not my first choice). But, it has been a long time coming. Yes! Time has proven time and again (no matter their political leanings) women are not only competent in leadership roles, but in many, many instances, actual leaders. And yes, we the voters are angry. We have footed the bill for past mistakes too many times and for far too long now. We are at a technological zenith the world over. We should be making progress. And not down on some playground, aping an eight grade level discourse.
Mr. Bell, thank you for your gracious and concise letter. It gave me a greater understanding of the Trump voter. See ya at the polls!
Hillary Clinton will never be elected POTUS.
We The People will show you on election day.
If the elections are rigged, for example look at
Philly in 2012. The following will be Our last course of action:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation….
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness… it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
T. Jefferson
It only takes a ‘Small Axe’….
Chas Cornweller, it is good to see you in here, contributing greatly to the discussion.
I would like to hear your thoughts on the question of whether Jemmy Madison sold us a complete and total BILL OF GOODS when Jemmy, writing as Publius, posted Federalist No. 10 “To the People of the State of New York” with the highly misleading title of “The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection” in the New York Packet on Friday, November 23, 1787, told us that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by the Union of the United States of America over the States composing it, or did we simply delude ourselves into thinking we were going to get much more than we have gotten out of the United States Constitution since it was ratified with respect to really doing that – controlling the pernicious effects of faction on our federal government.
As to the purpose envisioned for this sorry federal government we are now saddled with by the Founding Fathers, and what you call the anger of the people that has Stuart Bell reciting the Declaration of Independence as if this were 1776 and we were an occupied country with a tyrant for our king, I refer you to FEDERALIST No. 16, The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union, From the New York Packet, Tuesday, December 4, 1787, Alexander Hamilton writing as Publius, to the People of the State of New York, wherein was stated:
The result of these observations (of Greek history) to an intelligent mind must be clearly this, that if it be possible at any rate to construct a federal government capable of regulating the common concerns and preserving the general tranquillity, it must be founded, as to the objects committed to its care, upon the reverse of the principle contended for by the opponents of the proposed Constitution.
It must carry its agency to the persons of the citizens.
end quote
A federal government capable of regulating the common concerns and preserving the general tranquility.
How about that now.
How quaint the concept!
TRANQUILLITY: the quality or state of being tranquil; calm, where tranquil means free from disturbance.
Have we had that in your lifetime, do you recall, Chas Cornweller?
If so, when might that have been?
More to the point, since we are where we are, neither in the past nor the future, but in the now, and we have to deal with that, not what might have been, is Hillary Clinton as president going to restore to us a federal government capable of regulating the common concerns and preserving the general tranquility?
That should be a yes or a no.
Looking at Libya, and looking at Syria, can anyone honestly say that Hillary Clinton has a record of preserving tranquility?
Or does it really depend on what each individual’s definition of “is” is?
As we talk about truth in another thread in here started by Chas Cornweller on the subject of him not being an anachronism in these exciting modern times we find ourselves now immersed in, where pretty much everybody is connected to pretty much everybody else almost instantaneously, which is Buck Rogers/Dick Tracey space-age stuff to me, who am an anachronism in these modern times, and all the hype and misinformation and disinformation and propaganda and counter-propaganda and what-have-you the average person is now literally barraged with all of their waking hours as they endlessly stare at one or other of the palms of their hands, while incessantly pawing at it with a finger of the other hand, much the way a horse in a stall will keep pawing, I find myself in a bit of a quandary, citizenship-wise, anyway, which is what this exercise is all about for me as an older person in society.
My quandary is this: the morning after what was laughingly called a “presidential debate” by the MSM, I heard one of the two supposed “main-stream” presidential candidates, whose name I won’t mention so as to keep this focused on WHAT, not WHO, say on the radio news I was listening to that we cannot keep Muslims out of this country because this country was founded on religious freedom.
“HUH?” I not surprisingly said to myself, that is wrong on both counts, at least according to American history, AS I LEARNED IT, which is where the quandary comes in.
Do I even bother raising my hand to say, “WHOA, wait a minute, you are wrong on both counts,” as the TV “debate” moderator should have done, and would have done had it actually been a real debate, as opposed to a made-for-TV political clown show, or do I just say to hell with it since:
1) Nobody really gives a damn, anyway, whether it is true, or not, in the first place; and
2) So what if it is false?
“What is false?” I am asked when I mention that in passing to the man or woman on the street, much as Jay Leno used to do with his Jay-walking.
“Who is to say what is true and false?” they assert.
“And who are you to think you know more about anything than a presidential candidate does,” is what they finally pin me down with.
Who am I really, afterall?
I have to say, that question has me stumped.
Who is any United States citizen, goes that line of reasoning, to doubt a single word that is said by a presidential candidate, any presidential candidate, which is to say, both main-stream presidential candidates here in the United States of America?
But isn’t that our collective duty – to know the difference?
Or is everybody in America now entitled to their own personal version of American history, in this case, a version that says the United States of America cannot keep out Muslims if there is an incompatibility of adherence to Sharia Law with the requirements of United States citizenship?
What about our immigration laws, I ask these people?
Indeed, immigration was already an issue in this nation at the time of the writing of the United States Declaration of Independence in 1776, as is witnessed by these following words from the body of the Declaration of Independence:
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither.
end quote
But as schoolboy history tells us, Papists, as they were then called, or Roman Catholics, were not welcome, at all, especially the Irish.
Nor would Muslims have been welcome.
Our first immigration law was the Naturalization Act of 1790 which established the rules for naturalized citizenship, as per Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, with citizenship limited to white persons, which one presidential candidate, whose name I won’t mention, decries as “white privilege,” and who knows, maybe in some way, it is, given as it was they writing the law, as opposed to somebody from some other country, and from all accounts, their skin was collectively white.
In 1798, the Naturalization Act authorized the president to deport any resident immigrant considered “dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States.”
Once established as it was in 1798, that authority of the president, any president, to deport any resident immigrant considered “dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States” remains.
If a Mexican or Muslim here as a resident immigrant is considered by the president of the United States of America to be “dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States,” good bye, they are gone, just as they should be.
The same goes for a resident immigrant from any other country or religion.
The last thing we should be hearing from a United States presidential candidate is “we can’t keep them out!”
What a defeatist attitude that is, people.
WHY should we accept it?
As to the Muslims, and here, let me say I do not bear any Muslim any ill will whatsoever for their being a Muslim; clearly, they have every right to be a Muslim, just as I have the right as an American citizen under our Constitution to not be a Muslim; our national experience of them actually goes back at least to when old Tommy Jefferson was president, actually, although to be truthful, I would not expect this one presidential contender to have any knowledge of that, since it really is a pretty long time ago, and anyway, everybody knows Tom Jefferson had slaves, so we make it a point to not talk about him or anything that happened when he was president, and there, people, is how American history get changed to say, “OH, you silly, don’t you know that the United State of America and the Muslims have always enjoyed cordial relations?”
Actually, no, I don’t know that at all.
How about this, people: From the Halls of Montezuma to the SHORES OF TRIPOLI?
Has anyone here in the United States of America ever heard those words before?
Am I the only one?
Can that be?
Those are the words to the Marine Corps Hymn, people!
Tripoli is the Tripoli in Libya, which is in North Africa, the same North Africa where Carthage used to be, back when.
And what about Presley Neville O’Bannon (1776 – September 12, 1850), who was an officer in the United States Marine Corps, famous for his exploits in the First Barbary War, for which, in recognition of his bravery, he was presented with a sword for his part in attempting to restore Prince Hamet Karamanli to his throne at Tripoli, which sword became the model for the Mameluke Sword, adopted in 1825 for Marine Corps officers, which is still part of the dress uniform today?
NO?
Don’t ring a bell?
Yes, that is a long time ago, I must admit, so what was I thinking there.
What about the USS Philadelphia, then?
You know, the Philadelphia-class frigate with a complement of 307 officers and crew and 28 × 18-pounder guns and 16 × 9-pounder long guns perhaps best remembered for her burning after being captured in Tripoli, the same Tripoli mentioned in passing in the Marine corps Hymn?
That was the one where, during the First Barbary War, on October 31, 1803, while giving chase and firing upon a pirate ship, she ran aground on an uncharted reef two miles off Tripoli Harbor, resulting in her officers and men being made slaves of Bashaw Yusuf of Tripoli.
Does anyone recall that?
NO?
Still drawing a blank?
Doesn’t ring a bell?
Well, how about Bashaw Yusuf, then?
You know, Yusuf (ibn Ali) Karamanli, (1766 – 1838), the best-known Pasha (reigned 1795-1832) of the Karamanli dynasty (1711–1835) of Tripolitania (in present-day Libya).
Who can forget Bashaw Yusuf?
Is that even possible?
The dude is famous, afterall.
He is the cheeky Muslim dude who was holding over 300 American Navy men as his SLAVES back when Tommy Jefferson was president of the United States of America.
Yes, slaves.
In 1801, Yusuf demanded a tribute of $225,000 from United States President Thomas Jefferson.
Tommy, confident in the ability of the new United States Navy to protect American shipping, refused the Pasha’s demands, leading the Pasha to unofficially declare war on the United States of America in May 1801 by chopping down the flagpole before the American consulate.
According to our own history books, or at least the ones I have read, after some initial military successes, most notably the capture of the USS Philadelphia, Bashaw Yusuf soon found himself threatened with invasion by American ground forces, Marine Lt. Presley O’Bannon to be exact, so, following the Battle of Derna, he signed a treaty ending the war on June 10, 1805.
So, over 200 years ago, now, a Muslim declared war on the United States of America and held Americans as slaves, which is permitted, or was then, by the Muslim religion, especially when they were captured in war, as was the crew of the Philadelphia.
And to bring this to a close, when those Navy crewmen were first captured, they were given the opportunity to convert to being a Muslim, which would free them from slavery, as no Muslim can own another Muslim as a slave, and according to written history, some of those Navy crewmen did convert.
When Marine Lt. Presley O’Bannon finally ended the war, and the Navy crewmen were to be released, those who had converted to being Muslims were asked if they wanted to renounce and return to the United States.
Some said yes, and when last seen, they were being led away to be beheaded as apostates.
Hotel California, people, you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave, at least with your head still attached.
So when you hear from a presidential contender whose name I won’t mention that Islam is a religion of peace, scratch your head a bit and wonder – gee, what if that isn’t so.
To me it seems certain that the fatalistic teachings of Muhammad and the utter degradation of women is the outstanding cause for the arrested development of the Arab. He is exactly as he was around the year 700, while we have kept on developing.
-George Smith Patton, Jr.
Interesting…and another quote attributed to General George Patton was this; “that people believe the Displaced Person is a human being, which he is not, and this applies particularly to the Jews who are lower than animals.” So, the man was particular about specific human beings. Not surprising. There is more.
And this taken from a Wikipedia excerpt. Patton views on race were complicated and often negative. This may have been cultivated from his privileged upbringing and family roots in the southern United States. Privately, he wrote of black soldiers: “Individually they were good soldiers, but I expressed my belief at the time, and have never found the necessity of changing it, that a colored soldier cannot think fast enough to fight in armor.” However, he also stated that performance was more important than race or religious affiliation: “I don’t give a damn who the man is. He can be a nigger or a Jew, but if he has the stuff and does his duty, he can have anything I’ve got. By God! I love him.” Addressing 761st Tank Battalion Patton also said, “Men, you are the first Negro tankers ever to fight in the American Army. I would never have asked for you if you weren’t good. I have nothing but the best in my army. I don’t care what color you are, so long as you go up there and kill those Kraut sonsabitches! Everyone has their eyes on you and is expecting great things from you. Most of all, your race is looking forward to you. Don’t let them down and, damn you, don’t let me down!” Likewise, Patton called heavily on the black troops under his command Historian Hugh Cole notes that Patton was the first to integrate black and white soldiers into rifle companies.
After reading the Koran and observing North Africans, he wrote to his wife, “Just finished reading the Koran – a good book and interesting.” Patton had a keen eye for native customs and methods and wrote knowingly of local architecture; he once rated the progress of word-of-mouth rumor in Arab country at 40–60 miles (64–97 km) a day. In spite of his regard for the Koran, he concluded, “To me it seems certain that the fatalistic teachings of Mohammad and the utter degradation of women is the outstanding cause for the arrested development of the Arab … Here, I think, is a text for some eloquent sermon on the virtues of Christianity.” Patton was impressed with the Soviet Union but was disdainful of Russians as “drunks” with “no regard for human life.” Later in life he also began to express growing feelings of antisemitism and, as a result of his frequent controversies in the press. End of article.
Personally, I wouldn’t use Patton as a point of reference for my world view on the evaluation of humanity. The poor man was all over the place. He was a personality all his own, framed and molded by his times. I admire him from a historical point of view and for his accomplishments, but his world view leaves a lot to be desired. Sort of the scorched earth equivalence of cult of personality whenever he opened his mouth. But he was a fine general never the less.
You Sir, could not make a pimple on Patton’s rear end.
As Todd Holden makes incandescently clear above here, Chas Cornweller, and by the way, thank you for sharing your considerable wisdom with us in here, there are essentially three separate but related existential questions at play here in this discussion, a point you reinforce above here with your comments on George Patton, to wit:
1) When exactly did “united STATES” history begin?
2) Does the federal government of the United States of America have the authority, jurisdiction and discretion vested in it to deny entry to this country of groups of people based simply on ethnicity?
3) If so vested, should the federal government of the United States of America actually use that the authority, jurisdiction and discretion vested in it to deny entry to this country of groups of people based simply on ethnicity?
Like it or not, that the federal government of the United States of America is vested with the authority, jurisdiction and discretion to deny entry to this country of groups of people based simply on ethnicity is made incandescently clear by the fact of the Chinese Exclusion Act, which was a United States federal law signed by President Chester A. Arthur on May 6, 1882.
According to our history books, which you would think a certain elite college-educated presidential contender, whose name and gender will not be mentioned to keep this discussion on WHAT, not who, would have a much better grasp of, the Chinese Exclusion Act was one of the most significant restrictions on free immigration in US history, prohibiting all immigration of Chinese laborers.
The act followed the Angell Treaty of 1880, a set of revisions to the US-China Burlingame Treaty of 1868 that allowed the US to suspend Chinese immigration.
The Chinese Exclusion Act was the first law implemented to prevent a specific ethnic group from immigrating to the United States.
Thus, it is patently clear that yes, whether anybody in the United States of America likes it or not, the federal government of the United States of America does have the authority, jurisdiction and discretion to deny entry to this country of groups of people based simply on ethnicity, and the fact that the Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed by the Magnuson Act on December 17, 1943 doesn’t in any way diminish the authority, jurisdiction and discretion of the federal government of the United States of America in that regard.
That is in answer to a certain elite college-educated presidential contender, whose name and gender will be kept out of the discussion so as to not divert it over to inconsequentials and name-calling and trivia, telling us in what was recently billed a “presidential debate” by media superstar Anderson Cooper, himself a powerful and commanding figure on the presidential stage as a “debate” moderator, that we cannot keep Muslims out of the United States of America.
How so?
So far, no answer to that question has been forthcoming, and I seriously doubt one will be coming, as this certain candidate’s campaign is now fixated on some of the most incredible and vile muck-raking I have ever witnessed in a modern-day presidential contest, where pure venom is now flying in copious amounts as we hear from this presidential contender about another presidential contender whose name will also not be mentioned kissing somebody or something like that 30 years ago, while the issues of importance, like the Muslim Question and its relationship to the “War on Terror,” which in reality is a war against Wahabbi Islam, have been tossed to the wayside.
As to Wahabbi-ism, since we are quoting historical figures with a solid foreign policy/national security background, this is what Sir Winston Churchill, who had as much real experience with it as anyone not a Muslim, had to say about it at the time of the March 1921 Cairo Conference, at which time, Churchill was secretary for the British colonies, and he had been involved in the creation of Iraq (in 1921), Jordan (Transjordan) and Palestine:
The intention, he told the Commons, was “to set up an Arab government, and to make it take the responsibility, with our aid and our guidance and with an effective measure of our support, until they are strong enough to stand alone … (and) to reduce our commitments and to extricate ourselves from our burdens while at the same time honorably discharging our obligations and building up strong and effective Arab government which will always be the friend of Britain.”
According to history, he said at that time:
“A large number of Bin Saud’s followers belong to the Wahabi sect, a form of Mohammedanism which bears, roughly speaking, the same relationship to orthodox Islam as the most militant form of Calvinism would have borne to Rome in the fiercest times of [Europe’s] religious wars.”
“The Wahhabis profess a life of exceeding austerity, and what they practice themselves they rigorously enforce on others.”
“They hold it as an article of duty, as well as of faith, to kill all who do not share their opinions and to make slaves of their wives and children.”
“Women have been put to death in Wahhabi villages for simply appearing in the streets.”
“It is a penal offence to wear a silk garment.”
“Men have been killed for smoking a cigarette and, as for the crime of alcohol, the most energetic supporter of the temperance cause in this country falls far behind them.”
“Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account, and they have been, and still are, very dangerous to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.”
end quote
The Bin Saud to whom Churchill refers here is King Abdul Aziz bin Saud (c. 1880 – 1953), who would go on officially to establish Saudi Arabia in 1932.
Soooooo?
Should the federal government of the United States of America actually use the authority, jurisdiction and discretion vested in it to deny entry to this country of Wahabbi Muslims?
Is that a sociological question, Chas Cornweller?
Is it an emotional question?
Is it a national security question?
If we are at war with the Wahabbis, which is who the Islamic State is, whether this certain elite college-educated presidential contender is cognizant of that or not, why would we want to let them immigrate to here?
Does that make sense, do you think?
In the most recent episode of the soap opera on-going in this country at present, which was laughingly billed as a “presidential debate” by media superstar Anderson Cooper, himself a powerful and commanding figure on the presidential stage as a “debate” moderator, one of the two highly-disliked and openly reviled persons being put forth by Anderson Cooper as an American “presidential candidate” made this statement which was not challenged in any way by Anderson Cooper as moderator:
“We are a country founded on religious freedom and liberty.
end quote
Is that a true statement?
Or does it really depend on one’s own personal definition of what “founded” means, coupled with one’s own personal definition of when this nation was founded, which is to say, the date that what is truly “American political” history began, as opposed to the history of this land mass through time going back to the glaciers and before.
Sooooo.
When exactly did the political history of the “united STATES” really begin?
And according to that history as written, were we are a country founded on religious freedom?
As to the “founding” of this nation, where the word is taken to mean “to set up or establish on a firm basis or for enduring existence,” that would be said to begin right here on July 4, 1776, or so I was taught as a youth in the United States of America, anyway:
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
end quote
Independent states!
How about that people?
What a concept, isn’t it?
But to be a “Free and Independent State,” what is a prime requisite?
Ah, yes, they must be “constituted,” just as the Republic of ancient Rome was constituted, with a constitution, which is defined with respect to this discussion as “a body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed,” or, as it is also called, “organic law.”
So at the time of separation from England on July 4, 1776, when the STATES that became the “united” STATES of America became Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain was totally dissolved, each of those separate states, including Virginia, had to constitute themselves as a “state.”
So, to get to the central question here: were we are a country founded on religious freedom?
Or does that really depend on what your own personal definition of “is” is?
What about Virginia?
According to SECTION 16 of its Declaration of Rights, which became the model for the future United States Constitution Bill of Rights, we have this:
That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.
end quote
Hmmmmmmmm.
But is it, really?
Is it really the mutual duty of ALL to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other?
What if you are a Muslim in Virginia?
Is it still your duty to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward other people in Virginia?
And what about Article III of the Constitution of the State of Massachusetts, which was a Puritan state:
As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.
end quote
WHOA!
For the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality?
Am I really seeing the word “Protestant” there, or is it that my eyes are gone bad on me from age and I am not seeing correctly?
What about the Catholics?
How come they are not mentioned there?
And that answer, people, is because the Catholics were the ENEMY.
And what about the Muslims?
Article III of the Constitution of the State of Massachusetts, which was a Puritan state, states this about them:
And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.
end quotes
But Muslims are not Christians someone would say.
And that’s right.
So much for “We are a country founded on religious freedom,” then, isn’t it?
So, how do the supporters of the position or political premise that “we are a country founded on religious freedom” respond to my exposition on the subject above?
That is simple: they take a meat-axe to the book of American history I use, and they convert it over to something looking like an ill-made doily, so full of holes they have left it.
Here is how it is addressed by a supporter on one national political blog I follow:
“The National Constitution is what Hillary was referring to.”
“Not a state constitution.”
end quote
They deal with the language of SECTION 16 of the Virginia Declaration of Rights and Article III of the Constitution of the State of Massachusetts by denying that language has any relevance or any meaning to the question of religious freedom in the United States of America, given that Catholics could not hold public office in at least several of the states at the time of this nation’s founding, and thereafter, up into the 1800’s in Connecticut, a point they simply pass over without addressing it all, how that squares with protecting religious freedom in this country.
But the so-called “national” constitution in no way provides any mechanism for the supporters of that premise to be able to do that – negate the state constitutions on the question of religion in each state – that being the Articles of Confederation, in force after ratification by Maryland, 1 March 1781, wherein was stated as follows:
To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.
Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.
I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be “The United States of America”.
end quote
If you don’t believe the “united” States of America came into being on July 4, 1776, because the Declaration of Independence does not explicitly use the term “The United States of America,” then you must accede to the date of 1 March 1781, when the Articles of Confederation, this nation’s first “national” constitution, were ratified.
So, did that national constitution deal with the subject of religion in any way?
That answer is yes, in Article III, as follows:
III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.
end quote
The said States severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion.
Is that a grant of religious freedom?
Or is it a guard against the establishment of a religious tyranny?
I say that latter.
What say you?
So, how did the supporters of the position or political premise that “we are a country founded on religious freedom” react to my assertion above that the Articles of Confederation, in force after ratification by Maryland, 1 March 1781, were this nation’s first Constitution?
That is simple – they deny that it is a constitution, because it doesn’t say constitution, it says articles of confederation, and to them, the two are not the same and nothing I could say would change their minds, so I don’t try to.
These people use Tribe’s Constitutional Law rightly or wrongly to press their case that United States history does not truly begin until the U.S. Constitution was finally ratified on June 21, 1788.
And while I don’t believe that, and won’t believe that, as I do not believe that it is either true or factual, for the sake of the argument, I concede the point and then pin them down with the fact that the Constitution as ratified on June 21, 1788 said nothing whatsoever about religious freedom.
That Constitution as ratified on June 21, 1788 said this:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
end quotes
While one can infer from those words all one wants to infer about the question of religious freedom in America at the time of its founding, and the supporters of the position or political premise that “we are a country founded on religious freedom” err on the side of inferring much, there is nothing about religious freedom expressly stated in those words.
That, as can be imagined, gets them hollering about the First Amendment and the fact that I have to be an idiot if I didn’t know that, at which time I reply that the First Amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, was submitted to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789, and adopted on December 15, 1791, three (3) years and six (6) months AFTER the Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788.
And according to OUR history books, the ones not hacked to pieces with a meat-axe to make them look like a poorly-made doily by these supporters, who really believe true American history will only begin when their candidate of choice assumes the office of president of the United States of America, the First Amendment was for this following purpose, which is not religious freedom:
Although the Framers of the Bill of Rights did not rank the rights in order of importance, some are more precious than others.
A right that has no superior is the first mentioned: freedom from a law respecting an establishment of religion.
– From ORIGINAL INTENT AND THE FRAMERS’ CONSTITUTION by Leonard W. Levy.
Freedom from a law respecting an establishment of religion, people, including Islam.
That, I submit, is far different from saying this country was founded on religious freedom, so we can’t keep Muslims from other countries from immigrating here, as if Muslims in other countries have constitutional rights under our Constitution.
They don’t:
The Supreme Court found, “The Bill of Rights is a futile authority for the alien seeking admission for the first time to these shores.”
– Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding Template : 344 U.S. 590 596
Why then, is one of the two main-stream political party candidates trying to trick or fool us into believing they do?
But, really, especially in the face of a major party candidate noted for a vindictive streak declaring “People who oppose immigration are fundamentally un-American,” let us not make this about how non-Muslim Americans view Muslims in countries we are at war with, as opposed to natural-born or naturalized Muslims who are American citizens, and let us instead view this through the eyes of a top Muslim Cleric in our dear friend and ally Iraq and hear what he has to say about how Muslims in Iraq should view Americans, who he quaintly refers to as “infidels,” a word with a real Middle Ages ring to it which is a pejorative term used in certain religions for those who do not believe the central tenets of one’s own religion, are members of another religion, or are not religious.
We in this country who are not Muslims are infidels to this influential Muslim Cleric in Iraq, a pejorative, where pejorative means a word expressing contempt or disapproval, just as we are labeled with the pejorative “BASKET OF DEPLORABLES” by the same major party presidential candidate who says “People who oppose immigration are fundamentally un-American,” as if this certain major-party presidential candidate put forth by only 7.2 percent of the electorate in this country were the sole arbiter of how we have to think to be considered “GOOD AMERICANS!”
We have to scream at the top of our lungs and proclaim, “WE ARE FOR UNLIMITED IMMIGRATION AND OPEN BORDERS” if we want to be seen as good and loyal American citizens by this same presidential candidate, because who wants to be labeled as UN-AMERICAN by this person, who has already said white people in America have a genetic disorder that makes them racists for which they need a cure that won’t be covered by Obamacare because it is a genetic disorder.
But enough about us.
The Iraqi Cleric I talk about and quote in none other than Muqtadā al-Ṣadr, born 12 August 1973, an Iraqi Shia cleric, politician and militia leader.
Who can possibly forget Muqtadā al-Ṣadr?
Certainly not the American service members, men and women, who fought against his Shiite militias in Iraq, and note here that we are talking a different branch of Islam than the Wahabbis and Sunnis who comprise ISIS, or DASH as the politicians and generals like to call it, to make it sound like dog food for propaganda purposes.
But back to Muqtadā al-Ṣadr, who is the leader of a political party, the Sadrist Movement and the leader of Saraya al-Salam, a Shiite militia that is a reformation of the previous militia he led during the American occupation of Iraq, the Mahdi Army.
As WIKIPEDIA tells us, Muqtada al-Sadr is one of the most influential religious and popular figures in Iraq, despite not holding any official title in the Iraqi government.
These are relevant excerpts from a statement made by Muqtada al-Sadr, April 11, 2008, translated by Nathaniel Rabkin, which is available on the internet, as to how a Muslim in Iraq, our ally, views America:
O men and soldiers of God, friends and partisans of God, followers and allies of the Imam, O army and followers of the Imam, may God bless you with life.
Peace be upon you, as well as God’s blessings and His mercy.
By God, you have already melted the hearts of the enemy.
You have adopted a position which enrages the infidels.
We congratulate you on God’s victory and on the conquest which will soon come.
end quote
He is talking to his Mahdi Army, created by the Iraqi Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr in June 2003 and disbanded by him in 2008.
As those of us with working memories of more than a couple of nano-seconds will recall, especially the Iraq vets, the Mahdi Army rose to international prominence on April 18, 2004, when it spearheaded the first major armed confrontation against the U.S.-led forces in Iraq from the Shia community.
The infidels he is talking about there is us, those of us in this country who are not Muslims like him.
And he is definitely very much against us immigrating to there, and bringing our religion with us:
Your standing together has terrified the occupier and his tails, and by standing in one rank, like a metal facade, against the attacks of the occupier and his followers you have shown your strength and your ability to liberate Iraq in the future.
May God bless your efforts, and may you continue in your Jihad and in your resistance of the occupier, who has trampled your land, assaulted its sacred places, killed our young men, our women, our children and our old people without distinction, who has shelled our cities, and who has attacked our honor, our wealth, our scholars, our doctors, our professors, our government officials, our clerics [marjas], our lands and our unity.
end quote
And when this one presidential candidate who loudly proclaims to the candid world in a self-righteous voice, “People who oppose immigration are fundamentally un-American,” tells us, “but they want to be just like us,” I say, “oh, really,” and refer this presidential candidate, who should already be very familiar with these same words, but probably cannot remember them or recall them due to a serious brain injury suffered during this person’s service to this nation, right back to Muqtada al-Sadr, April 11, 2008, where he stated as follows:
The occupier has also planted discord between us, and brought a project which it has named “democracy.”
The occupier, along with a group of its followers, has made this project an excuse for striking the Iraqi people, wronging it, killing it, displacing it and arresting it.
end quote
Does it sound to any of you that this Muqtada al-Sadr in Iraq on April 11, 2008 was pro-democracy?
If it doesn’t, then why would we want him to immigrate here, or any of his followers who believe the same way?
As he says:
We will not be divided by elections, by democracy, by Americans, nor by occupiers, interlopers, Baa’thists or despicable sectarian partisans.
end quotes
Why then should we be divided in this nation by this one presidential candidate who wants to open our national borders to a world that does not want us in their countries?
A question for our times.
As an honorably-discharged combat veteran of the Viet Nam war who was an enlistee, not an accomplished draft dodger like William Jefferson Clinton, I find myself quite dismayed by all these specious and spurious charges about the character of the American people being slung around by Hillary Rodham Clinton in her capacity as a Democrat presidential contender in the United States of America.
Where does Hillary Clinton, who holds no office of any kind in the United States of America, and so, is nothing more than a common citizen herself, get off with all of these gratuitous slurs of hers, labeling as “un-American” those of us who might question her wisdom, or lack thereof, and judgment, or lack thereof, on the question of opening our borders for the mass migration of Muslim immigrants from the war-torn Middle East, war-torn because of the foreign policy of Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2011 when she was Barack Obama’s secretary of state, a sinecure due her as a failed Democrat presidential contender.
I mention the fact that I am a combat veteran as I believe that that status should afford me the respect of Hillary Rodham Clinton, and it should further afford me the benefit of the doubt as to whether or not I am a loyal AMERICAN citizen, for who would willingly shed blood to defend a country and people they were disloyal to.
I believe Hillary Rodham Clinton owes all of us she is referring to as “un-American” an apology for casting that slur on us.
With respect to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, the original proposal of James Madison for a bill of rights provision concerning religion read:
”The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.”
This is the same James Madison who said: “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect.”
And he stated further: “The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.”
With respect to OUR LIBERTY, this is what he said: “In no instance have… the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people.”
With respect to this discussion, Islam, or its main branches, Sunni and Shiite, is just such a church.
In Saudi Arabia, a Sunni-ruled country, according to their Sharia Law, an adulterous woman can be stoned to death, and a gay person can be beheaded.
Should we have that here, as well?
Getting back to James Madison, who knows a whole lot more about the First Amendment than does Hillary Rodham Clinton, in a letter to the Reverend Jasper Adams dated January 1, 1832 from Letters and Other Writings of James Madison, Volume 3, he stated:
“It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points.”
“The tendency to usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Govt. from interference in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others.”
end quote
With respect to a corrupting coalition or alliance between religion and our federal government, in a recent INDEPENDENT article entitled “Hillary Clinton questions how Donald Trump can make Muslims take religious tests in a country founded on religious liberty – ‘How do you impose religious tests?’ ‘It would cause great distress in our country'” by Rachael Revesz, 9 October 2016, we were informed as follows:
Hillary Clinton has called Donald Trump’s words about Muslims “dangerous” and “demagogic”, warning that terrorist groups are using his anti-Muslim language to recruit fighters.
At the second presidential debate, Ms Clinton railed against the Republican’s proposition to force Muslims to carry out “religious tests” to determine whether they adopt “American values”.
end quotes
American values.
Mrs. Clinton, if they are coming to this country, with its own Constitutional history from which OUR rights as American citizens derive, exactly whose values should they adopt?
Saudi Arabian values?
The values of Iraqi cleric Muqtada al-Sadr?
The values of the Wahabbis of ISIS?
Give us some clarification here, Mrs. Clinton.
What are you trying to turn OUR country into?
As to the subject of a “religious test,” I refer us all to a TWEET of Hillary Rodham Clinton at 7:57 AM on 19 Nov 2015, where Mrs. Clinton TWEETED as follows:
“Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary.”
“Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”
end quote
Not only is that an incredible statement in light of reality and Islamic history as it exists outside of the confines and restraints of the inside of Hillary Clinton’s head, but that is the very essence of a religious test, as well!
In an act that literally has excised history from the history books, Hillary Clinton has put her personal seal of approval on an entire religion, as if she were a modern-day Constantine putting her personal stamp of approval on Christianity as a Roman emperor.
To see the “religious test” employed by Mrs. Clinton there to validate the Muslim religion, we need to contrast her statement in that 19 November 2015 TWEET with her language in the October 7, 2014 CNN article “ISIS is neither Islamic nor a state, says Hillary Clinton” by Dan Merica, where Mrs. Clinton was quoted as follows:
The former first lady also refused to call the group by the name it calls itself: the Islamic State.
“Whether you call them ISIS or ISIL, I refuse to call them the Islamic State, because they are neither Islamic or a state,” Clinton said.
end quote
If Hillary Clinton is putting herself forth as an expert on Islam, an Imam or a religious scholar of the caliber of Muqtada al-Sadr in Iraq, who can publicly declaim and proclaim as to what is NOT Islam, as she is doing in the case of ISIS, then she is at the same time holding herself forth as an expert on the Muslim religion who can proclaim as a form of religious law, as a Mullah, a Muslim learned in Islamic theology and sacred law. would do, as to what TRUE Islam is, in her world view, which as United States president, she would then impose on us in this country.
Hence, the religious test.
Soooooo.
Hillary, of you and I, who is the real un-American here?
The candid world would like to know, before it is too late!