It’s 3 AM In Benghazi, Someone’s Calling Hillary She’s Stonewalling Just Like Obama!

Hillary’s Statements on the Attack in Benghazi

I first wrote this on October 27, 2012 as one of my Rant Political pieces before they shut Rant Political down…

You must remember that Hillary Rodham (Clinton) was a member of the staff we had gathered for our impeachment inquiry on President Richard Nixon in the WaterGate affair. During that time 1974, it was determined in Watergate that Hillary’s “Procedures were Ethically Flawed” thus having her own WaterGate scandal! (1)

Hillary’s 3 AM phone call did not come at the inconvenient time of 3 am for her, no it came at 4:05 pm EST; It came at the inconvenient time of 3 AM Benghazi time from those who were being attacked by Hillary and Obama’s compatriots in the Muslim world, September 11, 2012.

As she had asked in the primaries of 2008 when running against then candidate Obama.

February 2008, Hillary Clinton’s 3 AM Children National Security Ad

Here’s the full script for “Children”:

It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. But there’s a phone in the White House and it’s ringing.

Something’s happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call, whether it’s someone who already knows the world’s leaders, knows the military — someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world.

It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?

It then cut to a clip of Mrs. Clinton, wearing eyeglasses, answering a telephone in a darkened room.

David Plouffe, the campaign manager for Mr. Obama at the time, dismissed the ad as a “shopworn tactic.” In a conference call with reporters this morning, he used the commercial as an opportunity to highlight Mrs. Clinton’s original support of the Iraq war.

“Senator Clinton had her red phone moment. She had it in 2002,” Mr. Plouffe said. “It was on the Iraq war – she and John McCain and George Bush all gave the wrong answer.”

He added, “This is about what you say when you answer the phone, what kind of judgment you demonstrate.”

Hillary, as did Obama, gave the wrong answer, passing the wrong judgement, and coming to the wrong conclusion September 11, 2012 4:05 PM EST.

Now as we can now plainly see, neither Clinton, nor Obama were up to the task, with either their answers, or their judgements!

New Emails Reveal Blatant Cover Up By Obama Administration on Benghazi

First was sent out at 4:05 pm on the day of the attack. It is titled “U.S. DIPLOMATIC MISSION IN BENGHAZI UNDER ATTACK!” It reads; “The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots, explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Steven’s, who is currently in Benghazi and 4 COM personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.” read more>

Reinforcements to Benghazi, Libya were told to “Stand Down”!

Barack Obama: The Buck Stops Elsewhere President!

Truth About What Took Place in Benghazi, From the Intel Community

The Condemnation of Barack Obama: Butcher of Benghazi

The Indictment of the Obama administration in the Benghazi, Libya Attacks

Statement on the Attack in Benghazi:

Press Statement

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Secretary of State

Washington, DC
September 11, 2012

I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today. As we work to secure our personnel and facilities, we have confirmed that one of our State Department officers was killed. We are heartbroken by this terrible loss. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and those who have suffered in this attack.

This evening, I called Libyan President Magariaf to coordinate additional support to protect Americans in Libya. President Magariaf expressed his condemnation and condolences and pledged his government’s full cooperation.

Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.

In light of the events of today, the United States government is working with partner countries around the world to protect our personnel, our missions, and American citizens worldwide.

PRN: 2012/1421

Statement on the Death of American Personnel in Benghazi, Libya

Press Statement

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Secretary of State

Washington, DC
September 12, 2012

It is with profound sadness that I share the news of the death of four American personnel in Benghazi, Libya yesterday. Among them were United States Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and Foreign Service Information Management Officer, Sean Smith. We are still making next of kin notifications for the other two individuals. Our hearts go out to all their families and colleagues.

A 21 year veteran of the Foreign Service, Ambassador Stevens died last night from injuries he sustained in the attack on our office in Benghazi.

I had the privilege of swearing in Chris for his post in Libya only a few months ago. He spoke eloquently about his passion for service, for diplomacy and for the Libyan people. This assignment was only the latest in his more than two decades of dedication to advancing closer ties with the people of the Middle East and North Africa which began as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Morocco. As the conflict in Libya unfolded, Chris was one of the first Americans on the ground in Benghazi. He risked his own life to lend the Libyan people a helping hand to build the foundation for a new, free nation. He spent every day since helping to finish the work that he started. Chris was committed to advancing America’s values and interests, even when that meant putting himself in danger.

Sean Smith was a husband and a father of two, who joined the Department ten years ago. Like Chris, Sean was one of our best. Prior to arriving in Benghazi, he served in Baghdad, Pretoria, Montreal, and most recently The Hague.

All the Americans we lost in yesterday’s attacks made the ultimate sacrifice. We condemn this vicious and violent attack that took their lives, which they had committed to helping the Libyan people reach for a better future.

America’s diplomats and development experts stand on the front lines every day for our country. We are honored by the service of each and every one of them.

PRN: 2012/1422

Remarks on the Deaths of American Personnel in Benghazi, Libya

Remarks

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Secretary of State

Treaty Room
Washington, DC
September 12, 2012

Yesterday, our U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya was attacked. Heavily armed militants assaulted the compound and set fire to our buildings. American and Libyan security personnel battled the attackers together. Four Americans were killed. They included Sean Smith, a Foreign Service information management officer, and our Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. We are still making next of kin notifications for the other two individuals.

This is an attack that should shock the conscience of people of all faiths around the world. We condemn in the strongest terms this senseless act of violence, and we send our prayers to the families, friends, and colleagues of those we’ve lost.

All over the world, every day, America’s diplomats and development experts risk their lives in the service of our country and our values, because they believe that the United States must be a force for peace and progress in the world, that these aspirations are worth striving and sacrificing for. Alongside our men and women in uniform, they represent the best traditions of a bold and generous nation.

In the lobby of this building, the State Department, the names of those who have fallen in the line of duty are inscribed in marble. Our hearts break over each one. And now, because of this tragedy, we have new heroes to honor and more friends to mourn.

Chris Stevens fell in love with the Middle East as a young Peace Corps volunteer teaching English in Morocco. He joined the Foreign Service, learned languages, won friends for America in distant places, and made other people’s hopes his own.

In the early days of the Libyan revolution, I asked Chris to be our envoy to the rebel opposition. He arrived on a cargo ship in the port of Benghazi and began building our relationships with Libya’s revolutionaries. He risked his life to stop a tyrant, then gave his life trying to help build a better Libya. The world needs more Chris Stevenses. I spoke with his sister, Ann, this morning, and told her that he will be remembered as a hero by many nations.

Sean Smith was an Air Force veteran. He spent 10 years as an information management officer in the State Department, he was posted at The Hague, and was in Libya on a brief temporary assignment. He was a husband to his wife Heather, with whom I spoke this morning. He was a father to two young children, Samantha and Nathan. They will grow up being proud of the service their father gave to our country, service that took him from Pretoria to Baghdad, and finally to Benghazi.

The mission that drew Chris and Sean and their colleagues to Libya is both noble and necessary, and we and the people of Libya honor their memory by carrying it forward. This is not easy. Today, many Americans are asking – indeed, I asked myself – how could this happen? How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction? This question reflects just how complicated and, at times, how confounding the world can be.

But we must be clear-eyed, even in our grief. This was an attack by a small and savage group – not the people or Government of Libya. Everywhere Chris and his team went in Libya, in a country scarred by war and tyranny, they were hailed as friends and partners. And when the attack came yesterday, Libyans stood and fought to defend our post. Some were wounded. Libyans carried Chris’ body to the hospital, and they helped rescue and lead other Americans to safety. And last night, when I spoke with the President of Libya, he strongly condemned the violence and pledged every effort to protect our people and pursue those responsible.

The friendship between our countries, borne out of shared struggle, will not be another casualty of this attack. A free and stable Libya is still in America’s interest and security, and we will not turn our back on that, nor will we rest until those responsible for these attacks are found and brought to justice. We are working closely with the Libyan authorities to move swiftly and surely. We are also working with partners around the world to safeguard other American embassies, consulates, and citizens.

There will be more time later to reflect, but today, we have work to do. There is no higher priority than protecting our men and women wherever they serve. We are working to determine the precise motivations and methods of those who carried out this assault. Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear – there is no justification for this, none. Violence like this is no way to honor religion or faith. And as long as there are those who would take innocent life in the name of God, the world will never know a true and lasting peace.

It is especially difficult that this happened on September 11th. It’s an anniversary that means a great deal to all Americans. Every year on that day, we are reminded that our work is not yet finished, that the job of putting an end to violent extremism and building a safe and stable world continues. But September 11th means even more than that. It is a day on which we remember thousands of American heroes, the bonds that connect all Americans, wherever we are on this Earth, and the values that see us through every storm. And now it is a day on which we will remember Sean, Chris, and their colleagues.

May God bless them, and may God bless the thousands of Americans working in every corner of the world who make this country the greatest force for peace, prosperity, and progress, and a force that has always stood for human dignity – the greatest force the world has ever known. And may God continue to bless the United States of America.

Thank you.

# # #

PRN: 2012/1423

Statements on the Deaths of American Personnel in Benghazi, Libya

Remarks

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Secretary of State

Washington, DC
September 13, 2012

The attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya on Tuesday claimed the lives of four Americans. Yesterday, I spoke about two: Ambassador Chris Stevens and Information Management Officer Sean Smith. Today, we also recognize the two security personnel who died helping protect their colleagues. Tyrone S. Woods and Glen A. Doherty were both decorated military veterans who served our country with honor and distinction. Our thoughts, prayers, and deepest gratitude are with their families and friends. Our embassies could not carry on our critical work around the world without the service and sacrifice of brave people like Tyrone and Glen.

Tyrone’s friends and colleagues called him “Rone,” and they relied on his courage and skill, honed over two decades as a Navy SEAL. In uniform, he served multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since 2010, he protected American diplomatic personnel in dangerous posts from Central America to the Middle East. He had the hands of a healer as well as the arm of a warrior, earning distinction as a registered nurse and certified paramedic. All our hearts go out to Tyrone’s wife Dorothy and his three sons, Tyrone Jr., Hunter, and Kai, who was born just a few months ago.

We also grieve for Glen Doherty, called Bub, and his family: his father Bernard, his mother Barbara, his brother Gregory, and his sister Kathleen. Glen was also a former Navy SEAL and an experienced paramedic. And he put his life on the line many times, protecting Americans in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other hotspots. In the end, he died the way he lived – with selfless honor and unstinting valor.

We condemn the attack that took the lives of these heroes in the strongest terms, and we are taking additional steps to safeguard American embassies, consulates, and citizens around the world. This violence should shock the conscience of people of all faiths and traditions. We appreciate the statements of support that have poured in from across the region and beyond. People of conscience and goodwill everywhere must stand together in these difficult days against violence, hate, and division.

I am enormously proud of the men and women who risk their lives every day in the service of our country and our values. They help make the United States the greatest force for peace, progress, and human dignity that the world has ever known. We honor the memory of our fallen colleagues by continuing their work and carrying on the best traditions of a bold and generous nation.

Remarks at the Transfer of Remains Ceremony to Honor Those Lost in Attacks in Benghazi, Libya

(Same time she told Tyrone Woods Father “we’re gonna go after that film maker and prosecute him”)

The next day the video maker was taken into custody, he is yet to be released.

Remarks

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Secretary of State

Andrews Air Force Base
Joint Base Andrews, MD
September 14, 2012

SECRETARY CLINTON:Thank you very much, Chaplain. Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, Secretary Panetta, Ambassador Rice, Secretary Powell and Mrs. Powell, family members of the four patriots and heroes we bring home, members of the State Department family, ladies and gentlemen, today we bring home four Americans who gave their lives for our country and our values. To the families of our fallen colleagues, I offer our most heartfelt condolences and deepest gratitude.Sean Smith joined the State Department after six years in the Air Force. He was respected as an expert on technology by colleagues in Pretoria, Baghdad, Montreal, and The Hague. He enrolled in correspondence courses at Penn State and had high hopes for the future. Sean leaves behind a loving wife Heather, two young children, Samantha and Nathan, and scores of grieving family, friends, and colleagues. And that’s just in this world. Because online in the virtual worlds that Sean helped create, he is also being mourned by countless competitors, collaborators, and gamers who shared his passion.

Tyrone Woods, known to most as Rone, spent two decades as a Navy SEAL, serving multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since 2010, he protected American diplomatic personnel in dangerous posts from Central America to the Middle East. He had the hands of a healer as well as the arms of a warrior, earning distinction as a registered nurse and certified paramedic. Our hearts go out to Tyrone’s wife Dorothy, and his three sons Tyrone, Jr., Hunter, and Kai, born just a few months ago, along with his grieving family, friends, and colleagues.

Glen Doherty, who went by Bub, was also a former SEAL and an experienced paramedic. He too died as he lived, serving his country and protecting his colleagues. Glen deployed to some of the most dangerous places on Earth, including Iraq and Afghanistan, always putting his life on the line to safeguard other Americans. Our thoughts and prayers are with Glen’s father Bernard, his mother Barbara, his brother Gregory, his sister Kathleen, and their grieving families, friends, and colleagues.

I was honored to know Ambassador Chris Stevens. I want to thank his parents and siblings, who are here today, for sharing Chris with us and with our country. What a wonderful gift you gave us. Over his distinguished career in the Foreign Service, Chris won friends for the United States in far-flung places. He made those people’s hopes his own. During the revolution in Libya, he risked his life to help protect the Libyan people from a tyrant, and he gave his life helping them build a better country.

People loved to work with Chris. And as he rose through the ranks, they loved to work for Chris. He was known not only for his courage but for his smile – goofy but contagious – for his sense of fun and that California cool.

In the days since the attack, so many Libyans – including the Ambassador from Libya to the United States, who is with us today – have expressed their sorrow and solidarity. One young woman, her head covered and her eyes haunted with sadness, held up a handwritten sign that said “Thugs and killers don’t represent Benghazi nor Islam.” The President of the Palestinian Authority, who worked closely with Chris when he served in Jerusalem, sent me a letter remembering his energy and integrity, and deploring – and I quote – “an act of ugly terror.” Many others from across the Middle East and North Africa have offered similar sentiments.

This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with. It is hard for the American people to make sense of that because it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable.

The people of Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and Tunisia did not trade the tyranny of a dictator for the tyranny of a mob. Reasonable people and responsible leaders in these countries need to do everything they can to restore security and hold accountable those behind these violent acts. And we will, under the President’s leadership, keep taking steps to protect our personnel around the world.

There will be more difficult days ahead, but it is important that we don’t lose sight of the fundamental fact that America must keep leading the world. We owe it to those four men to continue the long, hard work of diplomacy. I am enormously proud of the men and women of the State Department. I’m proud of all those across our government, civilian and military alike, who represent America abroad. They help make the United States the greatest force for peace, progress, and human dignity the world has ever known. If the last few days teach us anything, let it be this: That this work and the men and women who risk their lives to do it are at the heart of what makes America great and good.

So we will wipe away our tears, stiffen our spines, and face the future undaunted. And we will do it together, protecting and helping one another, just like Sean, Tyrone, Glen, and Chris always did. May God bless them and grant their families peace and solace, and may God continue to bless the United States of America.

And now, let me have the great honor of introducing someone who came to the State Department earlier this week to grieve with us. He well understands and values the work that these men were doing for our country. The President of the United States.

PRN: 2012/1443

Remarks With Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf Before Their Meeting

Remarks

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Waldorf-Astoria
New York City
September 24, 2012

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, it’s wonderful to welcome the President of Libya and his distinguished delegation here to New York.

As we all know, the United States lost a great ambassador and the Libyan people lost a true friend when Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the terrorist assault on our consulate in Benghazi.

Remarks at the United Nations Security Council Session On Peace And Security in the Middle East

Remarks

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Secretary of State

United Nations
New York City
September 26, 2012

Thank you very much, Minister Westerwelle, for calling us together at this critical moment to discuss peace and security in the Middle East on the heels of two tumultuous weeks during which violent protests rocked countries across the region. And although anger was directed against my country, the protests exposed deep rifts within new democracies and volatility that extremists were quick to instigate and exploit. As President Obama made clear yesterday in his address to the General Assembly, the United States rejects the false choice between democracy and stability. Democracies make the strongest, most capable partners. And we know that it takes a lot of hard work and oftentimes struggle.

~snip~

When violence came to our doorstep at embassies around the globe, this body joined the Arab League, the OIC, the AU, and the EU to give voice to the world’s condemnation of the attacks and call for restraint. You stood with us, and now we must stand together in support of the common aspirations of the people, of all people, for security and safety for our families, the freedom to live lives according to our own conscience, the dignity that comes only through self-determination. And as President Obama said yesterday, the United States will never shrink from defending these values. And we will not walk away from these new democracies.

We are not alone in this commitment. This is the work of all responsible nations. And we look forward to working closely with anyone who speaks out on behalf of our shared values. Thank you.

PRN: 2012/1525

Interview With Wendell Goler of FOX News;

Notice after the administration had to admit it was a terrorist attack, they then start saying, well, we need to wait for the investigation to be completed.

Interview:

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Secretary of State

Lima, Peru
October 15, 2012

QUESTION: Forgive me – this is the first time we’ve had to talk since the Benghazi tragedy, and with respect to your hosts, I’d like to focus my questions on that. There’s a lot of discussion of the decision not to extend the mission of the additional security team in Tripoli. Would that have made a difference in the Benghazi situation?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Wendell, we’re going to find out through our Accountability Review investigation that’s going on exactly what did happen. There’s been testimony it wouldn’t have made a difference, but I’m not going to draw any conclusions until we have these very distinguished Americans given the chance to review everything and draw their own conclusions and make recommendations, because nobody wants to get to the bottom of this more than I. And I want to do everything I can to protect our people, and I also want to make sure that we track down whoever did this and bring them to justice.

QUESTION: Did that request come to you or does it come to a specialist in the Department on security?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I’m responsible for the State Department, for the more than 60,000 people around the world. The decisions about security assets are made by security professionals. But we’re going to review everything to make sure that we’re doing what needs to be done in an increasingly risky environment around the world. There’s no doubt that our men and women from the State Department, USAID, the rest of our government are having to balance all the time how to do their jobs and not stay behind high walls, but to do it as safely as possible. And that’s an ongoing, daily calculation around the world.

QUESTION: There was an IED attack in June. Did you know about that? Was the White House informed about that?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I can’t speak to who knew what about that. We knew that there were security breaches and problems throughout Libya that was something that came about as the aftermath of the revolution to topple Qadhafi, with so many militias formed, so many weapons loose, and it was certainly taken into account by the security professionals as they made their assessments.

QUESTION: Now, a week after the attack, Ambassador Rice was still saying basically this is something that grew out of a protest against the anti-Islam movie. Can you explain that?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think the first thing to know is that everyone had the same intelligence. But I’ve been around long enough to know that it takes time to assess all the information that you have. And as the intelligence community has now said, their assessment over the last now more than a month changed, but everyone in the Administration was trying to give information to the best of their ability at the time, with the caveat that more was likely to be learned and that there would be most likely changes.

So the fog of war, the confusion that you get in any kind of combat situation – and remember, this was an attack that went on for hours. Our post was overrun by a significant number of armed men. Our annex was attacked. There had to be a lot of sorting out. And the intelligence community, as you know so well, they look backwards. They start going through everything: Did they miss something? Was there something else out there? Then they have to put out feelers to find out what people knew. And they’ve been doing that in a very vigorous way, and we’re learning more all the time about what happened.

QUESTION: So it’s possible you could have had the same information and drawn different conclusions?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I think it’s possible that everyone said here’s what we know, but it’s subject to change; it’s what we know at present. And I think that is what people tried to do. But I also understand, having been around for a while, how impatient people are to figure out what went on, what happened. We lost four really brave Americans. And come on, somebody tell me. And so it’s not very satisfying to say, look, we’re going to do this right, we’re going to get the information, and then when we do tell you, we will tell you as fully as we possibly can, which is why I immediately stood up the Review Board.

QUESTION: What do you make of the Republican claim that the Administration was reluctant to admit that al-Qaida is not on its heels, as the President often says?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don’t understand it completely, because we have certainly degraded core al-Qaida, including, of course, bin Ladin. But we have been very focused on al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb. I spoke about that in the past, even a few weeks ago.

So al-Qaida in its affiliate form, if you will, poses a threat, not to the same extent as what we faced coming out of 9/11 in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but let’s be very clear: This Administration knows all too well that we face extremists, wannabe al-Qaida types, new groups popping up that want to do harm to their own people, to the United States and our friends and allies. And we are as vigilant as we possibly can be around the clock.

QUESTION: Is Libya, with its militias and weapons, an example of why you don’t want to provide weapons to the rebels in Syria?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Every case is different. I do think that the disarming of the militias is particularly difficult in Libya because there were no institutions. There was no institutional, professional army. And we face a very challenging environment in Libya, as does the new Libyan Government, who we are certainly trying to support. I think it’s a different situation in Syria. It’s a different situation in Yemen. I mean, every situation has to be evaluated.

But I can say, generally, dangerous weapons in the hands of extremists is a problem that we pay a lot of attention to and we spend an enormous amount of energy – not just the State Department, but DOD and intelligence community – trying to figure out how to prevent these groups from getting access to more and more powerful weapons. So it’s a problem.

QUESTION: Thank you, Madam Secretary.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much, Wendell. Good to see you.

QUESTION: And you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thanks.

# # #

PRN: 2012/T71-05

It’s 3 am Madam Secretary Clinton! You failed with the “Phone Call”!

Hillary, You have disqualified yourself to run for your parties presidential nomination in 2016!

Footnotes:

1. From FreeRepublic.com Hillary Rodham’s 1974 Watergate “Procedures were Ethically Flawed”

Jerry Zeifman sent us the letter below, which is “based largely on material previously published” in his book, “Without Honor: The impeachment of President Nixon and the Crimes of Camelot.”

The book is now out of print. However, a small supply of the limited first edition is still available. Information about it, and how to obtain a copy, may be found at: http://www.iethical.org/book.htm

Previously published in the NEW YORK POST

August 16. 1999

HILLARY’S WATERGATE SCANDAL

By Jerry Zeifman
IN December 1974, as general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, I made a personal evaluation of Hillary Rodham (now Mrs. Clinton), a member of the staff we had gathered for our impeachment inquiry on President Richard Nixon. I decided that I could not recommend her for any future position of public or private trust.

Why? Hillary’s main duty on our staff has been described by as “establishing the legal procedures to be followed in the course of the inquiry and impeachment.” A number of the procedures she recommended were ethically flawed. And I also concluded that she had violated House and committee rules by disclosing confidential information to unauthorized persons.

Hillary had conferred personally with me regarding procedural rules. I advised her that Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, House Speaker Carl Albert, Majority Leader Tip O’Neill and I had previously agreed not to advocate anything contrary to the rules already adopted and published for that Congress. I quoted Mr. O’Neill’s statement that: “To try to change the rules now would be politically divisive. It would be like trying to change the traditional rules of baseball before a World Series.”

Hillary assured me that she had not drafted and would not advocate any such rules changes. I soon learned that she had lied: She had already drafted changes, and continued to advocate them.

In one written legal memorandum, she advocated denying President Nixon representation by counsel. This, though in our then-most-recent prior impeachment proceeding, the committee had afforded the right to counsel to Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.

I also informed Hillary that the Douglas impeachment files were available for public inspection in our offices. I later learned that the Douglas files were then removed from our general files without my permission, transferred to the offices of the impeachment inquiry staff, and were no longer accessible to the public.

The young Ms. Rodham had other bad advice about procedures, arguing that the Judiciary Committee should neither 1) hold any hearings with or take the depositions of any live witnesses, nor 2) conduct any original investigation of atergate, bribery, tax evasion, or any other possible impeachable offense of President Nixon – but to rely instead on prior investigations conducted by other committees and agencies.

The committee rejected Ms. Rodham’s recommendations: It agreed to allow President Nixon to be represented by counsel and to hold hearings with live witnesses. Hillary then advocated that the official rules of the House be amended to deny members of the committee the right to question witnesses. This unfair recommendation was rejected by the full House. (The committee also vetoed her suggestion that it leave the drafting of the articles of impeachment to her and her fellow special staffers.)

The recommendations advocated by Hillary were apparently initiated or approved by Yale Law School professor Burke Marshall – in violation of committee and House rules on confidentiality. They were also advocated by her immediate supervisors, Special Counsel John Doar and Senior Associate Special Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, both of whom had worked under Marshall in the Kennedy Justice Department.

It was not until two months after Nixon’s resignation that I first learned of still another questionable role of Ms. Rodham. On Sept. 26, 1974, Rep. Charles Wiggins, a Republican member of the committee, wrote to ask Chairman Rodino to look into a troubling set of events. That spring, Wiggins and other committee members had asked “that research should be undertaken so as to furnish a standard against which to test the alleged abusive conduct of Richard Nixon.” And, while “no such staff study was made available to the members at any time for their use,” Wiggins had just learned that such a study had been conducted – at committee expense – by a team of professors who completed and filed their reports with the impeachment-inquiry staff well in advance of our public hearings.

The report was not made available to members of Congress. But after the impeachment-inquiry staff was disbanded, it was published commercially and sold in book stores. Wiggins wrote that he was “especially troubled by the possibility that information deemed essential by some of the members in their discharge of their responsibilities may have been intentionally suppressed by the staff during the course our investigation.”

On Oct. 3, Rodino wrote back: “Hillary Rodham of the impeachment-inquiry staff coordinated the work. … After the staff received the report it was reviewed by Ms. Rodham, briefly by Mr. Labovitz and Mr. Sack, and by Mr. Doar. The staff did not think the manuscript was useful in its present form.”

On the charge of willful suppression, he wrote: “That was not the case … The staff did not think the material was usable by the committee in its existing form and had not had time to modify it so it would have practical utility for the members of the committee. I was informed and agreed with the judgment.”

During my 14-year tenure with the House Judiciary Committee, I had supervisory authority over several hundred staff members. With the exception of Ms. Rodham, Doar and Nussbaum, I recommend all of them for future positions of public and private trust.

Jerry Zeifman is the author of “Without Honor: The Impeachment of President Nixon and the Crimes of Camelot,” which describes the above matters in more detail. (See http://www.iethical.org/book.htm)

Copyright © 2012 © 2013 © 2014 © 2015 TeaPartyEdu http://teapartyedu.net Foundation Truths http://captainjamesdavis.net The Patriot Brotherhood @CaptainJDavis

America You Have Lost!

John Quincy Adams quotes in regards to reading the Holy Bible

John Quincy Adams in regards to reading the Holy Bible [Click to enlarge]


40 years is a dispensation with God. What this means is that God gives us 40 years from the time He does one move to the time He moves again.

Approximately 40 years ago I heard prophecy many times that what is taking place now in America, would take place, sometime in the future. I am sure the men who prophesied those things never understood, it would happen at the end of the dispensation we were then in, for they never put a time on when it would take place.

Also 40 years ago was when Roe vs Wade was decided by the Supreme Court, which has led to the wholesale slaughter of infants still in their mothers womb or just as they are being birthed to then have their limbs torn off, their spines cut, etc.

America you have brought on your own demise, you failed to stand up against the slaughter that has taken place for far too long and among many of you have also celebrated those same deaths. Which amounts to human sacrifice to the gods of the Liberal leftists of America.

You’ve allowed it America! And now we will all pay the price for it. Far too many of you have turned your backs on the God of our salvation, the God who gave US America with its acknowledgement of the Freedom of Conscience, that has now been outlawed, i.e. Religious Freedom, Yes we were and still are a Christian Nation, however far too many of you profess to be Christians without truly serving the one and only Master…That Master being Christ Jesus who you have allowed to be marginalized far too many times.

You’ve allowed Christ Jesus’ name to become a curse word on your lips, or an exclamation of surprise on the same. You’ve allowed the word Holy, to be associated with all that is unholy, and done nothing to correct the course your actions have set for you.

You’ve allowed homosexual men to prey on those who are younger and too naive to understand the insidious nature of those same men who do nothing but cause harm and shame on America’s youth. You’ve even allowed this to happen with priests who claim to be ministers of God, who finds their actions to be reprehensible and without redeemable qualities.

Now there is a price to be paid and if you look at the Jews and their history, you will begin to understand just how great a price, that price may be…God helps US all as we try to stand for Christ in the coming tidal wave…

A warning to those who attack God’s messengers. When you attack God, Jesus Christ or their people there is a price to be paid, NEVER DOUBT IT! Look at what the Jews have suffered since denying Christ and persecuting His people…

America Listen Now! For Your Only Hope Is Jesus, Christ our Lord, Christ our Savior!

 I never met a Christian who cared, or even thought about what people did in the privacy of their own houses and bedrooms…It is not until the militant individuals who try, and have tried, to force the Christian community to accept what the Bible clearly states is wrong, a sin, or an abomination to God, that the Christians I know of, or even I for that matter, started caring what people do.
If you think that preaching God’s word, or the gospel of Christ, is somehow infringing upon your rights, or that it is a sign that Christians care what you do in the privacy of your home. You are simply wrong, and your feeling bad, angry, etc., when hearing that Word taught, is simply your own consciences condemning you, for what you know to be wrong in the first place.
Whether you are in a heterosexual relationship out of wedlock, homosexual relationship, or whether you are in any of a number of other situations that are sinful and wrong.A Man and Woman having sexual relations before marriage used to be called “Original Sin” because that is the sin that Adam and Eve partook of in the Garden of Eden. Which I might add is easy to discern when you look at the punishments that God meted out to them, after they sinned…The fact most, or the majority of people do it now days, does not make it right, or any less of a sin. It just means we are getting closer and closer to the judgment of God upon this world, and on this nation.
Christians do not serve the Lord because they think they are perfect. Quite the contrary, they serve the Lord because they know, He is the only one who can help them overcome their own faults, sins, failures, etc.
So when you are busy hating on Christians, who truly try to live up to God’s Word, and keep His and Christ’s commandments. Look in the mirror, you may see some things there you find to be reprehensible, that you need help with to overcome.
As Benjamin Franklin said “Sin is not harmful because it is forbidden, but it is forbidden because it is harmful, and Duty is not beneficial because it is commanded, but is commanded because it is beneficial”

Something else I together dealing with 40 year dispensations of God

From the time of the Declaration of Independence 1776 where they eliminated the portion of the document that dealt with the end of slavery and the importation of slaves to the official 1833 beginning of the abolitionist movement was 57 years i.e 40 + 17,

The Quakers i.e. Society of Friends had long condemned the practice as did many of the founding fathers, since before the founding as well as during and after. They declared it to be a sin and in opposition to the ideals of the foundations of America (See more below timeline)

1787 The Northwest Territory where slavery was prohibited = 11 years

1808 Federal Govt banned Transatlantic Slave Trade = 32 years

1816 African Colonization Society, a group founded to return blacks to their home continent = 40 years

1861 Start of Civil War = 85 years, 40 years Quakers & others speak out against slavery + 40 years of Abolitionists activity + 5 Years = judgment

Quote from the Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 Appendix A, CLVIII is as follows: Unsure of the speaker who said it, could be Madison…

“[61] This report was adopted by a majority of the convention, but not without considerable opposition. It was said, that we had just assumed a place among independent nations, in consequence of our opposition to the attempts of Great Britain to enslave us; that this opposition was grounded upon the preservation of those rights to which God and nature had entitled us, not in particular, but in common with all the rest of mankind; that we had appealed to the Supreme Being for his assistance, as the God of freedom, who could not but approve our efforts to preserve the rights which he had thus imparted to his creatures; that now, when we scarcely had risen from our knees, from supplicating his aid and protection, in forming our government over a free people, a government formed pretendedly on the principles of liberty and for its preservation, — in that government, to have a provision not only putting it out of its power to restrain and prevent the slave-trade, but even encouraging that most infamous traffic, by giving the States power and influence in the Union, in proportion as they cruelly and wantonly sport with the rights of their fellow creatures, ought to be considered as a solemn mockery of, and insult to that God whose protection we had then implored, and could not fail to hold us up in detestation, and render us contemptible to every true friend of liberty in the world. It was said, it ought to be considered that national crimes can only be, and frequently are punished in this world, by national punishments; and that the continuance of the slave-trade, and thus giving it a national sanction and encouragement, ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of Him, who is equally Lord of all, and who views with equal eye the poor African slave and his American master.

[62] It was urged, that, by this system, we were giving the general government full and absolute power to regulate commerce, under which general power it would have a right to restrain, or totally prohibit, the slave-trade; it must, therefore, appear to the world absurd and disgraceful to the last degree, that we should except from the exercise of that power, the only branch of commerce which is unjustifiable in its nature, and contrary to the rights of mankind; that, on the contrary, we ought rather to prohibit expressly in our constitution, the further importation of slaves; and to authorize the general [i.e. Federal] government, from time to time, to make such regulations as should be thought most advantageous for the gradual abolition of slavery, and the emancipation of the slaves which are already in the States: That slavery is inconsistent with the genius of republicanism, and has a tendency to destroy those principles on which it is supported, as it lessens the sense of the equal rights of mankind, and habituates us to tyranny and oppression.” End excerpt from Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 Appendix A, CLVIII

Copyright © 2010 – 2015 TeaPartyEdu http://teapartyedu.net Foundation Truths http://captainjamesdavis.net The Patriot Brotherhood @CaptainJDavis ™

Obama’s Strategy to Deal with Militant Radical Islam in the Middle East

TheEducatorGodTrust

National Motto [Click to enlarge]

Radical Islam

The Obama Administration thinks we Americans are too stupid to understand the nuances of their thinking, Yet they also think the “uneducated” and “jobless” ISIS members do. Amazing, is it not?

Eric Holder complains “we spend more time talking about what do you call it as opposed to what do you do about it…you know? I mean really, you know, you know! If Fox [News] didn’t talk about this they’d have nothing else to talk about, it would seem to me. You know Radical Islam, Islamic Extremism, you know, um, (sighs heavily) I’m not sure an awful lot is gained, by, um, by saying that”

I can assure mr. Holder, Fox News spends much more time talking on what we do about it, than they do on what the administration is calling it. They also talk about how little the Obama administration is doing about it, as well as what should be done about it, with numerous military experts, generals, colonels, special ops, and various other experts, including Muslim reformers, experts on Muslim history and culture, ex-administration officials, diplomats, etc.

However the problem lies with the Obama administration, the reason the question of why Obama, and the people in his administration is even raised, is because of the fact Obama and his administration are doing as little as possible to prevent it. Obama and his administration are doing so little to stop the spread of Islamic extremism, not only are people of his own party also raising the question, even extreme leftist democrats are starting to take issue with it.

I see and hear all of these news people, political pundits etc., on Fox News or elsewhere, who strain their brains trying to analyze why Obama and his administration will not name the enemy, as they exist, they also ask why the admin is not doing more to stop the spread of the militant Muslim fanatics.

The Obama administration also says we need to change the economic outlook of the Muslim terrorists and the ideology that causes them to be terrorists. Wouldn’t that require “occupation” of those countries where the ideology is prevalent, and the control of those same countries economy? For years the Islamic administrations in those countries have failed to stop the Imam’s from spreading their extremist ideology, and have failed to control the corruption of their economies participants or governments who commandeer the relief funds, food, etc. that are given by other countries, meant to go to help the people. It is only reasonable then to come to the conclusion, all of this will require occupation forces, just as it did in Germany and Japan after World War 2. Isn’t it liberals and the democrats who have always accused Americans of being occupying forces or somehow Imperialistic? If the leaders in the Muslim world could be trusted to take on the ideology that creates Islamic terrorists, or have failed to grow their economies in order to benefit the people enough, where they do not turn to terrorism because of their poverty? How else do they propose to accomplish all of the incredibly clever nuanced strategy they promote?

If you look at Obama and the history of his administration, since he took office you can only conclude one thing. I will get to that conclusion later in this article.

Getting into history as I do, I tend to look, not only at the present, but also the past. This helps to give me a better understanding of the why, what, and where of something, so I can come to the correct conclusion, or at least one that is close to being correct.

Obama at the recent prayer breakfast referred to the Christian Crusades when talking about what is taking place in the Middle East with ISIS / ISIL, as if the Crusades that happened 900-1200 years ago, somehow justified the atrocities committed by present day Islamic Muslim terrorists. He also failed to mention, the crusades took place after 4-5 centuries of Muslim aggression, attacks that make today’s Muslim terrorists look like pikers. Note, the day before the prayer breakfast he had a meeting with various Muslim leaders in the White House, who the administration refused to name. Then within days after the prayer breakfast we are faced with a new ISIS / ISIL video showing the mass beheading of 21 Coptic Christians from Egypt, by militant Muslim savages who made the ISIS video and titled it. “A Message Signed With Blood To The Nation Of The Cross.” In the video an ISIS member with an American accent said among other things.

“Oh people, recently you have seen us on the hills of Al-Sham and Dabiq’s plain, chopping off the heads that have been carrying the cross for a long time, and today, we are on the south of Rome, on the land of Islam, Libya, sending another message. All crusaders: safety for you will be only wishes especially if you are fighting us all together. Therefore we will fight you all together. The sea you have hidden Sheikh Osama bin Laden’s body in, we swear to Allah we will mix it with your blood.”

This coming from Libya where Obama in 2011 took part in military action to remove Gadhafi saying when he did. “To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and — more profoundly — our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are,” Obama said. “Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.” Libya, also touted by Obama as one of the successes of his foreign policy in the Middle East. Kind of amazing he doesn’t use the same kind of language when talking about the Islamic terrorists.

The war in Libya was preceded by protests in Zawiya, 8 August 2009 and finally ignited by protests in Benghazi beginning on Tuesday, 15 February 2011, which led to clashes with security forces that fired on the crowd. The protests escalated into a rebellion that spread across the country,with the moderate Muslim forces opposing Gaddafi establishing a governing body, the General National Congress, whose President [Mohamed Yousef Magariaf] came to the U.S. and did an interview on CBS’s “Face The Nation” with Bob Schieffer on September 16, 2012. This interview was in reference to the terrorist attack on the Consulate in Benghazi, where the U.S. Ambassador and three other Americans were killed. This interview was also the same day Ambassador Susan Rice did her infamous five Sunday talk shows blaming a youtube video, nobody ever watched until the Obama administration started blaming it on the video “The innocence of Muslims” whose creator, they promised would be jailed or punished.

In this interview the Libyan President Magariaf] was asked by Schieffer about the attack in Benghazi, among the things Schieffer asked was whether the attack was preplanned, if the attackers were connected with al Qaeda, and where the attackers were from. Magariaf told him, yes the attack was preplanned [i.e. not spontaneous or part of a protest], the attackers were connected with al Qaeda, and it was planned and carried out by mainly foreigners, and some of them were definitely from Algeria and Mali.

Directly after having the Libyan President on, Schieffer then introduced Susan Rice “And joining us now, Susan Rice, the U.N. ambassador, our U.N. ambassador. Madam Ambassador, he says this is something that has been in the planning stages for months. I understand you have been saying that you think it was spontaneous? Are we not on the same page here?” Susan Rice after referring to a non-existent FBI investigation went on to tell him according to the best intelligence they had,  it was a spontaneous protest, brought on by the video and the attackers had no connection to al Qeada.

As a side note: It would seem to me, the best intelligence would come from the President of Libya, who Schieffer had just interviewed before Rice.

What a slap in the face this must have been to the Libyan President, who had just told Schieffer it was al Qaeda, and a preplanned well organized attack. No wonder he and the Libyan government refused to let the FBI in to conduct an investigation until a month after the Benghazi attack.

Add to this the fact Obama refused to assist the fledgling moderate Muslim Libyan government, after helping them depose Gadhafi by bombing Libyan government forces. You begin to then wonder, why Obama helped them in the first place, if he was just going to leave Libya’s fledgling government, military, police, etc., to deal with the Radical Islamic Jihadis after Gadhafi’s overthrow and death, without assistance from the U.S.

We then go back to the Iranian Green revolution of 2009-2010 when moderate Muslim students, business owners, and others rose up against the tyrannical Iranian Mullah’s, and the government they have imposed in Iran. Out of all the moderate Muslim uprisings in around the world that took place after Obama took the presidency, the Muslims who rose up in Iran were truly moderates who wanted to overthrow the radical Muslims in power.

What did Obama do to encourage or help those moderate Muslims during the Green Movement in Iran? Not a thing, not a word of encouragement, not humanitarian aid, no condemnation of the radical mullah’s and their government henchman, nothing. This seemed strange, the whole world was clamoring for him to speak out, give some encouragement, something, anything!

When young people in Egypt started protesting and calling for change in 2011, Obama encouraged them a little, after refusing to for weeks or months. It wasn’t until the Muslim Brotherhood members took over the government in Egypt, that Obama became really supportive of the Egyptian movement. Then when the people rose up against the Muslim Brotherhood led government, Obama once again did little to encourage the protesters or take up their cause, angering many of the Egyptian protesters. This seems strange since the Muslim Brotherhood is known for its ties to terrorism, and other Islamic Jihadi organizations. Then however, you look at Obama and his administrations ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, its associates and members and you begin to understand.

The reason news journalists and political pundits on places like Fox news, keep asking the seemingly asinine questions, like why does Obama refuse to refer to mass beheadings, and other atrocities as Islamic terrorism, Radical Islam, etc., it is because Obama does very little to stop Radical Islam. In fact Obama does little to encourage the truly moderate Muslims, take Syria for example, or any of the other moderate Muslim movements. He does little or nothing to encourage, aid, or assist the moderates, and does little or nothing to stop the radical extremist Muslims. Look at Yemen, which just a few weeks or months ago Obama was holding up as a beacon of his successful foreign policy.

Speaking of Syria, we have heard numerous politicians and political pundits from the GOP and the democrats since the beginning of the “moderate” Muslim uprising in Syria: We’ve heard them say, the reason Obama, his administration and Congress weren’t doing anything to support the moderate rebels is because, they are having such a hard time identifying them. Why is it so hard to identify the “moderates”? If the “vast majority” of Muslims are moderate, why is it so hard to identify them? When Ali Khamenei the “Supreme Leader of Iran” shouts “death to America” this week, the Obama administration said Khamenei is saying it for “Domestic Consumption”. So what the Obama administration are really saying is the majority of Iranians are militant Islamic Muslims bent on Jihad and the leaders of Iran are really moderates who say these radical things to appeal to the vast majority of Muslims in Iran.

Let’s get back to the comments Barrack Hussein Obama made at the recent prayer breakfast, where he referred to the crusades in medieval times. You’ll notice Leftist democrats and Muslim terrorists use the same tactics, techniques, or same talking points when referring to events, past or present.

Obama’s sympathy is always with the enemies of America, especially the radical Muslim element. Leftist democrats also refuse to call out radical Muslims or refer to them as Islamic, and refuse to condemn Muslims, for what they do in reference to Sharia Law. This is because, leftist liberal progressive democrats serve the same master as the radical Muslims, both groups believe in forcing their beliefs, ideas, views, and ways on others who disagree with them, oppose them, or are part of the general population just trying to live their lives. Both groups also believe in punishing and / or destroying those same people, when those people say, do, or are in noncompliance with the beliefs, rules, etc., the leftist democrats or radical Muslims espouse.

Look at Obamacare that was “forced down the throats of the American people”. Look at what the media, especially the main stream leftist media did to Sarah Palin or any other number of conservative or christian republicans. Look at what they’ve tried to do to Ted Cruz, I don’t care who you are, you have to admit Cruz and Palin are the only ones who have shown they would actually change the way Washington DC works. Not change as Obama did, i.e. more of the same, only on steroids, but real change to the bureaucracy, change that brings it in subjection to the American people, instead of the American people being subjected to the dictates of faceless non-elected bureaucrats.

This leads us back to the news journalists, pundits, etc., mainly on the right or centrists when it comes to politics. The reason people like O’Reilly and others twist themselves in knots trying to understand why Obama does what he does, and says what he says, when it comes to radical Islam; It is because: They can’t bring themselves to believe, the American people actually elected a president who hates America, what it stands for, the principles of its founding, you name it. Let’s not forget Obama and his administrations attacks on conservatives and war against traditional Christian American values and the Bible. You know those Americans Obama referred to among his rich friends as “clinging to their guns and religion”. Funny he has never said that about the fundamental Islamic Muslim terrorists.

Why do you think Obama has done more to stir up racial, class strife, and other grievances  between various groups of Americans than he has done to unite the people and the country? He uses stronger words, and shows greater animation when talking against conservatives, than he ever does when speaking about the Islamic Muslim terrorists! If the terrorists from al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups, (or violent extremists as Obama likes to say) If, as Obama says, the Arabic terrorists are not Muslim, and they do not represent the “religion” of  Islam; Why are the U.S. State department, Pentagon / Defense department, and the Obama administration giving the terrorists / enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba copies of the Koran, Islamic Muslim prayer rugs, prayer beads, and giving them Islamic meals, etc?

When I take all of this into consideration, I can only conclude Obama hates America, and as he said he would in his book, he stands with the Muslims, he just failed to add radical, when he spoke of the Muslims he would stand with. All part of that great fundamental change he referred to…

Obama’s strategy to deal with Islamic terrorism is for America to lose, why else would he go to congress to get an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that ties not only the hands of the military, but also the hands of the next president, who would have to get a new authorization 3 years after the American people have become even more war weary in the first year of his / her administration?

Some other things I have noted: Rudy said “Obama doesn’t love America” the media throws a fit because they believe this is wrong or it is somehow saying Obama is unpatriotic. Yet Obama himself called his predecessor “unpatriotic” the media and the democrat party compared him to Hitler, wrote a book about killing him, and said numerous other outrageous things about him personally. Obama himself has numerous times said all Americans who don’t want to be taxed more are unpatriotic. The democrat party have said numerous completely outrageous things about Tea Party participants, conservative or christian republicans, yet you never hear the media throw a fit about it.

You have democrats throw a fit when a republican or conservative call Obama a Muslim or even question that he considering his numerous actions against traditional christians, conservatives, etc. and his obvious sympathy for Muslims. Why do they get outraged when people call Obama a Muslim when they are constantly telling us Muslims are good peace loving people. Then you had Obama say “America is no longer a Christian Nation” yet along with the outrage shown when he is called a Muslim, Obama and the media turn themselves in knots trying to convince the American people he is a christian.

Then we can all remember the Democrat National Convention where they voted 3 times whether “God” was going to be part of their party platform, the majority of convention goers voted “No” and finally the 3rd time amid the majority of the members there hissing and booing, the convention managers declared they had “voted” to add “God” to their party platform. Of course this was during election season and they were trying to convince Americans they believed in “God” and that Obama is a christian.

Why doesn’t the democrat party “own it” why do they not stand by what’s in their hearts. Why will they not admit they hate or at the very least greatly dislike the way America was founded, the principles the USA was founded on, and the obvious fact we were, are, and hopefully will always be a nation where the majority of the people are guided by christian principles. Why doesn’t the democrat party finally just own how they really think and feel? They have been accusing republicans and conservatives of being cowards, why don’t the democrats just own who they are? Cowards by any chance?

Obama is an embarrassment to our historic allies and a malleable dunce to our historic enemies!

Copyright © 2015 TeaPartyEdu http://teapartyedu.net Foundation Truths http://captainjamesdavis.net The Patriot Brotherhood @CaptainJDavis ™

History of the “Christian” Crusades

Origin of the word Assassins.

Origin of the word Assassins. [Click to enlarge]

Not withstanding the historic problems we have had in the United States of America with Muslim “extremists” attacking, raping, killing, and enslaving our citizens. There is a long history of the same in Europe, Asia, Africa, Russia, the Baltics, etc. going back to the time of Mohammed, who himself was the 1st Muslim Islamic terrorist, murderer, killer and pedophile.  I offer here a short timeline of events that led up to the so-called Christian Crusades, that began when Muslims would not stop their continuous aggression towards Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims. The spread and growth of Islam has always been accompanied by the sword, killing, raping, beheading, torture, abuse, etc. Muslims have always been extremists since their inception.

History of the “Christian” Crusades

635 A.D. Three years after Mohammed’s death, Muslim forces captured Damascus where St. Paul was going when he had his dramatic vision and conversion.[Book of Acts 16:9] 460 years before 1st Crusade.

636 A.D. Muslim forces take al-Basra, southern Iraq, largely Christian at the time. Killing, raping, beheading, enslaving and forcing conversions to Islam. 459 years before the 1st ‪#‎Crusades‬

637 A.D. Muslim forces take Antioch near the modern city of Antakya, Turkey where the disciples of Jesus were first called “Christians”. 458 years before the 1st Crusades.

638 A.D. Muslim forces take Jerusalem, the Holy City of both Christianity and Judaism. Killing, raping, beheading, crucifying, & enslaving Jews and Christians. 457 years before the 1st Crusades.

639 A.D. Muslim forces invade Egypt, at the time a largely Christian country, again committing the same atrocities and abuses Muslim “extremists” do in the present day. 456 years before the 1st Crusades.

642 A.D. Muslim forces take Alexandria 2nd largest city in Egypt destroying its famous Great Library in process. 450 yrs before Crusades

650 A.D. Muslim forces take Cappadocia (in modern day Turkey). Killing enslaving Christians & forcing conversions 445 years before Crusades

652 A.D. Muslim forces launch attacks against Sicily, they eventually conquer it in 827 A.D. 443 years before Crusades

668 A.D. Muslim forces launch the first siege of Christian Constantinople (Byzantium), many more were to follow 427 yrs before Crusades

711 A.D. Muslim forces begin the invasion of the Iberian Peninsula (modern day Spain) 384 years before the Crusades

715 A.D. Spain completely conquered by Muslim forces (an occupation that would last for more than 700 years) 380 yrs before Crusades

715 A.D. Muslim forces begin to invade Christian France 380 years before the Crusades

732 A.D. Muslim forces finally stopped at Tours, Northern France, by Charles The Hammer Martel, 363 yrs before Crusades

792 A.D. Muslim forces launch a jihad led by Hisham Spain’s Muslim ruler against France Christians killed, raped & enslaved 303 yrs before Crusades.

838-972 A.D. Muslim forces take Frejus near Cannes, use it as a base to raid France & Northern Italy. 257 yrs before Crusades

838-972 A.D. Christian pilgrims to Rome are frequently robbed, murdered and kidnapped by Muslim slave traders operating in the Alps, 257 yrs before Crusades

846 A.D. After nearly two centuries of increasing raids on south Italy Muslim forces sack Rome desecrating the tombs of St. Peter & St. Paul, destroy many churches and carrying off hundreds of slaves. 249 years before the 1st Crusades.

848 A.D. 3rd Muslim army crosses the Pyrenees, invades France, once again destroying towns, cities, killing & enslaving 247 years before Crusades.

848 A.D. 3rd Muslim army crosses the Pyrenees, invades France, once again destroying towns, cities, killing & enslaving 247 yrs before Crusades

870 A.D. Muslim forces capture the island of Malta, Killing, enslaving & torturing Christians. 225 years before 1st Crusades

873 A.D. Muslim forces launch massive slave raids in Calabria Italy, leaving it devastated & depopulated; 222 yrs before 1st Crusades

878 A.D. Muslim forces destroy city of Syracuse, Sicily’s historic city killing most inhabitants & enslaving survivors 217 yrs before Crusades

935 A.D Muslim forces capture the city of Genoa, Northern Italy, Killing, enslaving & torturing the inhabitants 160 years before Crusades

976 A.D Fatimid Caliph of Egypt sends repeated military expeditions to Southern Italy for slaves and booty 119 years before 1st Crusades

1004-14 A.D. 6th Fatimid Caliph destroys 30,000 Christian churches seizing their lands & possessions 90 years before 1st Crusades

1003-09 A.D. Muslim raiders increase attacks on the Italian coast including Pisa & Rome from their base Sardinia 90 years before Crusades

1009 A.D. Muslim Caliph Mad Hakim destroys Church of Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem orders Christians to wear heavy wooden crosses, forces Jews to wear heavy wooden calves around their necks. 86 years before Crusades

1010 A.D. Mad Muslim Caliph Hakim orders Christians and Jews to accept Islam (convert) or leave his dominions. Muslim forces capture the city of Cosenza, in Southern Italy Killing, beheading, raping & enslaving inhabitants. 85 years before 1st Crusades

1056 A.D. Three hundred Christians are expelled from Jerusalem and European Christian pilgrims are denied access to the (rebuilt) Church of the Holy Sepulchre. 39 years before the 1st Crusades.

1071 A.D. Muslim forces crush the Byzantines at the battle of Manzikert, taking the Byzantine Emperor, Romanus IV Diogenes, prisoner. 24 years before the 1st Crusades.

1076 A.D Muslim forces (Seljuk Turks) conquer Syria a Christian country at that time Killing, crucifying, raping & enslaving. 19 years before Crusades

1077 A.D Muslim Seljuk Turks take Jerusalem, slaughtering over 3000 Christians & Jews. 18 years before 1st Crusades

1077 A.D. Muslim Seljuks attack Christian pilgrims killing enslaving 1000’s & denying Holy Land access to European Christians 18 yrs before Crusades.

1st Crusade 1095 A.D. Christian Byzantine Emperor Alexius I Comnenus sends a letter to Pope Urban II asking for help to stop Muslim attacks. the Council of Clermont is formed, Pope Urban II calls for European Christians to defend Constantinople and reopen access to the Holy land, especially Jerusalem.

Lest you think the followers of Mohammed have changed since the inception of the Islamic “religion” here’s a  little note from the past.

1611 revolt Dionysius the PhilosopherDionysius the Philosopher led an eventually unsuccessful revolt against the Ottomans, seeking to establish a power base at Ioannina. Dionysius was flayed alive, and his skin, stuffed with straw, was sent as a present to the sultan at Constantinople. The other principal conspirators were said to be punished in various ways, some were burnt alive, others impaled, and yet others sawn asunder.

Ancient Historian John Foxe in his “A History of the most distinguished martyrs: in various ages and countries” gives us the following accounts; It is amazing when reading Foxe’s accounts, after 13 1/2 centuries the Muslims have done little to change their tactics, both “moderate” and extremists.

PERSECUTIONS IN TURKEY. ACCOUNT OF MAHOMET.

Mahomet [i.e. Mohammed] was born at Mecca, in Arabia, A. D. 571. His parents were poor, and his education mean; but by the force of his genius, and an uncommon subtlety, he raised himself to be the founder of a widely spread religion, and the sovereign of kingdoms. His Alcoran [i.e. Quran / Koran or writings of Mohammed] is a jumble of paganism, judaism, and Christianity. In composing it, he is said to have been assisted by a Jew and a Roman Catholic priest. It is adapted entirely to the sensual appetites and passions; and the chief promises held out by it to its believers of the joys of paradise are women and wine. Mahomet established his doctrine by the power of the sword. “The sword,” says he, ” is the key of heaven and of hell. Whoever falls in battle, his sins are forgiven him: his wounds shall be resplendent as vermillion, and odoriferous as musk: the loss of his limbs shall be supplied with the wings of angels.” He allowed that Christ was a great prophet and a holy man; that he was born of a virgin, received up into glory, and shall come again to destroy Antichrist.

He, therefore, in his early career, affected to respect the Christians. But no sooner was his power established, than he displayed himself in his true colours, as their determined and sanguinary enemy. This he proved by his persecutions of them in his life-time, and by commanding those persecutions to be continued by his deluded followers, in his Alcoran, particularly in that part entitled, ” The Chapter of the Sword.” From him the Turks received their religion, which they still maintain. Mahomet and his descendants, in the space of thirty years, subdued Arabia, Palestine, Phoenicia,Syria, Egypt, and Persia. They soon, however, broke into divisions and wars amongst themselves. But the princes of the Saracens, assuming the title of sultan, continued their rule over Syria, Egypt, and Africa, for the space of about 400 years, when the Saracen king of Persia, commencing war against the Saracen sultan of Babylon, the latter brought to his aid the Turks. These Turks, feeling their own strength, in time turned their arms against their masters, and by the valour of Othman, from whom the family who now fill the Turkish throne are descended, they soon subdued them, and established their empire.

Constantinople, after having been for many ages an imperial Christian city, was invested, in 1453, by the Turks, under Mahomet the Second, whose army consisted of 300,000 men, and, after a siege of six weeks, it fell into the hands of the infidels, and the Turks have, to this day, retained possession of it. They no sooner found themselves masters of it, than they began to exercise On the inhabitants the most unremitting barbarities, destroying them by every method of ingenious cruelty. Some they roasted alive on spits, others they starved, some they flayed alive, and left them in that horrid manner to perish; many were sawn asunder, and others torn to pieces by horses. Three days and nights was the city given to spoil, in which time the soldiers were licensed to commit every enormity. The body of the emperor being found among the slain, Mahomet commanded his head to be stuck on a- spear, and carried round the town for the mockery of the soldiers.

ATTACK ON RHODES.

About the year 1521, Solyman the First took Belgrade from the Christians. Two years after, he, with a fleet of 450 ships, and an army of 300,000 men, attacked Rhodes, then defended by the knights of Jerusalem. These heroes resisted the infidels till all their fortifications were levelled with the ground, their provisions exhausted, and their ammunition spent; when, finding no succours from the Christian princes, they surrendered, the siege having lasted about six months, in which the Turks suffered prodigiously, no less than 30,000 of them having died by the bloody flux. After this, Solyman retook Buda from the Christians, and treated those who were found there with great cruelty. Some had their eyes put out, others their hands, noses, and ears cut off. Pregnant women were ripped open, and their fruit cast into the flames, while many children were buried up to their necks in the earth, and left to perish.

PERSECUTIONS IN THE STATES OF BARBARA. [i.e. Barbary States]

In no part of the globe are Christians so hated, or treated with such severity, as at Algiers. The conduct of the Algerines towards them is marked with perfidy and cruelty. By paying a most exorbitant fine, some Christians are allowed the title of Free Christians; these are permitted to dress in the fashion of their respective countries, but the Christian slaves are obliged to wear a coarse grey suit, and a seaman’s cap.

The following are the various punishments exercised towards them: 1. If they join any of the natives in open rebellion, they are strangled with a bow-string, or hanged on an iron hook. 2. If they speak against Mahomet, they must become Mahometans, or be impaled alive. 3. If they profess Christianity again, after having changed to the Mahometan persuasion, they are roasted alive, or thrown from the city walls, and caught upon large sharp hooks, on which they hang till they expire. 4. If they kill a Turk they are burnt. 5. If they attempt to escape, and are retaken, they suffer death in the following manner: they are hung naked on a high gallows by two hooks, the one fastened quite through the palm of one hand, and the other through the sole of the opposite foot, where they are left till death relieves them. Other punishments for crimes committed by the Christians are left to the discretion of the judges, who usually decree the most barbarous tortures.

At Tunis, if a Christian is caught in attempting to escape, his limbs are all broken; and if he slay his master, he is fastened to the tail of a horse, and dragged about the streets till he expires.

Fez and Morocco conjointly form an empire, and are the most considerable of the Barbary states. The Christian slaves are treated with the greatest rigour: the rich have exorbitant*ransoms fixed upon them; the poor are hard worked and half starved, and sometimes, by the emperor, or their brutal masters, they are murdered.

MASSACRES BY THE SARACENS.

Forty-two persons of Armorian, in Upper Phrygia, were martyred in the year 845, by the Saracens, the circumstances of which are thus related:

In the reign of Theophilus, the Saracens ravaged many parts of the eastern empire, gained considerable advantages over the Christians, and at length laid siege to the city of Armorian. The garrison bravely defended the place for a considerable time, and would have obliged their enemies to raise the siege, but the place was betrayed by a renegado. Many were put to the sword; and two general officers, with some persons of distinction, were carried prisoners to Bagdat, where they were loaded with chains, and thrown into a dungeon. They continued in prison for some time without seeing any persons but their gaolers, having scarcely food enough for their subsistence. At length they were informed, that nothing could preserve their lives but renouncing their religion and embracing Mahometanism. To induce them to comply, the caliph pretended zeal for their welfare; and declared, that he looked uponi converts in a more glorious light than conquests. Agreeably to these maxims, he sent some of the most artful of the Mahometans, witTi money and clothes, and the promise of other advantages which they might secure to themselves by an abjuration of Christianity; which, according to the casuistry of Ihose infidels, might be made without quitting their faith; but the martyrs rejected the proposal with horror and contempt. After this they were attacked with that fallacious and delusive argument which the Mahometans still use in favour of themselves, and were desired to judge of the merits of the cause by the success of those that were engaged in it, and choose that religion which they saw flourished most, and was best rewarded with the good things of this life, which they called the blessings of heaven. Yet the noble prisoners were proof against all these temptations; and argued strenuously against the authority of the false prophet. This incensed the Mahometans, and drew greater hardships upon the Christians during their confinement, which lasted seven years. Boidizius, the renegado who had betrayed Armorian, then brought them the welcome news that their sufferings would conclude in martyrdom the next day: when taken from their dungeon, they were again solicited to embrace the tenets of Mahomet; but neither throats nor promises could induce them to espouse the doctrines of an impostor. Perceiving that their faith could not by any means be shaken, the caliph ordered them to be executed. Theodore, one of the number, had formerly received priest’s orders, and officiated as a clergyman; but afterwards quitting the church, he had followed a military life, and raised himself by the sword to some considerable posts, which he enjoyed at the time he was taken prisoner. The officer who attended the execution. being apprized of these circumstances, said to Theodore, e You might, indeed, pretend to be ranked amongst the Christians, while you served in their church as a priest; but the profession you have taken up, which engages you in bloodshed, is so contrary to your former employment, that you should not now think of passing upon us for one of that religion. When you quitted the altar for the camp, you renounced Jesus Christ. Why then will you dissemble any longer? Would you not act more conformably to your own principles, and make your conduct all of a piece, if you came to a resolution of saving your life by owning our great prophet?”

Theodore, covered with religious confusion at this reproach, but still unshaken in his faith, made the following answer: “It is true,” said he, “I did in some measure abandon my God when I engaged in the army, and scarce deserve the name of a Christian. But the Almighty has given me the grace to see myself in a true light, and made me sensible of my fault; and I hope he will be pleased to accept my life as the only sacrifice I can now offer to expiate my guilt.” This pious answer confounded the officer, who only replied, that he should presently have an opportunity of giving that proof of his fidelity to his master. Upon which. Theodore and the rest, forty-two in number, were beheaded.

MARTYRDOM OF TWO LADIES.

Two ladies of distinction, Mary and Flora, suffered martyrdom at the same time. Flora was the daughter of an eminent Mahometan, at Seville; from whence he removed to Corduba, where the Saracen king resided, and kept his court. Her father dying when she was young, Flora was left to the care of her mother, who, being a Christian, brought her up in the true faith, and inspired her with sentiments of virtue and religion. Her brother being a professed enemy to Christianity, and of a barbarous and savage temper, Flora was for some time obliged to use great caution in the practice of such virtues as must have exposed her to a persecution. She was too zealous to bear this restraint long; for which reason she left Corduba, in company with her sister. Her departure soon alarmed her brother, who guessed her motives, and, in revenge, informed against several Christians of Corduba; for as he did not know whither his sister was gone, he determined to wreak his vengeance on such Christians as were present. When Flora was informed of these proceedings, she considered herself as the cause of what the Christians had suffered at Corduba, and having an interior conviction that God called her to fight for her faith, she returned to-that city, and proceeded to the persecutors, among whom she found her brother. “If,” said she, “I am the object of your inquiry, if the servants of God are tormented on my account, I now freely offer myself to your disposal. I declare, that I believe in Jesus Christ, glory in his cross, and profess the doctrine which he taught.” None of the company seemed so much enraged at this declaration as her brother, who after some threats, struck her; but afterwards endeavoured to gain her by expressions of pretended kindness.

Finding her insensible to all he could say, he insinuated, that Flora had been educated in the religion of Mahomet, but had renounced it at the suggestion of some Christians, who inspired her with the utmost contempt for the great prophet. When she was called on to answer to the charge, she declared she had never owned Mahomet, but sucked the Christian religion in with her milk, and was entirely devoted to the Redeemer of mankind. The magistrate, finding her resolute, delivered her to her brother, and gave him orders to use his utmost endeavours to make her a Mahometan. She, however, soon found an opportunity of escaping over a wall in the night, and of secreting herself in the house of a Christian. She then withdrew to Tucci, a village of Andalusia, where she met with her sister, and they never separated again till her martyrdom.

Mary, who was martyred at the same time, was the daughter of a Christian tradesman at Estremadura, who afterwards removed to a town near Corduba. When the persecution began under Abderrama, king of the Saracens, in Spain, Mary’s brother was one who fell a victim to the rage of the infidels on that occasion. Mary, hearing of his martyrdom, and filled with confusion at being left behind by one so much younger than herself, went to Corduba, where, going into a church, she found Flora? who had left her retreat on the same motive. On conversing together, and finding they acted upon the same heroic principles, and proposed the same glorious end of their labours, they agreed to go together, and declare their faith before the judge. Accordingly they proceeded to the magistrate, when Flora boldly told him, she looked on Mahomet as no better than a false prophet, an adulterer, and magician. Mary also told the magistrate, that she professed the same faith, and entertained the same sentiments as Flora, and that she was sister to Walabonzus, who had already suffered for being a Christian. This behaviour so much enraged the magistrate, that he ordered them to be committed to prison for some time, and then to be beheaded: which sentence was executed on the 4th of November, A. D. 850.

Sources; Various writings on history.

Samuel Adams Concerning Big Government Loving Liberal Democrats

Samuel Adams concerning the Loss of Religious Liberty (Click to enlarge)

Samuel Adams concerning the Loss of Religious Liberty (Click to enlarge)

Words written September 16, 1771 by Samuel Adams; signed “Candidus”  Reworked by the editor to fit what is happening in the United States today. The same as it was in his time by enemies of the American people who with similar motives, worked against groups of Patriots then fighting to save the liberties of the people to pass onto their posterity.

When the Constitution of the United States was framed their were the Anti-Federalists (TeaParty), the Federalists (GOP) and the British Loyalists (Democrats).

“Let us ascribe Glory to God who has graciously vouchsafed to favor the Cause of America and of Mankind” ~ Samuel Adams to James Warren 1777

It has always been their [Big Government Loving Liberal Democrats] constant endeavor by all manner of arts to destroy [American Liberty]. Against this, they have discovered a unanimity, zeal and perseverance, worthy to be imitated by those who are embarked in the cause of American freedom.—It is by united councils, a steady zeal, and a manly fortitude, that the Citizens of the United States must expect to recover its violated rights and liberties. They have been actuated by a conscientious and a clear and determined sense of duty to God, their King, their country, and their latest posterity.

The evils which threaten this injured country, arise from the machinations of a few, very few discontented men false patriots who are sacrificing their country to the gratification of their own profit and ideology. It seems of late to have been the policy of these enemies of America to point their weapons against these groups only [Tea Party Patriots, Social Conservatives and Christians]; and artfully to draw off the attention of other citizens, and if possible to render those groups odious [extremely unpleasant; repulsive] to them, while it is suffering governmental vengeance for the sake of the common cause. But it is hoped that the citizens will be aware of this artifice [trickery, deceit].

At this juncture an attempt to subdue these groups to despotic power, is justly to be considered as an attempt to enslave the whole. The citizens “form one political body, of which each is a member.”—The liberties of the whole are invaded— It is therefore the interest of the whole to support each individual with all their weight and influence. Whoever seriously considers the matter, must perceive, that a dreadful stroke is aimed at the liberty of Americans: For the cause of one is the cause of all. If the IRS, EPA, DHS, HHS and other government agencies may lawfully deprive Christians, social conservatives and Tea Party Patriots of any of their Rights, it may deprive any or all the other citizens of their Rights; and nothing can so much encourage such attempts, as a mutual inattention to the interests of each other. To divide and thus to destroy, is the first political maxim in attacking those who are powerful by their association And when the slightest point touching the freedom of a single Citizen is agitated, I earnestly wish, that all the rest may with equal ardor support their brother or sister.

These are the generous sentiments of that celebrated writer, whom several have made feeble attempts to answer, but no one has yet done it.—May the American Citizens be upon their guard; and take care lest by a mutual inattention to the interest of each other, they at length become supine and careless of the grand cause of American Liberty, and finally fall a prey to the Merciless Hand Of Tyranny.

Copyright © 2010 – 2015 TeaPartyEdu http://teapartyedu.net Foundation Truths http://captainjamesdavis.net The Patriot Brotherhood @CaptainJDavis ™

VA Scandal Whistle Blower Reveals How Government Bureaucrats Empire Build & Grow Fiefdoms

Veterans Deserve Better!

VALogo

In an interview with Neal Cavuto: Whistle Blower Scott Davis Who at the request of the VA [Veterans Administration] office of Inspector General to confirm rumors or activity at the VA Health Eligibility Center (HEC) in Atlanta dealing with the destruction of 17,000 applications for VA healthcare. Davis Reveals the Big story is the Back Log of Over 600,000 Individual applications for VA Health Care as well as the 17,000 Health Benefit Applications Were Deliberately Destroyed by VA Union Employee Members. Davis adds “That’s shameful.” I agree!

When asked by Neal why the VA HEC would destroy the applications. Davis also Reveals White House Pressure For VA HEC to hit their numbers, you’ve heard a lot about the 14 day turn-around time for the hospitals, but what most people don’t know is, there’s a 5 day turn-around time for applications and if we don’t hit that 5 day turn-around time it effects performance goals for people in senoir leadership positions. Davis went on to say. “What happens is that we’re currently neglecting not only the right thing to do which is to process applications. Not delete them, we have a huge system integrity issue at VA. For example, the VA right now can’t even tell investigators what happened to those applications, because they can’t verify where they are, what happened to them, if they were deleted, why were they deleted and why were there was no paper record showing the justification for deleting those records.”

Neal said “We’ve asked for a statement from the VA on this, we’ve yet to get one…I’m trying to give them the benefit of the doubt here.” Neal went on to ask if the workers just got overwhelmed and dumped the applications in the trash. Davis responded: “I know there were suspect activities before I started working there in 2011, what I can tell you is there is so much pressure on the employees to get stuff done, so that management can meet goals…So what happens is instead of VA focusing on doing what’s right for our nations veterans, meaning taking time, processing each application diligently and appropriately, pressure is placed on front line employees to overwork themselves, rush through the application process to hit goals for members of management.”

Neal asked Davis if the goal was a dollar goal or to get the applications complete. Like to keep on top of it to make sure there were no delays or Keep on top of it and get rid of something that could hurt our numbers. Davis responded from what he had seen “it is based on a performance goal…What you find is there is extensive pressure placed on the staff…to focus our attention to applications that are based on specific campaigns coming out of Washington. For example; We actually put applications aside so we could focus on the ACA [Obamacare] applications that came in last summer. That’s wrong, we should focus on each veterans application as they come in, not because of special campaigns coming out of [Washington] D.C.”

When Neal remarked about the protections provided by federal law to whistle blowers.
Davis said also “I reached out to White House Deputy Chief of Staff Rob Nabors [one of Obama’s top advisers, who Obama put over analyzing VA problems] to share my concerns about the VA and to give Nabors a copy of my Whistle Blower Complaints. Somehow that correspondence & complaint was given to the very same management group at the HEC who was harassing me. Davis added: “I received an email from my current manager Sherry Williams saying ‘I’m contacting you on behalf of acting Secretary Gibson and Rob Nabors.’ I let the White House, Mr. Nabors, and Acting Secretary Gibson know this had happened. To this date they have taken No Action against Miss Williams.”

Davis went on to say “I contacted the Inspector General to let them know what Miss Williams had done, and keep in mind Miss Williams used to work for the Inspector General. Which makes it even more shameful. I was told by the Office that was Investigating the HEC, They could not address the issue that I had to call a Hot Line. When I called the Hot Line, the Hot Line told me to call the Office of Special Counsel. Now I did get a contact from the White House Counsel’s Office or [White House] Office of Special Counsel,.. and I use that name,.. and I contacted that Person to file a complaint. But, I want to be honest…The only reason I haven’t been fired today is because I have been working with Chairman Miller’s Team [Chairman Jeff Miller. House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs] as well as my Congressmen Tom Price and Senator Johnny Isaacson. If I did not have elected Officials working with me to address these issues, I would have easily been terminated a long time ago. Especially I would have to thank the team over at AJC [Atlanta Journal Constitution] that broke the article this weekend.”

Neal says “it seems the VA going years back, is overwhelmed and cannot handle the workload”
Whistle Blower Davis responded “I think if you allow the employees and the people who go to work everyday to service our nations veterans, the work will get done, the money is there, it’s over 160 Billion dollars in the [Federal] Budget. But you brought up a key point Neal, and that is, this goes back years, and that’s because the leaders in the VA, in particular VHA, the healthcare side have been in leadership at VA in many cases, some before I was even born at the start of their career at the VA”

Neal said it seemed like the lifelong bureaucrats at the VA seemed to jump through hoops in order to get those bonuses and make the numbers.” Scott Davis responded “I think a lot of managers did it to make the numbers to get the bonus, but also look at the influence of government. People in government don’t just do what they do for their bonuses….They also do it to Empire Build. The more you hit your numbers the more you can expand your department, you can expand your Fiefdom at VA as I like to call it. So for example in our department where we work. We brought in about 4 or 5 new GS-15 Positions. These are 130-150 thousand dollar a year positions, yet we haven’t done anything to bring in workers who can actually bring down the workload. That’s what a veteran wants. He or she wants their healthcare application processed, they don’t need another executive to stand around looking at other people doing the work.”

Neal asked, if there was any metric or was there some sort of quality [assurance] ..something like JD Power type award, or recognition, or bonus for behavior that would make things better for Vets?

Davis reveals: “I can tell you from the whistle blowers I have talked too, that work at VHA. Their account is, it was the Bonus Structure was more about Rewarding the Executives, and it Incentivised not fully disclosing Medical Needs of the Veterans. For example if people in Congress knew that veterans needed more medical care, they probably would have given us more money to send vets to mental health professionals, to send people to specialty care physicians. If you don’t disclose that information the veterans don’t get the monies they need for the care they deserve and have earned.”
Copyright © 2014 © 2015 TeaPartyEdu http://teapartyedu.net Foundation Truths http://captainjamesdavis.net The Patriot Brotherhood @CaptainJDavis

Sensible According to the Democrats

TheEducatorIgnorantSelfSeekingSo according to the Democrats the lives lost at Benghazi are not important because they were diplomats and they knew the risk.

The 100,000+ lives lost in Syria before the chemical attack were not as important as the 100’s of lives lost in the chemical attack.

The lives of the hundred children in the Syria chemical attack were only important because they were killed by chemicals instead of IED’s

The children killed at Sandy Hook and other schools were only important because they were outside their mothers womb

It’s okay that Muslims kill and terrorize Christians but it is not okay for anyone to say anything against Islam

It’s okay to put a crucifix in a bottle of pee and call it art, but it is not okay to depict Mohammed in a cartoon.

It is okay to persecute all Christians because of a few, yet it is not okay to paint Islam with a broad brush of hate filled rhetoric taught in Mosques

It is okay to maim and stone women in the name of Islam, honor killings, and Sharia law, but it is not okay for a Christian man to assume the traditional male role as head of the house in a family.

Sure,,,it all makes sense,,,doesn’t it?

Weird Weather in the United States evidence of Climate Change?

TempSwings

FREAKS OF NATURE IN THE U.S.

History now and then repeats itself in respect to long cold winters, as that through which we have recently passed. Several such winters are remembered in the annals of our State, and some far more rigorous than it was. In the winter of 1842-3, snow fell to the depth of two feet or more, and remained on the ground for many weeks, with the temperature ranging from 10 to 38 degrees below zero. For duration and continued cold it exceeded the famous “winter of the deep snow,” that of 1830-31. On the other hand, many strangely mild winters have been experienced in this latitude—that of 1889-90, as an instance, when, in January, snakes emerged from their hibernation, insects flitted about in the sunshine and farmers plowed up their old meadows.

But the most notable natural phenomena are the sporadic freaks very seldom, if ever, repeated. Of this class was the singular “dark day,” during the Revolutionary war. The sky was clear and the sun was not eclipsed by interposition of the moon; but the total obscuration of light— throughout the United States—commencing in the morning of May 19th, 1780—continued until the next morning. The sun shining brightly early in the day, seemed to set prematurely. The birds ceased their songs and disappeared in the woods; the barn-yard fowls flew up to their roosts; candles were lighted in the houses and all out-door work was suspended. The true cause of that mysterious darkness has never been satisfactorily explained. In this class of capricious processes of nature may be mentioned the “hurricanes” that in pioneer times swept with terrific force over the country—particularly in the southern portion of this State, leaving their course marked by streaks of prostrated trees, through the timbered regions, as if purposely cleared for railroad tracks. They are now, as “cyclones” or “tornadoes,” well understood, but none the less dreadful or dreaded. The earthquake of 1811-12 was another freakish caper of nature, fortunately not repeated, to the same extent, in this locality; but leaving us no assurance that it may not again occur. The appalling drout of 1820 that wilted and withered all vegetation and lowered the Mississippi so that at Alton, a man on horseback forded it; and the fearful overflows of 1844 which enabled a large steamboat to cross the American Bottom, starting from Main street in St. Louis, to the Illinois bluffs, are marked instances of the instability of our whimsical climate.

The most wonderful of all the sportive eccentricities of nature seen here—and not since repeated, but often described—was the “falling stars” in 1833. A short time after midnight on the morning of Nov. 13th of that year the display commenced. Myriads of meteors, igniting on coming in contact with the atmosphere, fell like a fiery snow storm, lighting the night with a weird brilliancy and continued until extinguished by the stronger light of the risen sun. A memorable meteorological freak was the “Cold Tuesday,” Dec. 20, 1836. A warm rain had fallen all day until about 2 o’clock in the afternoon, when a black cloud was seen in the northwest swiftly approaching, propelled by a piercing cold wind; within an hour the temperature fell 78 degrees—to 18 below zero—at once freezing solid the mud and water, and forming ice on the Illinois river thick enough to catch and hold the canoes of fishermen before they could reach the shore. But, perhaps, not since the glacial epoch, has the great ice sheet or sleet, of November, 1881, been paralleled in this State. The entire surface of the earth was literally encased in ice from one to three inches in thickness. Trees and shrubbery were broken and crushed by its weight; ice-coated twigs were cut weighing 20 pounds, that denuded [stripped] of the ice, weighed barely one pound.

One of the worst weather freaks of recent times—still remembered by many—was the “Big Frost” of 1863. July had been unusually warm, but as August advanced, the nights became quite cool, until on Sunday morning, the 23rd, the thermometer here registered but 27 degrees above zero, and frost covered the ground like snow. Its destruction of garden and field products was general and well nigh complete. Late corn was ruined or fit only for cow feed; sweet potatoes and melons were killed and Irish potatoes badly damaged, and, in some localities, peaches and apples almost mature were frozen on the trees.

The early settlers of southern Illinois raised sufficient tobacco and cotton for their domestic consumption and castor beans enough for export. Those crops—very sensitive to the action of frost—have been entirely abandoned in this State since the “Big Frost” of 1863. But that event, the “Cold Tuesday,” the “Great Sleet” and occasional winters of unusual severity, are only exceptional atmospheric freaks, of no value as proof that the climate has undergone any permanent change of average mean temperature since the first European settlement of this country.

Excerpt: Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society, Volume 5: By Illinois State Historical Society 1913
See also: CLIMATE CHANGE: UNITED STATES NOTICES OF REMARKABLY COLD WINTERS

CLIMATE CHANGE: UNITED STATES NOTICES OF REMARKABLY COLD WINTERS

Thomas Paine quotes taxes

Thomas Paine explains why there is now a great push for the Climate Change agenda and Carbon taxes (Click to enlarge)

 United States The “Real” Blizzard of 1888

Cold Winters in Philadelphia Pennsylvania and area, previous to 1790

Cold and Stormy Winters in Europe From A.D. 202 – 1841

History of Climate Change Hysteria and Fear Mongering

Weird Weather in the United States evidence of Climate Change?

I am adding these accounts from history, in light of the Climate Change and Global Warming Fear-Mongering and Hysteria by all the Democrats and leftist ideologues in the United States and elsewhere. Here are some stats from much earlier than the Climate Change computer models take into account, since the computer models and the so-called “experts” only use data from the last 100 years.

“We have had such a winter here as is not on record. The mercury was 18 1/2° below freezing on Reaumur’s scale, and I think it was nearly two months varying between that and zero. It gave occasion for a display of the benevolent character of this nation, which, great as I had thought it, went beyond my expectations. There seems to be a very general apprehension of the want of bread this spring. Supplies are hoped from our country, and indeed they have already reduced the price of flour at Bordeaux from 361 to 331 the barrel.”Thomas Jefferson to Count De Moustier. (Paris, March 1789)

 

It is so cold that the ink freezes in my pen, so that my letter will scarcely be legible. * * * In the winter of 1779-80, the mercury in Fahrenheit’s thermometer fell at Williamsburg once to six degrees above zero. In 1783-84, I was at Annapolis without a thermometer, and I do not know that there was one in that State; I heard from Virginia, that the mercury was again down to six degrees. In 1789-90, I was at Paris. The mercury here was as low as eighteen degrees below zero, of Fahrenheit. These have been the most remarkable cold winters ever known [by Europeans] in America. We are told however, that in 1762, at Philadelphia, it was twenty-two degrees below zero; in December. 1793, it was three degrees below zero there by my thermometer. On the 31st of January, 1796, it was one and three-fourth degrees above zero at Monticello. I shall, therefore, have to change the maximum of our cold, if ever I revise the Notes on Virginia; as six degrees above zero was the greatest which had ever been observed.—Thomas Jefferson to Mr. Volne; Jan., 1797

Notices of Remarkably Cold Winters in the United States Years 1717-1864: Defeating the Myth of Global Warming and Climate Change. Man Made Climate Change‬ is a Man Made Myth started by Charlatan’s to fool man-made fools into giving up their lifestyles, freedoms & money to Con men.

Great Plains Blizzard of 1948-49 Livestock froze on the hoof where they stood, and snow didn’t melt until June.

The winter of 1835 – 6, had, according to some, in the Eastern and Middle States, been one of the longest and severest of which we have any knowledge. There was a considerable fall of snow on the 23d of November; and from that time the sleighing continued in the vicinity of Boston, without being, at any time, entirely interrupted, till about the last of March; and in the interior of New England till the middle and in some parts till the last of April, or often later; nor did the snow in and about Boston entirely disappear till the 1st of May. The quantity of snow was very great; in some parts of the country it was four, and even five feet deep on a level.

See also: History of Climate Change Hysteria and Fear Mongering
Benjamin Franklin Concerning Record Snows in Pennsylvania

The quantity of snow was doubtless greater during the past winter, than it has been in any other winter since the year 1780. Persons who recollect the winter of 1779 – 80, represent not only the quantity of snow to have then been greater, but the cold also to have been more severe, than during the past winter. At that time accurate registers of the thermometer were so rare, that we have not the means of making a satisfactory comparison. In the vicinity of Boston, the number of days in which the thermometer fell to zero or below, was greater during the past winter than during any other winter of which we possess accurate thermometrical observations. The observations of Dr. Holyoke at Salem (which will be found noticed in the following pages, 174 and 175.) were commenced in 1786. Previous to that time thermometrical observations in this country were comparatively rare.

TempSwings

Notices are here given of some of the most remarkable winters for snow and cold, that have been known since the settlement of this country.

Notice of the “Great Snow” of February, 1717.

This snow storm is thus spoken of in the 5th volume of the First Series of the Mass. Hist. Coll. p. 209: —”In the ‘Boston News-Letter,’ there is an account of the snow which fell in Feb. 1717, commonly called the great snow, as it exceeded any ever known before or since.”

The “Boston News-Letter” of Feb. 26th, 1717, says: — “Besides several snows, we had a great one on Monday the 18th current; and, on Wednesday the 20th, it began to snow about noon, and continued snowing till Friday the 2?d, so that the snow lies in some parts of the streets about six feet high. The extremity of the weather has hindered all the three posts from coming in; neither can they be expected till the roads (now impassable by a mighty snow upon the ground) are beaten.”

In Dr. Holmes’s “History of Cambridge,” it is stated:—”The funeral of Mr. Brattle [minister of Cambridge] was attended on the 20th of February [1717] a day rendered memorable by the great snow. The principal magistrates and ministers of Boston and of the vicinity, assembled on this occasion, were necessarily detained at Cambridge by the snow for several days.”

In the 8th vol. Hist. Coll. page 176, it is mentioned with respect to the Rev. Samuel Treat, minister of Eastham, that, ” he died soon after the remarkable storm, distinguished in the annals of New England by the name of the great snow. The snow was heaped up in the road to an uncommon height. It was in vain to attempt making a path. His body was therefore kept several days, till an arch could be dug, through which it was borne to the grave.”

Dr. Harris in his “Chronological and Topographical Account of Dorchester,” has the following notice : — “1717, Feb. 24. — ‘Snow in drifts 25 feet dee ; in the woods a yard generally on a level.’ ”

In the “Boston News-Letter” of March 25th, it is stated ; — “The mail went on snow shoes. The carrier was 9 days in reaching Portsmouth, and 8 in returning: — 17 days in going 120 miles! He says that in the woods the snow is 5 feet deep, and in some places between 6 and 14 feet deep.”

John Winthrop of New London, in a letter to Dr. C. Mather, dated Sept. 12th, 1717, (see Hist. Coll. Vol. II. p. 13,) says, in relation to this snow : — ” The storm continued so long and severe, that multitudes of all sorts of creatures perished in the snow drifts. We lost, at the island and farms, above 1100 sheep, besides some cattle and horses interred in the snow. And it was very strange, that 28 days after the storm, the tenants at Fisher’s Island, pulling out the ruins of one hundred sheep, out of one snow-bank in a valley (where the snow had drifted over them 16 feet), found two of them alive in the drift, which had lain on them all that time, and kept themselves alive by eating the wool off the others, that lay dead by them. As soon as they were taken out of the drift, they shed their own fleeces ; and are now alive and fat.”

The Winter of 1740 – 41.

Dr. Noah Webster says:—”The winter of 1741 was of great severity. My father, who was a witness of the winter of 1741 and 1780, considered the cold of the former quite equal to that of 1he latter. But I have seen no thermometrical observations made in New England in the year 1741. By Mr. Jefferson’s observations in his ‘ Notes,’ it appears that the winter of 1780 was the most severe ; as in 1740 – 41, York River was not frozen over, whereas in 1780, the Chesapeake was-covered with solid ice from its head to the mouth of the Potomac. At Annapolis, where the bay is more than five miles wide, the ice was five inches thick.”

The following notices relating to this winter are extracted from the numbers of the “Boston News-Letter,” of the several dates given.— Jan. 22. “Last night and this day, we have a very great N. E. storm of wind and snow. The snow is higher than has been known among us since the vast snow we had on the 19th Feb. 1717.”

Feb. 12. — “On Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday last, we had here a great storm of snow and wind at the N. E., which has done a great deal of damage to man and beast; and ever since we have had the most severe season for cold, frost, and snow, that ever was known in the memory of the oldest man living here,”

March 5. — “We hear from Stratford, in Conn., that the Sound is frozen over, so that people ride every day from thence to Long Island, which is 3 leagues across, which was never known before.”

April 2.— From “Dorchester, March 28. — We have had the severest winter that has been known in the memory of the oldest among us. Our river has been so hard and so long frozen, that people from Thompson’s Island, Squantum, and the adjacent neighborhood, have come 15 sabbaths successively upon the ice to our meeting! We have had 30 distinct, settled snows.”

April 24. — “We whose names are underwritten, on the 1st day of this month [April] passed over the Connecticut River, from Hadley to Northampton, on the ice, in company with Dr. Porter, who had with him a large horse. We suppose the like has never been known in any age.”

According to Mr. Alonzo Lewis. ” A manuscript Journal, kept daily, for 44 years, by an inhabitant of Lynn, [Mass.] says, that the rivers were frozen in October; snow began to fall Thanksgiving day, Nov, 13ih, and on the 4th of April, it covered the fences.”

The Winter of 1770-1780.

The winter of 1770 – 80 is now often spoken of as one of extraordinary severity, and surpassing all that have yet succeeded it with respect to the quantity of snow. The depth of the snow was so great that almost all the roads in New England were closed for some weeks, and there was little or no travelling from one town to another except by the use of snow-shoes; and it has been stated with respect to various places in Massachusetts, that the snow did not melt so that any water dropped from the eaves of houses for the space of six weeks. The Boston Chronicle of January 28th, 1780, contains the following notice, dated Worcester, Jan. 28th. — “Travelling has not been so much obstructed by snow for forty years. Except on the great road from Boston to Hartford, all are filled, and no passing without snow-shoes.”

Registers of the thermometer were at that time rarely kept in this country; but from such statements as we have seen, it does not appear that the cold was so severe as it has been in some subsequent winters. We do not, however, possess the means of giving a satisfactory comparison. The following notice of this winter in Connecticut, together with the state of the thermometer from Jan. 1st to Feb. 5th, is given by Dr. Noah Webster.

“In the winter of 1770-80, the first snow-storm occurred about the 25th of November, and subsequent fills of snow raised it to the height of three or [In some other parts of New England the snow was considerably deeper] four feet upon a level. The wind for several weeks from the northwest, was cold, the snow was so dry and so continually driven by the wind, that no good path could be made; and travelling was almost impeded. I passed often half a mile on drifts as high as the fences. Farmers could do little else abroad than feed their cattle, and provide them with water. For about six weeks the cold was so intense, that no snow melted on the south side of buildings. The Sound between Long Island and the main was nearly all covered with ice between New York and Staten Island. Since that, as in 1788, the ice in the East River, has been passable for a footman for a few hours only at a time.— Almost all the birds of the forest perished. Here and there only a solitary warbler was heard the next summer.”

Thermometrical Observations made at Hartford, Conn., in 1780, at sunrise.

The following notices are extracted from a thermometrical register kept by President Stiles at Yale College: 1780, Jan. 23, — 3J; Jan. 29, —1; Feb. 6, (coldest) +6.

The following remarks of Mr. Jefferson are extracted from the 3d volume of his Works, page 343 : —“In the winter of 1779-80, the mercury in Fahrenheit’s thermometer fell at Williamsburg once to six degrees above zero. In 1783 – 84, I was at Annapolis without a thermometer, and I do not know that there was one in that State : I heard from Virginia, that the mercury was again down to six degrees. In 1789-90, I was at Paris. The mercury here was as low as eighteen degrees below zero, of Fahrenheit. These have been the most remarkably cold winters ever known in America. We are told, however, that in 1702, at Philadelphia, it was 22 degrees below zero: in December, 1793, it was 3 degrees below zero there by my thermometer. On the 31st of Jan., 1796, it was one. and three-fourth degrees above zero at Monticello. I shall therefore have to change the maximum of our cold, if ever I revise the Notes on Virginia; as six degrees above zero was the greatest which had ever been observed.

The Winter of 1798 – 9.

The following notice is extracted from the Columbian Centinel (Boston) of April 27th, 1799.

“The last winter has been one of the most inclement ever remembered. In Europe many men and cattle have frozen to death, particularly at the review of the Russian troops at Brinn, in December last; and the ice has obstructed the navigation of the northern seas and channels. The river Thames has been frozen over, and the roads in many parts of England rendered impassable.

“In America the winter set in seriously, early in November, and on Wednesday last, we experienced a severe snow-storm of several hours. The mail sleigh, from this town to Walpole, in New Hampshire, ran 18 weeks successively.”

THE storms of November, 1871, should not be regarded as belonging to the usual order of climatic experiences in Kansas. So great a degree of cold, so early in the season, has not heretofore been known, and is of rare occurrence in any of the winter months. A depression of temperature in Kansas severe enough to destroy life, occurring on the 18th of November, must be classed with those exceptional phenomena which at times spread suffering and destruction over large areas of the continent, and which are not peculiar to any part, but are inexplicable in all. “A great range of extremes,” says Blodgett, in his Climatology , “is one of the leading features of the climate of the Eastern United States.” We may add that it is likewise a feature of the climate of the Western States; and we may note here, as there, “the oscillations of temperature, atmospheric weight on the barometer, humidity, quantity of rain, wind, etc., passing through larger measures than in Europe, or on the West coast, as a constant and regular order of things.” “The leading element,” he continues, “about which all others are arranged, is temperature; and the low extremes of temperature have the greatest importance because of their relation to cultivation.” But these extremes are not peculiar to Kansas. In February, 1835, nearly the whole area of the Eastern United States was swept by a simultaneous refrigeration, reducing the temperature on an average fifty degrees below the mean for that month,—in Maine 65, in New York 60, and in Georgia 62 degrees; and it would be just as fair to measure the February climate of Maine,

New York and Georgia by the extraordinary weather of February, I835, as to measure the November climate of Kansas by the unprecedented weather of November, 1871.

Numerous instances of unusual depressions of temperature are given in Mr. Blodgett’s work, all of which, as he remarks, “are irregular in position and duration, and when severe, they occupy a large area.” Such great extremes as he cites “are rare, and they may not occur more than twice or three times in a century, yet they are within the probabilities of the climate,” and are shown to occur in an “absolutely non-periodic manner.”

Before the commencement of thermometric records, there are instances of great reductions of temperature in the winter months. In 1717 the “great snow” occurred, often mentioned in New England history. It continued from the 19th to the 24th of February, and was from five to six feet deep on a level at Boston, and over all the settled parts of New England. “Multitudes of all sorts of creatures perished in the drifts,” wrote John Winthrop in a letter to Dr. C. Mather, the cold was “so long and severe.” The winter of 1740-41 was distinguished both in America and Europe for intense cold. It was commonly called in the Colonies “the cold winter,” and was noted in Virginian history for extreme severity. In England the Thames was frozen over, and there was much suffering. The winters of 1748-49 and of 1765-66 were very severe at the South, destroying the fruit trees; and in the latter the olive trees were generally killed along the Rhone in France. Another severe winter in Louisiana was in 1768, and still another in 1772 . In 1780, “the most signal and severe depression of temperature occurred belonging to our entire history, except, perhaps, that of 1856.” Jefferson, in his Notes on Virginia, says: “In 1780, the Chesapeake Bay was frozen solid from its head to the mouth of the Potomac. At Annapolis, the ice was five to seven inches in thickness quite across, five and a half miles, so that loaded carriages went over it. York River was frozen over at Williamsport, so that people walked across it.” Dr. Webster speaks of an immense snow fall in New England, and states that for six weeks no snow melted. “The Sound was entirely covered with ice between Long Island and the main, and between New York and Staten Island.” Troops crossed on the ice from New York to attack the British forces on Staten Island. Hugh Gaines’s diary, under date of February 6th, 1780, says: “This day eighty-six sleighs went to Staten Island on the ice, with provisions for the troops.” According to Darby, “Bayou St. John (New Orleans) was frozen for a considerable time, a phenomenon that did not occur again until December, 1814,” a period of thirty-five years. The Delaware River was closed from the 1st of December, 1779, to the 14th of March following, the ice being two to three feet thick; during January the mercury was several times ten to fifteen degrees below zero, and only once during the month didn’t rise to thirty-two degrees.

The winter of 1783-4 was also severe at Philadelphia. The Delaware closed as early as November 28th, and continued ice-bound until the 18th of March; the mercury was several times below zero, reaching twelve degrees below. Dr. Noah Webster records at Hartford, Conn., the following temperatures: Feb 10th, 1784 -10 degrees, 11th -12 degrees, 12th -13 degrees, 13th -19 degrees, 14th -20 degrees, 15th -12 degrees, 16th -16 degrees, 17th -16 degrees. Averaging for 8 days 14 ¾ degrees below zero. Dr. Webster remarks: “This is the most extraordinary instance of intense cold that I have ever known.”

The winter of 1788 was severe in lower Georgia and the South; below Savannah the ground was frozen in January, and ice formed in ditches. At Philadelphia, “the whole winter was intensely cold; the Delaware was closed from the 26th of December to the 10th of March.” In 1790, an extreme degree of cold was observed at Quebec; the thermometer remaining from five to thirty-three degrees below zero from the 8th to the 13th of February. In 1796-97 the winter was severe, all the rivers of the West, according to Darby and Drake, being frozen up “the Mississippi and Ohio and their confluents were frozen to their junction.” Dr. Wilson observed the thermometer at 17° at Charleston, South Carolina, in December, 1796. In this month the mercury fell to 14 degrees below zero at Cincinnati; and on January 8th, I797, to 18 degrees below.

In 1800 the cold was more severe in the Southern States than it had been since 1780. Holmes, in Memoirs American Academy, says: “On January 10th, 1800, there fell at Savannah the deepest snow ever known in Georgia. By a letter from Midway, I am informed that snow has been three feet deep in places, and 16 to 18 inches deep on a level.” Snow and hail fell the whole day on January 10th, at St. Mary’s, Florida, and on the 11th the snow was five inches deep. Near Natchez the mercury went down to 12°. Daily speaks of severe storms of sleet and snow in Louisiana during 1800.

For a considerable period subsequent to 1800, there are no records of excessive cold in the winter months. There is no month from 1800 to 1828 in which the mean temperature at Salem, Massachusetts, falls more than a trifle below 20°, and the single readings below zero are so great as 10 degrees only in 1817, 1818, and 1821. But during this period the most remarkable depressions of temperature in the summer months known to all history of thermometric measurements occurred, between 1811 and 1817. The years 1812 and 1816 were the coldest, the reduction being continued over all the months in each year, in a greater or less measure, but of no considerable amount in winter. The records show a great reduction from the average of summer heat, especially, and both 1812 and 1816 are memorable for “cold summers” in all the Northern United States. Snows and frosts occurred in every month of both summers. Indian corn did not ripen, and fruits and grains of every sort were greatly reduced in quantity or wholly cut off. Prof. Dewey, at Williamstown, Massachusetts, remarks: “There was frost in every month of this summer (1816) ; on June 7th a light snow; very little Indian corn ripened.” Thompson’s History  of Vermont says: “It is universally conceded that the year 1816 was the coldest ever known in Vermont. Snow is said to have fallen and frosts to have occurred at some place in the State in every month of that year. On the 8th of June snow fell in all parts of the State, and upon the high lands and mountains to the depth of five or six inches. It was accompanied by a hard frost, and on the morning of the 9th ice was half an inch thick on shallow standing water, and icicles were to be seen a foot long. The weather continued so cold that several days elapsed before the snow disappeared. Corn and other vegetables were killed to the ground, and upon the high lands the leaves of the trees withered and fell off.” In England 1816 was almost as extreme as in the United States. Both 1812 and 1816 were “famine years” in England, and the latter equally so in France and Germany. Frost occurred at Philadelphia in July, 1816.

From 1816 to 1830 the cold extremes were less important, though some very severe local depressions occurred. In February, 1818, various laurarea, the Sassafras and others, were killed, in Ohio. At Marietta the mercury fell to 22° below zero; peach trees were killed; and not again till 1852, and the still more severe cold of 1856, was there similar injury to forest and fruit trees in that State. At New York, the winter of 1820-21 was “one of the four during a century in which the Hudson River between Paulus Hook and New York was crossed on the ice.”

In the winter of 1830-31 the greatest refrigeration was at the North-west. Single readings of the thermometer during each of the three months were 20, 24 and 26 degrees below zero at the military posts of Wisconsin. The monthly means were to degrees below the average for January and February, 1831, at St. Louis. In Florida this was a severe winter also.

At the close of 1831 a severe and widespread depression of temperature occurred. The month of December was 15 degrees below its average at the North-west, and also from St. Louis to New York and Norfolk. At New Orleans it was 9 degrees below the average. Of this winter Dr. Hildreth says: “The Mississippi was frozen over in December for 130 miles below the mouth of the Ohio, a circumstance before unknown. The river was also covered with floating ice below Natchez, and at New Orleans ice was formed strong enough to skate on.” At Fayetteville, Vermont, “ it was colder than any other month in the last half century.“ (Field)

In 1835 a destructive severity of cold occurred over many of the States. In the South tropical fruits were cut off, which had been uninjured for half a century. In the Eastern and Northern States the first severe cold was in January—“ when the mercury froze at Lebanon, New York.” At Marietta, Ohio, “the lowest temperature in January was 20 degrees below zero.” (Hildreth) This cold extended to Washington, where it was 16 degrees below zero, but did not reach the Gulf coast or the larger portion of the valley of the Mississippi. In February the greatest depression was south and west of the first area, though it was nearly as great at the east and north as in January. Nearly all the surface of the United States as then observed, or all that east of the Great Plains, was below zero on February 8th, 1835; Natchez at the South-west and Savannah on the Atlantic coast being the limits, though a large inland area of the north of Florida was also below zero, its limits there being about the 29th parallel. In many parts of New England snow remained from December until May. At Washington snow lasted two months, a very rare occurrence. Long Island Sound was closed by ice, and the Boston harbor was nearly closed. The cold was greatest in February, and the weather continued severe through March and April.

In the winter of 1845-46 another general depression of temperature occurred, and, as in many other cases, it was severest at the South. In Georgia it was considered second only to that of 1835. There was snow in Mississippi and ice in New Orleans. December was the coldest month, and the mean was 6 to [0 degrees below the average over the entire coast of the Gulf.

The winter of 1851—52 was 3 to 8 degrees below zero in each month in the Eastern States, but not so at the West, where it was on the whole warmer than usual. In the Central and Southern States, January was 6 to IO degrees below the average, with damaging effects on the vegetation. The Susquehanna was frozen over at Havre de Grace for seven weeks, and the Potomac at Washington for three weeks. Snow fell in New Orleans and remained several days. Snow fell at Charleston, S. C., and Jacksonville, Fla., through the entire day on 13th January; and also at Matamoras and Tampico, Mexico, on the 14th. The East River at New York was closed, and was crossed on the ice on the 20th, and for three days following. Dr. Hildreth cites temperatures in the Muskingum Valley, Ohio, 30 degrees below zero, with destruction of native kalmias and rhododendrons; also the pyrus japonica and other shrubs. Thick ice was formed at Charleston from 13th to 20th of January. . ‘

In 1853-54 severe cold occurred, which was spread over a large area, occurring in ‘the interior and on the Pacific‘ coast, and also in England. At Fort Snelling, the thermometer fell to the freezing point of mercury. The reporting officer at Fort Ripley, latitude 46″ 19’, and 1130 feet above the sea, gives the lowest extreme at 50° below zero, and says: “ The mercury receded entirely into the bulb of the thermometer, and fifty grains placed in a charcoal cup were completely frozen.” At Fort Gibson the thermometer was 1° above zero, at Fort Tuson 3° below; at Santa Fe 6°, and at Fort Defiance, N. M., 20° below; at Fort Kearney 16”, and Fort Laramie 21° below. “ In England the thermometer fell to 4’‘ below zero on the 1st of January, and, as in the United States, storms of excessive severity continued for most of the month. It is noticeable that the cold there was nearly simultaneous with that in the United States, even to the Pacific coast.” (Blodgett.)

In the winter of 1855-56, “a still more severe degree of refrigeration occurred, which was central to the middle latitudes of the United States, disappearing at the north at about the 46th parallel. This was a reproduction of the winter of 1780 more nearly than any other, both in degree and in position. The district of the great lakes was but little affected, and the line of the greatest severity was at the 35th to the 38th parallels. The tropical coasts of Central America were in some degree influenced, apparently rendering the winter a stormy season instead of one of the usual calmness.” Mr. Blodgett gives the following citations :

Washington, Jan. 10, 1856 …. -10° below zero.
Philadelphia, Jan. 10, 1856…. -7° below zero.
Pittsburgh, Jan. 9, 1856….  -18° below zero.
St. Louis, Jan. 9, 1856…. -18° below zero.
Chicago, Jan. 10, I856…. -30° below zero.
Fort Snelling, Jan. 9, 1856 …. -26° below zero.
For! Gibson, Jan. 29, 1856 …. -15° below zero.

“The severity of the cold,” says Mr. Blodgett, “continued nearly three months, and in both the months following the dates given the extremes of temperature fell nearly as low as those cited. Snow remained in large quantity at Washington from the first of January to the middle of March; ice covered the Potomac for the same period; Chesapeake Bay at Annapolis was closed from January 8th to March 14th; the harbors of Baltimore and Philadelphia were closed until late in March; Long Island Sound was closed to navigation from January 25th to February 27th; and the harbor of New York was; much obstructed by ice, which several times made temporary connection across East River. The Western rivers were equally obstructed by ice, and it formed in the Mississippi as low as Vicksburg Mississippi, floating in vast quantities below Natchez. At all points in Louisiana ice formed for weeks, and some places had heavy falls of snow. It was the same in all places bordering the Gulf.”

So far we have compiled from the valuable work of Mr. Blodgett, published in 1857. All who remember the winter of 1855-56 will recognize the truth of his remark, that “An almost instantaneous refrigeration had fallen: on all the United States east of the: Rocky Mountains on the 23d and 24th: of December, giving the sharpest extremes very soon after this date in Texas, and prolonging its effects at the north and east.” During that remark— able winter the ice in the Mississippi at St. Louis attained such strength that a large steam fire-engine, nearly as heavy as a locomotive, was crossed on it. The ice remained several weeks.

The year 1864. opened with a remarkable degree of cold in many localities. From the records of the Department of Agriculture, we get the following measures of temperature for the first of January 1864: Kelley’s Island, Ohio, 11°; Cincinnati, Ohio, 12°; Ann Arbor, Mich., 22°; New Albany, Ind., 10°; South Bend, Ind., 20 degrees; Ottawa, Ill., 25°; Galesburg, Ill., 23°; Pekin, Ill., 20°; St. Paul, Miss., 35°; Debuque, Iowa, 29°; St Louis, Missouri, 22°; Lawrence, Kan., 17°; Fort Riley, Kan., 12°:

Later in January, 1844, a depression of -26° below zero was reached in the State of New York, and about the same in Northern Illinois and Wisconsin. But the latter part of January showed a high temperature over a large area. Although the 1st day of the month had been cold enough to kill peach trees in St. Louis county, Missouri, yet on the 27th the mercury stood at 71°; the snow had disappeared, and the ground in gardens could be spaded, ready for spring planting. On the 27th the thermometer marked 69° at Lawrence and Fort Riley, in Kansas, and 53° at Bellevue, Nebraska. In February, 1864, the mercury fell below zero in several of the States on the 17th, 18th, and 19th; but in Missouri, Kansas and Nebraska the cold was so intense as in the other States; the lowest record being 10 degrees below zero at Harrisonville, Missouri, 2 degrees below zero at Bellevue, Nebraska, and 9° above zero at Fort Riley.

The Kansas mean temperature for the month 5° higher than in Illinois, and nearly 1° higher than in Missouri. The figures previously given for the 1st day of January show that the thermometer fell 5° lower in Missouri on that day than in Lawrence, and 10° lower than at Fort Riley. There are no records at hand for points in the Plains west of Fort Riley, which would probably show a still less degree of cold.

A record cold wave settled in over the Northern Virginia, Maryland region. Records set in Maryland during this period remain to the present day. It was close, but not quite cold enough to break the records in Virginia set during the February 1899 “Great Arctic Outbreak”. The cold wave of 1912 hit on January 5 and continued until February 16. It was one of the most severe and longest in duration on record. Ice formed on the rivers and the Chesapeake Bay. On January 13, Oakland in far western Maryland recorded the state’s all time record low temperature of -40°F. In Washington, DC, it reached -8°F. On the 14th, College Park reported -26°F, Hagerstown -27°F, Frederick -21°F, Laurel -19°F, Baltimore -2°F and Washington, DC -13°F. The coldest temperatures in Virginia were -25° at Lincoln (Loudoun County) and Dale Enterprises near Harrisonburg. Fredericksburg was -11°F and Culpeper fell to -20°F. In the Eastern West Virginia Panhandle, temperatures ranged from -14° at Lost City in Hardy County to -30° at Bayard in Grant County.

Sources:
Loudonhistory.org
The American Almanac and Repository of Useful Knowledge for the Year 1837; (by Jared Sparks, Johann Schobert, Francis Bowen, George Partridge Sanger)
The Kansas Magazine, Volume 1 January to June 1872; Entered by Act of Congress into Library of Congress 1872

Copyright © 2010 – 2015 TeaPartyEdu http://teapartyedu.net Foundation Truths http://captainjamesdavis.net The Patriot Brotherhood @CaptainJDavis ™

Colloquial Powers of Dr. Benjamin Franklin; by William Wirt

BenjaminFranklinQuotesQuarreledReligion

I thought I would share this in light of the so-called “record” snow-fall in the United States this year.

Colloquial Powers of Dr. Benjamin Franklin; by William Wirt (1772 – 1834) Former U.S. Attorney General

Never have I known such a fireside companion as he was!—Great as he was, both as a statesman and a philosopher, he never shone in a light more winning than when he was seen in a domestic circle. It was once my good fortune to pass two or three weeks with him, at the house of a private gentleman, in the back part of Pennsylvania; and we were confined to the house during the whole of that time, by the unintermitting [unceasing, non-stop] constancy and depth of the snows. But confinement could never be felt where Franklin was an inmate.—His cheerfulness and his colloquial powers spread around him a perpetual spring.—When I speak, however, of his colloquial powers, I do not mean to awaken any notion analogous to that which Boswell has given us, when he so frequently mentions the colloquial powers of Dr. Johnson. The conversation of the latter continually reminds one of “the pomp and circumstance of glorious war.” It was, indeed, a perpetual contest for victory, or an arbitrary and despotic exaction of homage to his superior talents. It was strong, acute, prompt, splendid and vociferous; as loud, stormy, and sublime, as those winds which he represents as shaking the Hebrides, and rocking the old castles that frowned upon the dark rolling sea beneath. But one gets tired of storms, however sublime they may be, and longs for the more orderly current of nature of Franklin no one ever became tired. There was no ambition of eloquence, no effort to shine, in any thing which came from him. There was nothing which made any demand either upon your allegiance or your admiration.

His manner was as unaffected as infancy. It was nature’s self. He talked like an old patriarch; and his plainness and simplicity put you, at once, at your ease, and gave you the full and free possession and use of all your faculties.

His thoughts were of a character to shine by their own light, without any adventitious aid. They required only a medium of vision like his pure and simple style, to exhibit, to the highest advantage, their native radiance and beauty. His cheerfulness was unremitting. It seemed to be as much the effect of the systematic and salutary exercise of the mind as of its superior organization. His wit was of the first order. It did not show itself merely in occasional coruscation’s; but, without any effort or force on his part, it shed a constant stream of the purest light over the whole of his discourse. Whether in the company of commons or nobles, he was always the same plain man; always most perfectly at his ease, his faculties in full play, and the full orbit of his genius forever clear and unclouded. And then the stores of his mind were inexhaustible. He had commenced life with an attention so vigilant, that nothing had escaped his observation, and a judgment so solid, that every incident was turned to advantage. .His youth had not been wasted in idleness, nor overcast by intemperance. He had been all his life a close and deep reader, as well as thinker; and, by the force of his own powers, had wrought up the raw materials, which he had gathered from books, with such exquisite skill and felicity, that he had added a hundred fold to their original value, and justly made them his own.

What Measures are actually taken by wicked and desperate Ministers to ruin and enslave their Country

Thomas Paine quote Politicians

NOTE: My comments in brackets […] and italics.

Cato Letters No. 17: Saturday, February 18, 1721; What Measures are actually taken by wicked and desperate Ministers to ruin and enslave their Country. by John Trenchard

Sir,

As under the best princes, and the best servants to princes alone, it is safe to speak what is true of the worst; so, according to my former promise to the public, I shall take the advantage of our excellent King’s most gentle government, and the virtuous administration of an uncorrupt ministry, to warn mankind against the mischiefs which may hereafter be dreaded from corrupt ones. It is too true, that every country in the world has sometimes groaned under that heavy misfortune, and our own as much as any; though I cannot allow it to be true, what Monsieur de Witt has long since observed, that the English court has always been the most thievish court in Europe.

Few men have been desperate enough to attack openly, and barefaced, the liberties of a free people. Such avowed conspirators can rarely succeed: The attempt would destroy itself. Even when the enterprise is begun and visible, the end must be hid, or denied. It is the business and policy of traitors, so to disguise their treason with plausible names, and so to recommend it with popular and bewitching colors, that they themselves shall be adored, while their work is detested, and yet carried on by those that detest it.

Thus one nation has been surrendered to another under the fair name of mutual alliance: The fortresses of a nation have been given up, or attempted to be given up, under the frugal notion of saving charges to a nation; and commonwealths have been trepanned into slavery, by troops raised or increased to defend them from slavery.

It may therefore be of service to the world, to shew what measures have been taken by corrupt ministers, in some of our neighboring countries, to ruin and enslave the people over whom they presided; to shew by what steps and gradations of mischief nations have been undone, and consequently what methods may be hereafter taken to undo others: And this subject I rather choose, because my countrymen may be the more sensible of, and know how to value the inestimable blessing of living under the best prince, and the best established government in the universe, where we have none of these things to fear.

Such traitors will probably endeavor first to get their prince [the majority of the people] into their possession, and, like Sejanus, shut him up in a little island, or perhaps make him a prisoner in his court; whilst, with full range, they devour his dominions, and plunder his subjects. When he is thus secluded from the access of his friends, and the knowledge of his affairs, he must be content with such misrepresentations as they shall find expedient to give him. False cases will be stated, to justify wicked counsel; wicked counsel will be given, to procure unjust orders. He [The people] will be made to mistake his foes for his friends, his friends for his foes; and to believe that his their affairs are in the highest prosperity, when they are in the greatest distress; and that public matters go on in the greatest harmony, when they are in the utmost confusion.

They will be ever contriving and forming wicked and dangerous projects, to make the people poor, and themselves rich; well knowing that dominion follows property; that where there are wealth and power, there will be always crowds of servile dependents; and that, on the contrary, poverty dejects the mind, fashions it to slavery, and renders it unequal to any generous undertaking, and incapable of opposing any bold usurpation. They will squander away the public money in wanton presents to minions, and their creatures of pleasure or of burden, or in pensions to mercenary and worthless men and women, for vile ends and traitorous purposes. [They are doing this today with the National Debt]

They will engage their country in ridiculous, expensive, fantastical wars, to keep the minds of men in continual hurry and agitation, and under constant fears and alarms; and, by such means, deprive them both of leisure and inclination to look into public miscarriages. Men, on the contrary, will, instead of such inspection, be disposed to fall into all measures offered, seemingly, for their defence, and will agree to every wild demand made by those who are betraying them. [They do not only do this with wars these days; they use all manner of manufactured crisis also]

When they have served their ends by such wars, or have other motives to make peace, they will have no view to the public interest; but will often, to procure such peace, deliver up the strong-holds of their country, or its colonies for trade, to open enemies, suspected friends, or dangerous neighbors, that they may not be interrupted in their domestic designs. [We see all this also happening today]

They will create parties in the commonwealth, or keep them up where they already are; and, by playing them by turns upon each other, will rule both. By making the Guelfs afraid of the Ghibelines, and these afraid of the Guelfs, they will make themselves the mediums and balance between the two factions; and both factions, in their turns, the props of their authority, and the instruments of their designs. [This is talking about class warfare, racial divisions, i.e. strife among the people against each other]

They will not suffer any men, who have once tasted of authority, though personally their enemies, and whose posts they enjoy, to be called to an account for past crimes, though ever so enormous. They will make no such precedents for their own punishment; nor censure treason, which they intend to commit. On the contrary, they will form new conspiracies, and invent new fences for their own impunity and protection; and endeavor to engage such numbers in their guilt, as to set themselves above all fear of punishment. [Benghazi, DOJ, NSA, IRS, AP, James Rosen; Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, IRS Commissioners, Lois Lerner. This is all happening today]

They will prefer worthless and wicked men, and not suffer a man of knowledge or honesty to come near them, or enjoy a post under them. They will disgrace men of virtue, and ridicule virtue itself, and laugh at public spirit. They will put men into employments, without any regard to the qualifications for those employments, or indeed to any qualifications at all, but as they contribute to their designs, and shew a stupid alacrity to do what they are bid. They must be either fools or beggars; either void of capacity to discover their intrigues, or of credit and inclination to disappoint them. [We see this happening with the political leadership against the members of the Tea Party]

They will promote luxury, idleness, and expense, and a general deprivation of manners, by their own example, as well as by connivance [immoral or illegal act] and public encouragement. This will not only divert men’s thoughts from examining their behavior and politics, but likewise let them loose from all the restraints of private and public virtue. From immorality and excesses they will fall into necessity; and from thence into a servile dependence upon power.

In order to this, they will bring into fashion gaming, drunkenness, gluttony, and profuse and costly dress. They will debauch their country with foreign vices, and foreign instruments of vicious pleasures; and will contrive and encourage public revels, nightly disguises, and debauched mummeries [mummeries i.e. A pretentious or hypocritical show or ceremony.]

They will, by all practicable means of oppression, provoke the people to disaffection [hate, anger]; and then make that disaffection an argument for new oppression, for not trusting them any further, and for keeping up troops; and, in fine, for depriving them of liberties and privileges, to which they are entitled by their birth, and the laws of their country.

If such measures should ever be taken in any free country, where the people choose deputies to represent them, then they will endeavor to bribe the electors in the choice of their representatives, and so to get a council of their own creatures; and where they cannot succeed with the electors, they will endeavor to corrupt the deputies after they are chosen, with the money given for the public defence; and to draw into the perpetration of their crimes those very men, from whom the betrayed people expect the redress of their grievances, and the punishment of those crimes. And when they have thus made the representatives of the people afraid of the people, and the people afraid of their representatives; then they will endeavor to persuade those deputies to seize the government to themselves, and not to trust their principals any longer with the power of resenting their treachery and ill-usage, and of sending honester and wiser men in their room.

But if the constitution should be so stubbornly framed, that it will still preserve itself and the people’s liberties, in spite of all villainous contrivances [a thing that is created skillfully and inventively to serve a particular purpose] to destroy both; then must the constitution itself be attacked and broken, because it will not bend. There must be an endeavor, under some pretense of public good, to alter a balance of the government, and to get it into the sole power of their creatures, and of such who will have constantly an interest distinct from that of the body of the people. [We see Obama and the Democrat party doing this, in trying to get the majority back in the House of Representatives like they had in the first two years of his presidency, when they forced Obamacare on US]

But if all these schemes for the ruin of the public, and their own impunity, should fail them; and the worthy patriots of a free country should prove obstinate in defence of their country, and resolve to call its betrayers to a strict account; there is then but one thing left for such traitors to do; namely, to veer about, and, by joining with the [United Nations] enemy of their prince [the people] and country, complete their treason.

I have somewhere read of a favorite and first minister to a neighboring prince, long since dead, who played his part so well, that, though he had, by his evil counsels, raised a rebellion, and a contest for the crown; yet he preserved himself a resource, whoever got the better: If his old master succeeded, then this Achitophel, by the help of a baffled rebellion, ever favorable to princes, had the glory of fixing his master in absolute power: But, as his brave rival got the day, Achitophel had the merit of betraying his old master to plead; and was accordingly taken into favor.

Happy therefore, thrice happy, are we, who can be unconcerned spectators of the miseries which the greatest part of Europe is reduced to suffer, having lost their liberties by the intrigues and wickedness of those whom they trusted; whilst we continue in full enjoyment of ours, and can be in no danger of losing them, while we have so excellent a King, assisted and obeyed by so wise a Parliament.

T. I am, &c.

Hungarian President Louis Kossuth Concerning the Centralization of Power

LouisKossuthLajos Kossuth, [aka Louis] the Hungarian political reformer and leader of the 1848-1849 revolution for Hungarian independence, was one of the greatest statesmen and orators of the mid 19th century. He was a prominent figure, well known in the United States and Europe for his leadership of the democratic forces who sought Hungarian independence from Austrian domination. During his exile, [See the rest of his bio below speech] he toured the United States in 1851-1852, American journalist Horace Greeley said of Kossuth: “Among the orators, patriots, statesmen, exiles, he has, living or dead, no superior.”

Speech at a Washington Banquet, Jan. 6th, 1852, The Banquet given by a large number of the Members of the two Houses of Congress to Kossuth took place at the National Hotel, in Washington City. The number present was about two hundred and fifty. The Hon. Wm. R. King, of Alabama, president of the Senate, presided. On his right sat Louis Kossuth, and on his left the Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State. On the right of Kossuth1 at the same table, sat the Hon. Linn Boyd, speaker” of the House of Representatives. Besides other distinguished guests who responded to toasts, are named Hon. Thomas Corwin, Secretary of the Treasury, and Hon. Alex. H. H. Stuart, Secretary of the Interior. Also in attendance were Judge Wayne, of the Supreme Court of the United States; Mr. Stanton, of Tennessee; General Shields, Senator for Illinois, Chairman of the Committee of Military Affairs in the Senate; and many other dignitaries of the United States.

NOVELTIES IN AMERICAN REPUBLICANISM

Sir, though I have a noble pride in my principles, and the inspiration of a just cause, still I have also the consciousness of my personal insignificance. Never will I forget what is due from me to the Sovereign Source [referring to the Hungarian people] of my public capacity. This I owe to my nation’s dignity; and therefore, respectfully thanking this highly distinguished assembly in my country’s name, I have the boldness to say that Hungary well deserves your sympathy; that Hungary has a claim to protection, because it has a claim to justice. But as to myself, I am well aware that in all these honours I have no personal share. Nay, I know that even that which might seem to be personal in your toast, is only an acknowledgment of a historical fact, very instructively connected with a principle valuable and dear to every republican heart in the United States of America. As to ambition, I indeed never was able to understand how anybody can love ambition more than liberty. But I am glad to state a historical fact, as a principal demonstration of that influence which institutions exercise upon the character of nations.

We Hungarians are very fond of the principle of municipal self-government, and we have a natural horror against centralization. That fond attachment to municipal self-government, without which there is no provincial freedom possible, is a fundamental feature of our national character. We brought it with us from far Asia a “thousand years ago, and we preserved it throughout the vicissitudes of ten centuries. No nation has perhaps so much struggled and suffered for the civilized Christian world as we. We do not complain of this lot. It may be heavy, but it is not inglorious. Where the cradle of our Saviour stood, and where His divine doctrine was founded, there now another faith rules: the whole of Europe’s armed pilgrimage could not avert this fate from that sacred spot, nor stop the rushing waves of Islamism from absorbing the Christian empire of Constantine. We stopped those rushing waves. The breast of my nation proved a breakwater to them. We guarded Christendom, that Luthers and Calvins might reform it. It was a dangerous time, and its dangers often placed the confidence of all my nation into one man’s hand. But there was not a single instance in our history where a man honoured by his people’s confidence deceived them for his own ambition. The man out of whom Russian diplomacy succeeded in making a murderer of his nation’s hopes, gained some victories when victories were the chief necessity of the moment, and at the head of an army, circumstances gave him the ability to ruin his country; but he never had the people’s confidence. So even he is no contradiction to the historical truth, that no Hungarian whom his nation honoured with its confidence was ever seduced by ambition to become dangerous to his country’s liberty. That is a remarkable fact, and yet it is not accidental; it springs from the proper influence of institutions upon the national character. Our nation, through all its history, was educated in the school of local self-government; and in such a country, grasping ambition having no field, has no place in man’s character.

The truth of this doctrine becomes yet more illustrated by a quite contrary historical fact in France. Whatever have been the changes of government in that great country—and many they have been, to be sure—we have seen a Convention, a Directorate, Consuls, and one Consul, and an Emperor, and the Restoration, and the Citizen King, and the Republic; through all these different experiments centralization was the keynote of the institutions of France—power always centralized; omnipotence always vested somewhere. And, remarkable indeed, France has never yet raised one single man to the seat of power, who has not sacrificed his country’s freedom to his personal ambition!

It is sorrowful indeed, but it is natural. It is in the garden of centralization that the venomous plant of ambition thrives. I dare confidently affirm, that in your great country there exists not a single man through whose brains has ever passed the thought, that he would wish to raise the seat of his ambition upon the ruins of your country’s liberty, if he could. Such a wish is impossible in the United States. Institutions react upon the character of nations. He who sows wind will reap storm. History is the revelation of Providence. The Almighty rules by eternal laws not only the material but also the moral world; and as every law is a principle, so every principle is a law. Men as well as nations are endowed with free-will to choose a principle, but, that once chosen, the consequences must be accepted. , With self-government is freedom, and with freedom is justice and patriotism. With centralization is ambition, and with ambition dwells despotism. Happy your great country, sir, for being so warmly attached to that great principle of self-government. Upon this foundation your fathers raised a home to freedom more glorious than the world has ever seen. Upon this foundation you have developed it to a living wonder of the world. Happy your great country, sir! that it was selected by the blessing of the Lord to prove the glorious practicability of a federative union of many sovereign States, all preserving their State-rights and their self-government, and yet united in one—every star beaming with its own lustre, but altogether one constellation on mankind’s canopy.

Upon this foundation your free country has grown to a prodigious power in a surprisingly brief period, a power which attracts by its fundamental principle. You have conquered by it more in seventy-five years than Rome by arms in centuries. Your principles will conquer the world. By the glorious example of your freedom, welfare, and security, mankind is about to become conscious of its aim. The lesson you give to humanity will not be lost. The respect for State-rights in the Federal Government of America, and in its several States, will become an instructive example for universal toleration, forbearance, and justice to the future States, and Republics of Europe. Upon this basis those mischievous questions of language-nationalities will be got rid of, which cunning despotism has raised in Europe to murder liberty. Smaller States will find security in the principle of federative union, while they will preserve their national freedom by the principle of sovereign self-government; and while larger States, abdicating the principle of centralization, will cease to be a blood-field to unscrupulous usurpation and a tool to the ambition of wicked men, municipal institutions will ensure the development of local elements; freedom, formerly an abstract political theory, will be brought to every municipal hearth; and out of the welfare and contentment of all parts will flow happiness, peace, and security for the whole.

That is my confident hope. Then will the fluctuations of Germany’s fate at once subside. It will become the heart of Europe, not by melting North Germany into a Southern frame, or the South into a Northern; not by absorbing historical peculiarities into a centralized omnipotence; not by mixing all in one State, but by federating several sovereign States into a Union like yours.

Upon a similar basis will take place, the national regeneration of Slavonic States, and not upon the sacrilegious idea of Panslavism [a political and cultural movement originally emphasizing the cultural ties between the Slavic peoples but later associated with Russian expansionism], which means the omnipotence of the Czar. Upon a similar basis shall we see fair Italy independent and free. Not unity, but union will and must become the watchword of national members, hitherto torn rudely asunder by provincial rivalries, out of which a crowd of despots and common servitude arose. In truth it will be a noble joy to your great Republic to feel that the moral influence of your glorious example has worked this happy development in mankind’s destiny; nor have I the slightest doubt of the efficacy of that example.

But there is one thing indispensable to it, without which there is no hope for this happy issue. It is, that the oppressed nations of Europe become the masters of their future, free to regulate their own domestic concerns. And to this nothing is wanted but to have that “fair play” to all, for all, which you, sir, in your toast, were pleased to pronounce as a right of my nation, alike sanctioned by the law of nations as by the dictates of eternal justice. Without this “fair play” there is no hope for Europe—no hope of seeing your principles spread.

Yours is a happy country, gentlemen. You had more than fair play. You had active and effectual aid from Europe in your struggle for independence, which, once achieved, you used so wisely as to become a prodigy of freedom and welfare, and a lesson of life to nations.

But we in Europe—we, unhappily, have no such fair play. With us, against every pulsation of liberty all despots are united in a common league; and you may be sure that despots will never yield to the moral influence of your great example. They hate the very existence of this example. It is the sorrow of their thoughts, and the incubus of their dreams. To stop its moral influence abroad, and to check its spread at home, is what they wish, instead of yielding to its influence.

We shall have no fair play. The Cossack already rules, by Louis Napoleon’s usurpation, to the very borders of the Atlantic Ocean. One of your great statesmen—now, to my deep sorrow, bound to the sick bed of far advanced age [Henry Clay]— (alas! that I am deprived of the advice which his wisdom could have imparted to me)—your great statesman told the world thirty years ago that Paris was transferred to St. Petersburg. What would he now say, when St. Petersburg is transferred to Paris, and Europe is but an appendage to Russia?

Alas! Europe can no longer secure to Europe fair play. England only remains; but even England casts a sorrowful glance over the waves. Still, we will stand our ground, “sink or swim, live or die.” You know the word; it is your own. We will follow it; it will be a bloody path to tread. Despots have conspired against the world. Terror spreads over Europe, and persecutes by way of anticipation. From Paris to Pesth [Pesth; Budapest The capital and largest city of Hungary] there is a gloomy silence, like the silence of nature before the terrors of a hurricane. It is a sensible silence, disturbed only by the thousandfold rattling of muskets by which Napoleon prepares to crush the people who gave him a home when he was an exile, and by the groans of new martyrs in Sicily, Milan, Vienna, and Pesth. The very sympathy which I met in England, and was expected to meet here, throws my sisters into the dungeons of Austria. Well, God’s will be done! The heart may break, but duty will be done. We will stand our place, though to us in Europe there be no “fair play.” But so much I hope, that no just man on earth can charge me with unbecoming arrogance, when here, on this soil of freedom, I kneel down and raise my prayer to God: “Almighty Father of Humanity, will thy merciful arm not raise up a power on earth to protect the law of nations when there are so many to violate it?” It is a prayer and nothing else. What would remain to the oppressed if they were not even permitted to pray? The rest is in the hand of God.

Sir, I most fervently thank you for the acknowledgment that my country has proved worthy to be free. Yes, gentlemen, I feel proud at my nation’s character, heroism, love of freedom and vitality; and I bow with reverential awe before the decree of Providence which has placed my country into a position such that, without its restoration to independence, there is no possibility for freedom and independence of nations on the European continent. Even what now in France is coming to pass proves the truth of this. Every disappointed hope with which Europe looked towards France is a decree more added to the importance of Hungary to the world. Upon our plains were fought the decisive battles for Christendom; there will be fought the decisive battle for the independence of nations, for State rights, for international law, and for democratic liberty. We will live free, or die like men; but should my people be doomed to die, it will be the first whose death will not be recorded as suicide, but as a martyrdom for the world, and future ages will mourn over the sad fate of the Magyar race, doomed to perish, not because we deserved it, but because in the nineteenth century there was nobody to protect ” the laws of nature and of nature’s God.”

But I look to the future with confidence and with hope. Manifold adversities could not fail to impress some mark of sorrow upon my heart, which is at least a guard against sanguine illusions. But I have a steady faith in principles. Once in my life indeed I was deplorably deceived in my anticipations, from supposing principle to exist in quarters where it did not. I did not count on generosity or chivalrous goodness from the governments of England and France, but I gave them credit for selfish and instinctive prudence. I supposed them to value Parliamentary Government, and to have foresight enough to know the alarming dangers to which they would be exposed, if they allowed the armed interference of Russia to overturn historical, limited, representative institutions. But France and England both proved to be blind, and deceived me. It was a horrible mistake, and has issued in a horrible result. The present condition of Europe, which ought to have been foreseen by those governments, exculpates me for having erred through expecting them to see their own interests. Well, there is a providence in every fact. Without this mistake the principles of American republicanism would for a long time yet not have found a fertile soil on that continent, where it was considered wisdom to belong to the French school. Now matters stand thus: that either the continent of Europe has no future at all, or this future is American republicanism. And who can believe that two hundred millions of that continent, which is the mother of such a civilization, are not to have any future at all? Such a doubt would be almost blasphemy against Providence. But there is a Providence indeed—a just, a bountiful Providence, and in it I trust, with all the piety of my religion. I dare to say my very self was an instrument of it. Even my being here, when four months ago I was yet a prisoner of the league of European despots in far Asia, and the sympathy which your glorious people honours me with, and the high benefit of the welcome of your Congress, and the honour to be your guest, to be the guest of your great Republic — I, a poor exile — is there not a very intelligible manifestation of Providence in it ? — the more, when I remember that the name of your guest is by the furious rage of the Austrian tyrant, nailed to the gallows.

I confidently trust that the nations of Europe have a future. I am aware that this future is vehemently resisted by the bayonets of absolutism; but I know that though bayonets may give a defence, they afford no seat to a prince. I trust in the future of my native land, because I know that it is worthy to have one, and that it is necessary to the destinies of humanity. I trust to the principles of republicanism; and, whatever may be my personal fate, so much I know, that my country will preserve to you and your glorious land an everlasting gratitude.

Continuation of Kossuth biography:

In 1832 he was designated a substitute to represent a local noble in the Hungarian Diet (national parliament). Kossuth, a prolific writer and editor, produced a record of the Diet’s proceeding as well as other newspapers and journals. In 1837, his advocacy of political reform and national independence led to his imprisonment for three years by the Austrian government. During his confinement, he taught himself English by studying the Bible and Shakespeare.

After his release from prison in 1840, Kossuth became the editor of the “Pesti Hirlap,” or Pest Journal. The Pest Journal advocated political reform and an independent legislature for Hungary. In 1847 Kossuth was elected to the Diet as a representative of the county of Pest. Kossuth continued to spread his ideas of independence, and individual liberty and made brilliant speeches demanding a constitution for Hungary. In 1848, Kossuth’s campaigns and demands earned Hungary its own separate constitution from Austria. After the new government was formed, Kossuth was named the Minister of Finance. Shortly thereafter, revolution broke out across Europe. On September 28, 1848, after five months of serving as the minister of Finance, he assumed full control of the revolution in Hungary. He gathered, strengthened, and armed his “revolutionary army.” Not satisfied with their autonomous constitution, he demanded his county’s independence from Austrian rule. In the spring of 1849, Kossuth rallied against the Habsburg monarchy. On April 14, 1849, the Hungarian Diet, inspired by Kossuth, proclaimed the complete independence of Hungary from Austria and deposed the Habsburg Dynasty. The Hungarian declaration of independence was influenced by the American document. At the same time the Diet elected Kossuth “governor-president” and charged him to render an account of his actions to the parliament. Hungary was the last bastion of the democratic revolutions of 1848 to remain standing against the forces of absolutism, and Hungarian developments were carefully followed with considerable sympathy by the governments and people of Europe and the United States.

The inability of the Austrian government to reestablish its authority was a great concern to the autocratic government of Russia. Czar Nicholas I offered to aid the Austrians in suppressing the Hungarian revolution and that offer was accepted by the Austrians. As a result the Russian imperial forces, allies to the Austrians, declared war on the Hungarian Republic. The Russian armies brought the revolution to a quick and bloody end.

After his defeat, Kossuth fled to Turkey where he spent two years in exile. The governments of Great Britain, The United States, and other West European nations successfully pressured the Turkish Sultan to refuse Austrian and Russian demands for Kossuth’s extradition. They were able to arrange for his departure from Turkey, and on September 10, 1851, he steamed from the Turkish port of Smyrna (now Izmir) aboard the U. S. Navy’s frigate Mississippi. After brief stops in France and Britain, he arrived in New York City on December 5, 1851, to great public acclaim. His triumphant six-month tour throughout the United States was an unprecedented popular success.

Although Kossuth did not achieve his goal of winning official United States government support and recognition for continuing his struggle for Hungarian independence, his visit did leave a permanent legacy in America. He gave several hundred speeches in all parts of the United States, including separate addresses to both Houses of Congress. During this tour 250 poems, dozens of books, hundreds of pamphlets, and thousands of editorials were written about him and his democratic ideals.

He left the United States after six months, returning to Europe in July 1852 to rally support for the Hungarian cause. He lived for a period of time in London, and eventually settled in Turin, Italy. In exile he continued his efforts for Hungarian independence, but he did not return to Hungary.

Following his death in Turin on March 20, 1894, his body was returned to Hungary, where he was buried amid nationwide mourning. After his death, Kossuth continued as the popular symbol of the aspiration of the Hungarian people for independence.

Today there are many reminders of Kossuth’s impact on the Unites States of America. There are towns with his name in Indiana, Ohio and Mississippi, and a settlement with a Post office in Pennsylvania. Previous to today there were two other full figure Kossuth statues in the United States, in New York City, New York and Cleveland, Ohio.

And, of course, there is Kossuth County, Iowa where the impact of Kossuth is noted throughout the county with the name Kossuth appearing on buildings and streets in all parts of the county. Kossuth County now has the third full figure statue of Lajos Kossuth in the United States. The statue of Lajos Kossuth, being dedicated today, is not only a reminder of the Hungarian struggle for independence but it is also a reminder of our own United States democracy that Lajos Kossuth idealized so much.

Biography source: Kossuth County Iowa; http://www.kossuth-edc.com/community/kossuthbio.htm
Speech Source: Select Speeches of Kossuth; by Lajos Kossuth, Francis William Newman: published 1855

Thomas Jefferson Concerning the Political Party Divisions of the Nation

ThomasJeffersonQuotesPartyDivisions
Jefferson explains Nations are divided into two parties
1. Want’s all power in the hands of a government elite.
2. Trusts power only in the hands of the people.

Political Parties.—”Parties seem to have taken a very well defined form in this quarter. The old Tories, joined by our merchants who trade in British capital, paper dealers, stock-brokers and the idle rich of the great commercial towns are with the kings. All other descriptions with the French. The war (between France and England) has kindled and brought forward the two parties with an ardour which our own interests merely could never excite. The war between France and England has brought forward the Republicans and Monocrats in every State so openly that their relative numbers are perfectly visible; it appears that the latter are as nothing.” (To James Madison, 1793. F. VI., 326.)

Two parties then do exist in the United States. They embrace respectively the following description of persons:

The anti-Republicans consisted of

  1. The old refugees and Tories.
  2. The British merchants residing among us, and comprising the main body of our merchants.
  3. American merchants trading in British capital. Another great portion.
  4. Speculators and holders in the banks and public funds.
  5. Officers of the Federal Government, with some exceptions.
  6. Office hunters willing to give up principles for places. A numerous and noisy tribe.
  7. Nervous persons, whose languid fibres have more analogy with a passive than an active state of things.

The Republican party of the Union consisted of:

  1. The entire body of land-holders throughout the United States.
  2. The body of labourers not being land-holders, whether in husbanding or the arts. [i.e. The citizenry as a whole] (From notes on Professor Ebelling’s letter, 1795. F. VII., 47.)

“Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office, as in England, to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man, but where the principle of difference is as substantial and as strongly pronounced as between the Republicans and the Monocrats of our country, I hold it as honorable to take a firm and decided part, and as immoral to pursue a middle line as between the parties of honest men and rogues into which every country is divided.” (To William Giles, 1795. F. VII., 43.)

“When a Constitution like ours wears a mixed aspect of monarchy and Republicanism its citizens will naturally divide into two classes of sentiment, according as their tone of body or mind, their habits, connections and callings induce them to wish to strengthen either the monarchial or Republican features of the Constitution. Some will consider it as an elective monarchy, which had better be made hereditary, and therefore endeavor to lead towards that all the forms and principles of its administration. Others will view it as an energetic republic, turning in all its points on the pivot of free and frequent elections. The great body of our native citizens are unquestionably of the Republican sentiment.” (To James Sullivan, 1797. F. VII., 117.)

“But, my dear friend, if we do not learn to sacrifice small differences of opinion, we can never act together. Every man cannot have his way in all things. If his own opinion prevails at some times, he should acquiesce on seeing that of others preponderate at others. Without this mutual disposition we are disjointed individuals, but not a society. My position is painful enough between Federalists who cry out on the first touch of their monopoly, and Republicans who clamor for universal removal. A subdivision of the latter will increase the perplexity. I am proceeding with deliberation and inquiry to do what I think just to both descriptions and conciliatory to both. The greatest good we can do our country is to heal its party divisions and make them one people. I do not speak of their leaders who are incurable, but of the honest and well-intentioned body of the people. I consider the pure Federalist as a Republican who would prefer a somewhat stronger executive; and the Republican as one more willing to trust the legislature as a broader representation of the people, and a safer deposit of power for many reasons. But both sects are Republican, entitled to the confidence of their fellow citizens. Not so their quondam leaders covering under the mask of Federalism hearts devoted to monarchy. The Hamiltonians, the Essex-men, the revolutionary Tories, etc. They have a right to tolerance, but neither to confidence nor power. It is very important that the pure Federalist and Republican should see in the opinion of each other but a shade of his own, which by a union of action will be lessened by one-half; that they should see and fear the monarchist as their common enemy, on whom they should keep their eyes, but keep off their hands.” (To John Dickinson, 1801. F. VIII., 76.)

“We shall now be so strong that we shall certainly split again; for freemen thinking differently and speaking and acting as they think, will form into classes of sentiment, but it must be under another name; that of Federalism is to become so scanted that no party can rise under it. As the division between Whig and Tory is founded in the nature of men, the weakly and nerveless, the rich and the corrupt, seeing more safety and accessibility in a strong executive; the healthy, firm and virtuous feeling confidence in their physical and moral resources, and willing to part with only so much power as is necessary for their good government, and therefore to retain the rest in the hands of the many, the division will substantially be into Whig and Tory, as in England, formerly.” (To Joel Barlow, 1802. F. VIII., 150.)

“I tolerate with the utmost latitude the right of others to differ from me in opinion without imputing to them criminality. I know too well the weakness and uncertainty of human reason to wonder at its different results. Both of our political parties, at least the honest portion of them, agree conscientiously in the same object—the public good; but they differ essentially in what they deem the means of promoting that good. One side believes it best done by one composition of the governing powers; the others, by a different one. One fears most the ignorance of the people; the other, the selfishness of rulers independent of them. Which is right, time and experience will prove. We think that one side of this experiment has been long enough tried, and proved not to promote the good of the many; and that the other has not been fairly and sufficiently tried. Our opponents think the reverse. With whichever opinion the body of the nation concurs, that must prevail. My anxieties on the subject will never carry me beyond the use of fair and honorable means, of truth and reason; nor have they ever lessened the esteem for moral worth, nor alienated my affections from a single friend, who did not just withdraw himself.” (To Mrs. John Adams, 1804. F. VIII., 312.)

“Men have differed in opinion, and been divided into parties by these opinions, from the first origin of societies, and in all governments where they have been permitted freely to think and to speak. The same political parties which now agitate the United States have existed through all time. Whether the power of the people or that of the tyrant (?) should prevail, were questions which kept the States of Greece and Rome in eternal convulsions, as they now schismatize every people whose minds and mouths are not shut up by the gag of a despot. And, in fact, the terms of Whig and Tory belong to natural as well as to civil history. They denote the temper and constitution of the mind of different individuals. To come to our own country and to the time when you and I became first acquainted, we will remember the violent parties which agitated the old Congress, and their bitter contents. There you and I were together, and the Jays, and the Dickinsons, and other anti-independents, were arrayed against us. They cherished the monarchy of England, and we the rights of our countrymen. When our present government was in the mew, passing from Confederation to Union, how bitter was the schism between the Feds and the Antis. Here you and I were together again. For, although for a moment separated by the Atlantic from the scene of action, I favored the opinion that nine States should confirm the Constitution, in order to secure it, and the others hold off until certain amendment, deemed favorable to freedom should be made, I rallied in the first instant to the wiser proposition of Massachusetts, that all should confirm, and then all instruct their delegates to urge those amendments. The amendments were made, and all were reconciled to the government. But as soon as it was put into motion, the line of division was again drawn. We broke into two parties, each wishing to give the government a different direction; the one to strengthen the most popular branch, the other the more permanent branches, and to extend their permanence. * * * There have been differences of opinion and party differences, from the first establishment of governments to the present day, and on the same question which now divides our own country; that these will continue through all future time; that everyone takes his side in favor of the many, or of the few, according to his constitution, and the circumstances in which he is placed; that opinions, which are equally honest on both sides, should not effect personal esteem or social intercourse; that as we judge between the Claudii and the Gracchi, the Wentworths and the Hampdens of past age, so of those among us whose names may happen to be remembered for awhile, the next generations will judge, favorably or unfavorably, according to the complexion of individual minds, and side they shall themselves have taken; that nothing new can be added by you or me to what has been said by others, and will be said in every age in support of the conflicting opinions on government; and that wisdom and duty dictate an humble resignation to the verdict of our future peers.” (To John Adams, 1813. C. VI., 143-146.)

“I am not a Federalist, because I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.” (To Francis Hopkinson, 1789. F. V., 76.)

A WARNING TO AMERICANS by John Dickinson 1732-1808

john dickinsonA WARNING TO THE COLONIES.
[The Political Writings of John Dickinson, Esq. 1804.]
Born In Maryland, 1732. Died at Wilmington, Del., 1808.

THOUGH I always reflect with a high pleasure on the integrity and understanding of my countrymen, which, joined with a pure and humble devotion to the great and gracious Author of every blessing they enjoy, will, I hope, insure to them and their posterity all temporal and eternal happiness; yet when I consider that in every age and country there have been bad men, my heart at this threatening period is so full of apprehension as not to permit me to believe, but that there may be some on this continent against whom you ought to be upon your guard . Men, who either hold, or expect to hold certain advantages by setting examples of servility to their countrymen. Men, who trained to the employment, or self-taught by a natural versatility of genius serve as decoys for drawing the innocent and unwary into snares. It is not to be doubted but that such men will diligently bestir themselves on this and every like occasion to spread the infection of their meanness as far as they can. On the plans they have adopted, this is their course. This is the method to recommend themselves to their patrons. They act consistently in a bad cause. They run well in a mean race.

The freedom of a people consists in being governed by laws, 
in which no alteration can be made, without their Consent 
~ John Dickinson

From them we shall learn how pleasant and profitable a thing it is to be for our submissive behavior well spoken of at St James’s or St Stephen’s; at Guildhall or the Royal Exchange. Specious fallacies will be dressed up with all the arts of delusion to persuade one colony to distinguish herself from another by unbecoming condescensions, which will serve the ambitious purposes of great men at home, and therefore will be thought by them to entitle their assistants in obtaining them to considerable rewards.

Our fears will be excited . Our hopes will be awakened. It will be insinuated to us, with a plausible affectation of wisdom and concern, how prudent it is to please the powerful—how dangerous to provoke them—and then comes in the perpetual incantation that freezes up every generous purpose of the soul in cold, inactive expectation—”that if there is any request to be made, compliance will obtain a favorable attention.”

Our vigilance and our union are success and safety. Our negligence and our division are distress and death They are worse—they are shame and slavery. Let us equally shun the benumbing stillness of overweening sloth, and the feverish activity of that ill-informed zeal which busies itself in maintaining little, mean and narrow opinions. Let us, with a truly wise generosity and charity, banish and discourage all illiberal distinctions which may arise from differences in situation, forms of government, or modes of religion. Let us consider ourselves as men —freemen—Christian freemen—separated from the rest of the world and firmly bound together by the same rights, interests and dangers. Let these keep our attention inflexibly fixed on the great objects which we must continually regard in order to preserve those rights, to promote those interests, and to avert those dangers.

Let these truths be indelibly impressed on our minds—that we cannot be happy without being free—that we cannot be free without being secure in our property—that we cannot be secure in our property, if, without our consent others may, as by right, take it away—that taxes imposed on us by parliament do thus take it away—that duties laid for the sole purpose of raising money are taxes—that attempts to lay such duties should be instantly and firmly opposed—that this opposition can never be effectual unless it is the united effort of these provinces—that therefore benevolence of temper towards each other and unanimity of counsels are essential to the welfare of the whole—and lastly, that for this reason every man amongst us who in any manner would encourage either dissension, diffidence, or indifference between these colonies, is an enemy to himself, and to his country.

RELIGIOUS VIEWS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON; source: The Jefferson Bible

ThomasJeffersonAdvantagesJesus

See also: Thomas Jefferson Notes of Religion October 1776
 
Dear Sir: In the ancient feudal times of our good old forefathers,when the Seigneur married his daughter or knighted his son, it was the usage for his vassals to give him a year’s rent extra, in the name of an aid. I think it as reasonable, when our Pastor builds a house, that each of his flock should give him an aid of a year’s contribution. I enclose mine, as a tribute of justice, which of itself, indeed, is nothing, but as an example, if followed, may become something. In any event, be pleased to accept it as an offering of duty and a testimony of my friendly attachment and high respect.—Thomas Jefferson to his minister Rev. Mr. Hatch, an Episcopal minister, who was settled in Charlottsville, Virginia, two miles from the residence of Mr. Jefferson, as rector of the parish; Monticello, December 8, 1821
 
“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is easier to acquire them, and to effect this, they have perverted the best religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purposes.” Thomas Jefferson to H. G. Spafford, 1814

RELIGIOUS VIEWS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON; Source The Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth edited by Thomas Jefferson published 1902 by order of Congress:

Editors Note: As Jefferson tells us in his letter to Benjamin Rush he was a Christian, he was however like many of the Christians I have grown up with, and known throughout my life, disenchanted with organized religion and opposed to the corrupting of the pure and simple religion which Jesus declared to his followers. I grew up with this same attitude and have told others “if you have to tell someone you’re a Christian then you are not.” It is time for the lies, put out by the left and those opposed to Christianity in this country to end!

“The moral precepts of Jesus are more pure, correct and sublime than those of the ancient philosophers.” ~ Thomas Jefferson Apr 19, 1803 in a letter to Edward Dowse

"the Christian religion was sometimes our topic; and I then 
promised you that one day or other,I would give you my views 
of it. They are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, 
and very different from that Anti-Christian system imputed to 
me by those who know nothing of my opinions." ~ Jefferson

 

Thomas Jefferson Concerning those who Misinterpreted his Religious views (Click to enlarge)

Thomas Jefferson Concerning those who Misinterpreted his Religious views (Click to enlarge)

Begin excerpt:

“Say nothing of my religion. It is known to my God and myself alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life; if that has been honest and dutiful to society, the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one.”

In a letter to his daughter, written in 1803, Mr. Jefferson said: “A promise made to a friend some years ago, but executed only lately, has placed my religious creed on paper. I have thought it just that my family, by possessing this, should be enabled to estimate the , libels published against me on this, as on every other possible subject.” The “religious creed” to which he referred was a comparison of the doctrines of Jesus with those of others, prepared in fulfillment of a promise made to Dr. Benjamin Rush. This paper, with the letter to Dr. Rush which accompanied it, is a fit introduction to the “Jefferson Bible.”

Under date of April 21, 1803, Jefferson wrote to Dr. Benjamin Rush, sending him the syllabus of an estimate of the merits of the doctrines of Jesus compared with those of others. This is the communication to which he had referred in his letter to Dr. Priestley. In the letter accompanying the syllabus he tells Dr. Rush that he is sending this for his own eye, simply in performance of his promise, and indicates its confidential character in the following words: “And in confiding it to you, I know it will not be exposed to the malignant perversions of those who make every word from me a text for new misrepresentations and calumnies. I am, moreover, averse to the communication of my religious tenets to the public, because it would countenance the presumption of those who have endeavoured to draw them before that tribunal, and to seduce public opinion to erect itself into that inquest over the rights of conscience, which the laws have so justly proscribed. It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself to resist invasions of it in the case of others, or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.”

ThomasJeffersonQuotesFreedomThought

Letter to Benjamin Rush:
Dear Sir: In some of the delightful conversations with you, in the evenings of 1798-99, and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of the crisis through which our country was then laboring, the Christian religion was sometimes our topic; and I then promised you that one day or other, I would give you my views of it. They are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from that Anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other.

At the short intervals since these conversations, when I could justifiably abstract my mind from public affairs, this subject has been under my contemplation; but the more I considered it, the more it expanded beyond the measure of either my time or information. In the moment of my late departure from Monticello, I received from Dr. Priestly his little treatise of “Socrates and Jesus Compared.” This being a section of the general view I had taken of the field, it became a subject of reflection while on the road, and unoccupied otherwise. The result was to arrange in my mind a syllabus, or outline, of such an estimate of the comparative merits of Christianity, as I wished to see executed by some one of more leisure and information for the task than myself. This I now send you, as the only discharge of my promise I can probably ever execute. And in confiding it to you, I know it will not be exposed to the malignant perversions of those who make every word from me a text for new misrepresentations and calumnies.

I am moreover averse to the communication of my religious tenets to the public; because it would countenance the presumption of those who have endeavored to draw them before that, tribunal, and to seduce public opinion to erect itself into that inquisition over the rights of conscience which the laws have so justly proscribed. It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself to resist invasions of it in the case of others, or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own. It behooves him, too, in his own case, to give no example of concession, betraying the right, of independent opinion by answering questions of faith, which the laws have left between God and himself.

Accept my affectionate salutations.                                                 ******

ThomasJeffersonQuotesMoralityJesus

Another note from me:
As you can see when Jefferson wrote “And in confiding it to you, I know it will not be exposed to the malignant perversions of those who make every word from me a text for new misrepresentations and calumnies.” It is apparent just like the democrats, the liberal news media and pundits do to Republican politicians now, (especially those who are of a Tea Party or Reagan conservative persuasion) they are misquoted, their words taken out of context, etc., which is exactly what they obviously did to him back then.

This is shown also in the misinterpretation of The Bill of Rights today, it does not say “Wall of Separation” It says” “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

It was not meant to keep Christians and their Speech out of the public sphere. It was meant however to keep the government out of churches and out of peoples right to freely express their religious beliefs!

In Jefferson’s so-called “Wall of Separation Letter” he was expressing a personal opinion, get the word express, as in exercising his free right to religious expression. To have convoluted his words in that letter into having no religious expression in the public or political sphere is a direct contradiction of “free expression” and puts the first amendment of the Constitution in direct opposition to its original meaning.

ThomasJeffersonQuotesShays

More from Jefferson on his religious views:

Under date of January 29, 1815, Jefferson wrote from Monticello to Charles Clay: “Probably you have heard me say I had taken the four Evangelists, had cut out from them every text they had recorded of the moral precepts of Jesus, and arranged them in a certain order, and although they appeared but as fragments, yet fragments of the most sublime edifice of morality which had ever been exhibited to man.” In this letter however Jefferson disclaims any intention of publishing this little compilation, saying: “I not only write nothing on religion, but rarely permit myself to speak on it.”

As you see in his letter to Rush he did not speak of his religious views because he knew his words would be perverted, misconstrued, misused and misrepresented. We have seen this done in recent history when they constantly refer to the Wall of Separation letter, by those who wish to restrict people first amendment protected God-given right to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of their own conscience.

Again, in a letter to Charles Thomson, written from Monticello, under date of January 9, 1816, he says: “I, too, have made a wee little book from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.”

NOTE: See Jefferson was not an atheist or deist as many claim today. Indeed I would argue that he was somewhat of a coward, for not standing up publicly more than he did, for what he actually believed. Granted he was concerned about how religious leaders would use his words or opinions to promote their pet causes, and he was also concerned how others would misuse and misguide people by taking his words out of context. However in so doing he made it so as we see today how greatly they indeed have been taken his words out of context, in ways he never imagined they would be.

MAKING THE FOREIGN-BORN FAMILIAR WITH THE AMERICAN SPIRIT By George S. Tilroe

NoAmnestyOn Immigration and Immigrants: No less an American than George Washington had something to say on this subject. When it was proposed to bring over here the faculty of a Genevan university to take charge of an American university, he objected. He said he was against importing an entire “seminary of foreigners for the purpose of American education.” Neither did he favor sending our young men abroad to be educated. He feared what experience has shown he had cause to fear. He said they “contracted principles unfriendly to republican government and to the true and genuine liberties of mankind.” George Washington also had ideas about immigration that are good to-day. “My opinion with respect to immigration,” he said, “is, that except of useful mechanics and some particular descriptions of men or professions, there is no need of encouragement; while the policy or advantage of its taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for by so doing they retain their language, habits, principles, good or bad, which they bring with them. Whereas, by an intermixture with our people, they or their descendants get assimilated to our customs, measures, and laws; in a word, soon become one people.”

“It remains to be seen,” he declared, “whether our country will stand upon independent ground. . . . A little time will show who are its true friends, or, what is synonymous, who are true Americans.”

American

source: PurdueEdu

MAKING THE FOREIGN-BORN FAMILIAR WITH THE AMERICAN SPIRIT By George S. Tilroe, Syracuse, NY published 1918 New York Education.

AMERICANIZATION of the immigrant to-day involves the two outstanding forces of world-wide human interest—the material and the spiritual. It is demanded that we judge their merits and determine which shall predominate as our national characteristic.

In teaching the immigrant, we have commonly regarded our work as an effort to make him a more valuable material asset in the community. We have taught him the English language to help him get a better job and to answer the questions of the Naturalization Court. The instruction has been essentially to meet material needs. Materially, we have accomplished our purpose.

The big problem to-day, however, is not material. Our work of Americanization is a spiritual task. It requires an exercise of personality, enthusiasm and thoroughness unparalleled in the history of the republic. It demands that we arouse in the immigrant a spirit of loyalty, a spirit like that which has ever led this nation on to victory.

american-spirit-24x24-300dpi

source: zazzle.com

The spirit of the American people is the most striking difference the immigrant sees between foreign and American life. It is the spirit we point to with pride, the spirit of liberty, of freedom and independence—the Spirit of 76! It grips the foreigner on first acquaintance and the longer he lives here the better he likes it. It throws a magnetizing influence over him. It is our spirit he is acquiring during the process of his assimilation, therefore, in such degree as we display traits worthwhile, in that degree is the immigrant becoming a worth-while American. This means that we are doubly responsible for the making of good Americans. We must be good Americans ourselves, if we would hope to get the American spirit across to the immigrant. We must illustrate the American spirit by setting before our alien population examples worthy of emulation.

Unfortunately, we have run the material Marathon at such a pace that we have heard hours of such rot as that, some of them have rather disregarded the intrinsic spirit of our laws and institutions and obscured the meaning of the American ideal. Meanwhile, the alien has debated the question of American citizenship, considering whether he shall become one of us. It has been difficult for him to differentiate between liberty and license, while our material manner of looking at the situation has rather confused him. We have not imbued him with the American spirit sufficiently to get him out of the alien class, consequently we have almost over-burdened ourselves with a conglomeration of crude humanity that is now the object of no little concern in some quarters.

The world war, a leveler of peoples, a spiritual prod, a national awakener, has done us immeasurable good. We have learned more in the last year than in half a century previous. We have learned the danger of spiritual lethargy and the value of national brotherhood. During the coming months, our American spirit is doubtless due for further quickening with its natural effect upon the immigrant.

Under these circumstances it is worthwhile to take invoice of our stock of Americanism. Most of us have acquired the American spirit through study of our great men and through visiting places of historical significance. Certain leaders and their heroic deeds stand out boldly. They were part of our education. When barely out of the cradle we learned about the hatchet and the cherry tree, about Honest Abe, the rail splitter. We have also learned about millions of common folk, living the simple life, who went to the front when duty called, but we seem to have overlooked the meaning of our nationality, for, it is said that “More than 50 per cent, of us have less than a 50 per cent, knowledge of the principles underlying the foundation of our government.”

Materially minded schemers have helped load us up with the problems now confronting us. They have victimized thousands of immigrants, many of them so many times that they have become distrustful of well intentioned persons who approach them with a sincere desire to help them. Meantime many of our better classes, rich and poor, have stood by, indifferent to the proceedings. We have declared that we need these folk to do our drudgery, to dig our ditches, to do our dirty work! Material selfishness has befogged the issue of American patriotism! We have led thousands of our immigrants no farther than the slums with harmful results. The American spirit withers in the hovels and dark passageways of the tenement sections. Many aliens, however, have swallowed the bitter pill of social ostracism and appeared here and there as leaders of influential colonies. Although many have not risen above the level of the common laborer, they have acquired enough of the spirit of genuine democracy to return to their native lands and spread American ideas. Some of our immigrants are sitting in legislative halls, others are spreading sedition and treachery!

Instead of consigning the alien to the slums, let’s open up to him not only the opportunities of our industrial centers, but also the advantages of the rural regions where fresh air and sunshine are plentiful, and clannishness is short lived. It is our duty to teach of all our resources and how they may be used for the common good. Before we can do much teaching, we must solve the problem of reaching these people. We must have funds and we must get our pupils into well equipped school plants where the American spirit is exemplified in all the surroundings. The American eagle can’t scream well cooped up in a foul cage.

Heretofore, in our immigrant education campaigns, we have used every available means to fill our evening schools. We have opened classes near immigrant homes, used posters, letters, missionaries and moral suasion. We have reached many through social activities and helped them because we appealed to their human, spiritual side, but definite results have been disappointing. We have not reached the masses.

In many of our cities, immigrants who have been in this country many years, have not taken advantage of instruction offered gratis in our night school. In some cities much less than 10 per cent, of the total foreign population is attending. In New York state are more than 3,000,000 foreigners ten years of age and over. Thirteen per cent, of them are illiterate as compared with 1 per cent, of the native born.

The showing is not quite so bad throughout the nation as a whole for, among children of foreign-born parentage, there is less illiteracy among the whites than among children of native born parents. Fully 50 per cent, of our children drop out of the elementary school into material activities, foreigners to greater degree than natives. A comparatively small percentage of all go through high school. In the high school and colleges, however, the native-born boys and girls outstrip immigrant children, showing an advantage over the flow from the elementary schools into material avenues of life employment. If they learn to exercise their minds along thought channels, young men and young women of the high schools and colleges are the hope of perpetuating in this country a race of thinking, reasoning human beings. It requires more than a machine to perpetuate the American spirit.

There is yet much to be done and it must be done through the greatest Americanization agency in the world—the American public school.

The work must be centralized here. It should not be scattered among various institutions and organizations which produce only indefinite results. The American spirit is nourished in the public schools and in them we must provide the proper kind of Americanism. There must be no taint of enemy propaganda anywhere in our educational system!

Raw material for the schools is available in this country to the extent of some 13,000,000 foreign-born people. One fifth of them cannot speak the English language and a much larger number have not yet grasped the American idea otherwise. It is our duty to teach them and their duty to try to learn. We owe it to them, they to us and all of us to our country. We must emphasize co-operation to preserve our democracy, for without it, democracies fail.

The old Athenian democracy, which produced a grand example of virtuous, civilized manhood, went to pieces. It had one fault. The people had no capacity for working together, consequently stronger, warring peoples, by using might, gobbled them up. But many of the good qualities of the ancient Greeks survive. They are the qualities showing the spirit of the people. Pericles emphasized the cultural side of their nature and did a lasting service to mankind.

Even old Greece had its alien problem. The spirit of that age drew a contrast between the principles of democracy and those of foreign, barbarian folk. The Greeks had to battle against evil influences of brutal, savage tribes of northern Europe, influences of two thousand years ago which are cropping out to-day. Thus, in so far as civilization in the finer sense is concerned, our problem is like that of Pericles’ time.

The spirit that prompted Pericles prompted the founders of this republic. It led to the adoption of the Constitution, the foundation of Americanism. If our immigrants become familiar with this they will have in its first paragraph the keynote of the American spirit in these words, “We, the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union.” In this union, we escape the fault that caused the downfall of the mother of democracies and secure a guarantee of national strength. We Americans have been brought up under the spirit of this Constitution, while in Europe, for several centuries, there has been a material existence of undemocratic characteristics. Our immigrants, with few exceptions, were trained under this autocratic system of education. In America, we have used a democratic system, although we have allowed autocratic features to creep in, some innocently and others deliberately. Definite steps have been taken not only to disrupt the nation, but also to put foreign features into our education system. It is not a matter of language; it has to do with the introduction of European ideas. It concerns the fostering of materialistic principles which, in an autocracy, have produced a  generation of common people now subservient machines manipulated by rulers who command barbarism which the educational training of the masses enforces them to practice. We have no place in America for any part of an educational system that trains immigrant children or alien adults for any such subserviency as this, yet here is what I read in a volume published in America six years ago: “Germans made many struggles to introduce and foster their language in our schools, taxed themselves for the maintenance of German schools, and fought in the press, the legislature and on the stump. There was Scheib in Baltimore, Feldner and Schneck in Detroit, Engelman and Herflinger in Milwaukee, Heilmann in Louisville, Conrad Krez in Wisconsin,” and scores of others. The author regrets that credit has not been given these men for their pioneer work in establishing a German normal school in Milwaukee and in devoting their energy and means to the preservation of German in this country. This was published six years ago. What do you think of it to-day? We have not only permitted ourselves to be exploited by foreigners but many of our own educators have gone abroad to gather up foreign ideas for American consumption. Some may be good and some bad, but, considered from the viewpoint of America First, there must be Americans able to devise Yankee substitutes for those worthwhile.

Several questions arise right here. Should not American educators investigate the subject and weed out objectionable foreign features that have gotten into our schools? If European systems of education produce a people in the condition of subserviency in which we believe Teutonic peoples to be living, do we want this kind of education in America? Do we want our people to be mere material machines or do we want them educated to enjoy life as it should be lived in a free democracy? Do we want them fitted only for work or do we want them prepared not only to work intelligently but also able to employ their leisure hours happily and profitably? The material was never intended to consume the whole day nor even one-half of it.

No less an American than George Washington had something to say on this subject. When it was proposed to bring over here the faculty of a Genevan university to take charge of an American university, he objected. He said he was against importing an entire “seminary of foreigners for the purpose of American education.” Neither did he favor sending our young men abroad to be educated. He feared what experience has shown he had cause to fear. He said they “contracted principles unfriendly to republican government and to the true and genuine liberties of mankind.” George Washington also had ideas about immigration that are good to-day. “My opinion with respect to immigration,” he said, “is, that except of useful mechanics and some particular descriptions of men or professions, there is no need of encouragement; while the policy or advantage of its taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for by so doing they retain their language, habits, principles, good or bad, which they bring with them. Whereas, by an intermixture with our people, they or their descendants get assimilated to our customs, measures, and laws; in a word, soon become one people.”

“It remains to be seen,” he declared, “whether our country will stand upon independent ground. . . . A little time will show who are its true friends, or, what is synonymous, who are true Americans.”

The acid test of our Americanism is now on. Immigrants and natives are showing their colors. Our history teaches us that true Americans are held in reverence; traitors go to ignoble graves!

Whispering ” Tis well,” George Washington died, mourned by a nation.

Benedict Arnold went out a penitent, despised by everybody.

Among his many benefactions, Washington left us a suggestion that fits nicely into our scheme of Americanization. He favored a plan to spread systematic national ideas throughout the nation. In this way immigrants may learn the workings of the American spirit and what sort of men have guided our destiny. Illustrations are plentiful. The Pilgrims came here for freedom of worship. From the belfry of Old North Church a lantern signaled Paul Revere to begin his famous ride before Lexington and Concord. Seven thousand patriots gathered at Old South Church for that great American camouflage, the Boston Tea Party. Washington prayed for success at Valley Forge. John Adams recited every night the prayer his mother taught him as a boy. Ethan Allen appeared at Ticonderoga in the name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress. This sort of spirit was back of the American revolution!

In Civil War days, Abraham Lincoln said, “Let us strive to deserve the continued care of the Divine Providence, trusting that in future emergencies He will not fail to provide us with the instruments of safety and security.”

And there is the Gettysburg address! It was the American spirit that gave us these: “With malice toward none, with charity for all;” “Give me liberty or give me death;” “Liberty and union, now and forever, one and inseparable!” In all this there is something higher than the material. It is powerful enough to repel a foreign foe. It has never tasted defeat.

This kind of Americanism taught to our immigrants has been the only force directly counteracting the spread of foreign propaganda in this country during the past twenty-five years! Its effect is seen on European battlefields to-day!

Fully one-third of the volunteers for the regular branches of the army, navy and marines this year are of foreign birth or parentage. In industrial centers they have volunteered in a ratio of 3 to 1 as compared with native sons. Many of them learned Americanism in our night schools. I saw some of them clad in khaki, march away. I went to the railway station with them. I was proud of them. I met others before the draft boards, accepting service without claim of exemption. I was proud of them because the chairmen of the examining boards told me they were showing a remarkable spirit in that they volunteered when they might claim exemption on the ground of being aliens. It was ample reward for fifteen years’ effort to get the American idea across. During the past three years the government has come to help us in this service. It has started a campaign of Americanization. We welcome the movement. It will help us continue the transformation of immigrants into highly respected and prosperous American citizens. We know many who have traveled this road. We are in touch with all nationalities, some of whom are scattered to all parts of the world. In America, we hope to cement this material into one spiritual union. The press, the pulpit and our law-making bodies can aid this work by considering such propositions as these:

1. Suppression of foreign language newspapers.

2. Supervision of societies of foreigners.

3. Scattering of colonies of foreigners.

4. Licensing of persons acting as interpreters.

5. Deportation of foreigners who refuse to declare their intentions after one year’s residence, unless registered.

6. Licensing of those who assume to prepare aliens for the Naturalization Court.

7. Compulsory attendance at evening schools of foreigners who cannot speak English.

8. Government control of public Americanization agencies centralized in the public schools.

9. The teaching of foreign languages in our schools by Americans.

Through education and legislation we must work together in that unity outlined in the Constitution, not forgetting that the genuine American spirit is one of right living under the Golden Rule. We have achieved success in a material way and enjoy many inventions, but no invention has yet approached the splendor of the spiritual. We are ringing a change on the materialistic tendencies of several centuries. The spirit of Christian brotherhood is getting hold of us. We are getting to be more like human beings. This humane spirit is a feature of democracy. May all nationalities be so imbued with it that “This nation, under God, shall not perish from the earth.”

In Response To Juan Williams Concerning Volunteer Fire-Fighters

AmericanFireFightersI have to write this in response to Juan Williams and his sneering, disparaging critique of volunteer fire-fighters, I heard from him a couple nights on Hannity. They were doing a segment on 12/10 on a study that said because of the Labor Dept and IRS legal definition of volunteers the numerous volunteer fire fighter service members around the country may be subject to the Obamacare mandates, and the municipalities may have to provide healthcare insurance for the fire fighters who volunteer to serve their respective communities because their municipalities and communities cannot afford to pay them a salary, likewise they cannot afford to provide them with healthcare insurance.

Juan Williams during the segment questioned David Limbaugh and Host Sean Hannity with a skeptical, sneering look on his face about volunteers working 30-60 hours a week, the quote was “By the way if your working 30-60 hours a week,,,volunteers? Come on, you know there’s something strange going on.”

Why is it, liberals always think just because most of them are corrupt, everyone else must be too. They find it impossible to believe that someone would actually do what liberals claim they do or want to do, which is to spend a large portion of their time helping others without thought of reward, praise, power or monetary gain.

I know the type of people who become volunteer fire fighters because my brother was one for many years, up until he got married last year. My mother helps with the meetings of the local rural fire station where he was a member. They are just average everyday patriotic Americans who out of a sense of community, fellowship and goodwill desire nothing more out of their efforts, than the satisfaction they get, from doing a job well that helps their families, friends, neighbors, saves their communities from numerous disasters and saves the taxpayers billions of dollars every year.

They don’t do it for the reasons your liberal pundits, celebrity busy-bodies and government power brokers would.

OldFireTruckNo they do it out of loyalty, genuine feeling and care for their fellowman. Volunteer fire fighting goes back to the beginning of community, practically all small communities in the United States rely on, or have relied, solely on volunteers to make up their company of fire fighters in the past.

George Washington was a volunteer fire fighter in Alexandria, Virginia in 1774, as a member of the Friendship Veterans Fire Engine Company, he bought a new fire engine and gave it to the town, which was its very first. Many of our founding fathers were also volunteer firefighters. Some of these included; Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and Aaron Burr. Benjamin Franklin is quoted as describing firefighters as, “Brave men of Spirit and humanity. Good Citizens, or neighbors, capable and worthy of civil Society and the enjoyment of a happy government.

Most of the volunteer fire companies around the U.S., rely on charity for their fire trucks and expensive equipment. Many make do with out dated equipment, they spend many hours of their free time performing maintenance on, because they cannot afford new modern equipment. They also depend on bake sales, or other forms of fund raising to be able to afford the parts they need to fix the equipment, buy the protective clothing, or personal items they need for the job. Some charge a small yearly fee to the land owners of the areas they serve to help offset their expenses, many spend money out of their own pockets to better be able to serve their communities. These same volunteers spend time taking classes during their free time learning new practices, first responders skills, and other classes to better serve their communities and neighbors.

Yes, Juan Williams, there is something strange about these people that you liberals and elitists will never understand. They truly care about their fellowman, unlike you liberals and elites, who can only espouse how everyone else should care as much as you liberals and elitists do. These average everyday Americans will always be strange to you, because you share none of their values, sufferings nor triumphs.

I remember many times growing up we would get out the gunny sacks and buckets to fight a grass fire on a neighbors property, or as teenagers stopping at the side of the road or highway because we saw a fire in the woods or a grass that needed to be put out. It was just something you do, when you see someone else in trouble, you stopped to lend a hand.

This is what is great about the vast majority of Americans in middle America, something you elitists in your ivory towers along the western and eastern seaboard will never understand. We didn’t do it to be a part of something, for profit or praise, or anything other, than the hope that someone will do the same for you and yours if the need ever arises.

No, volunteer fire fighters who give freely of their time to their communities are not strange, to those of us in the real America, they are simply our neighbors and friends for whom we are truly thankful, for the dedicated service and thankless tasks they perform to keep the rest of us in comfort. They don’t get a salary, pension or other compensation that you can see, no, the compensation they seek comes from the unseen, things like honor, character, duty, things liberals and elitists will also never understand.

You will smile here at the consistency of those democratists 
who, when they are not on their guard, treat the humbler part 
of the community with the greatest contempt, whilst, at the 
same time they pretend to make them the depositories of all 
power. ~ Edmund Burke

Corruption tends to only see corruption, shysters see other shysters everywhere they look, so it is with liberals and elitists when they look at their fellow average Americans.

Democrats Have Shown With The Obamacare Law The Height Of Their Hypocrisy

Democrats & Obamacare as Foreseen in Anti-Federalist Paper No. 1 (Click to enlarge)

Democrats & Obamacare as Foreseen in Anti-Federalist Paper No. 1 (Click to enlarge)

The free market healthcare system we had before Obamacare was taking care of those who were sick. It was doing it the way the liberals contend they want it done, by spreading the wealth. The free market healthcare system paid for those that did not have insurance, when people went to the hospital and were unable to pay, as required by law they (the hospitals) have to treat people who come to the emergency room, regardless of ability to pay. The hospital and it’s medical associates would then charge each paying customer a little more, thereby spreading the cost among their many customers.

The democrats however, when they talk about these people going to the hospital and not paying, they then say “but, I don’t want to have to pay for your, or their, healthcare.” For the deniers out there, I have heard them say it too many times in the last year or so, for you to even try to deny it.

The liberal progressive democrats do not like this system as evidenced by Michelle Obama and the University of Chicago Medical Centers patient dumping scheme where they received a good deal of justly opprobrious press over its policy of “redirecting” low-income patients to community hospitals while reserving  its own beds for well-heeled patients requiring highly profitable procedures. Substantial coverage was given to a recent indictment of the program by the American College of Emergency Physicians. ACEP’s president, Dr. Nick Jouriles, released a statement suggesting that the initiative comes “dangerously close to ‘patient dumping,’ a practice made illegal by the Emergency Medical Labor and Treatment Act, and reflected an effort to ‘cherry pick’ wealthy patients over poor.”

They want the government to impose even more egregious taxes on the middle class and the so-called wealthy. Those making more than 200k (according to democrats) who turn out to be small business owners, because the people who are really wealthy are like all enterprises including government, they are going to pass the costs onto someone else or protect what they have from being further encroached upon.

No, liberals say I don’t want to have to pay for that person going to the hospital, I want government to impose a tax system by which we can pick the winners and losers, where we can impose our idea of social justice on those evil people who don’t want to have to pay for other peoples healthcare insurance. Those who have gamed the system too long by lying to the American people, and have forced people to not be able to insure themselves.

It’s like the LA Times opinion piece where the liberal was all for the Obamacare law until they found out they were going to have to pay for it. I think the quote went something like “I was all for the law until I learned I was going to have to pay for it”. As we are finding out, and as was predicted by everyone on the right. The Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act does nothing to protect the patient as evidenced from the lack of security testing on the healthcare.gov website to people losing the healthcare insurance plans and doctors they were happy with by the millions. Nor is it affordable as the liberal in the LA Times story found out along with millions of others.

Obama said one of the most incredibly incompetent things I’ve heard from him in his last press conference on Nov. 14th. He said “What we’re also discovering is, that, insurance is complicated to buy.” How out of touch can you be? This is what you get with people who have never had to exist outside of academia and government. How could they not know insurance was complicated to buy? Every single one of the intellectual professors who authored Obamacare, that I’ve heard speak about it. It is obvious they should never have been given the task of designing a system they have never had any involvement with, outside of abstract studies. It is incredible and incredulous how out of touch they truly are with the reality of humanity.

The democrats started this debate by saying there were an estimated 30 million before the Obamacare law without insurance, then they went to 40 million, then to 50 million. Now they are saying there are not only 50 million without insurance, but that all 50 million of them are sick, implying they’ll have access to healthcare for the first times in their lives. What they have really done is narrow your choices, your choice of insurance coverage and your choice of doctors, hospitals, and medical services. All of this from the so-called party of choice, sure they want to give you choices, their choices, not your own.

The lies will never stop with progressives, because they have to lie to get their policies passed by the American people. They have also shown their true feelings for minorities, by their flippant dismissive attitudes toward the 5 million Americans who have already lost their insurance due to the regulations imposed by the Obamacare law.

Out of the 20-30 million Americans who did not have insurance to begin with, most of them were young and healthy who do not need large healthcare plans. I seriously doubt out of that 20-30 million we were first informed about, that even 5 million of them didn’t have insurance because they wanted or needed it and could not pay for it.

As I pointed out months ago, the Obamacare law was designed to make the people lose their insurance on the individual market and the employer markets because the Obamacare law needs the people who already pay for insurance to be kicked out of their plans and be forced into the Obamacare market. They could not depend on the people who are not already paying for medical insurance to suddenly run out and buy insurance just because of the Obamacare law. No, they needed at least those on the individual market to come into the Obamacare exchanges to get the ball rolling, and boosting the number of enrollees by 5 or 10 million in the first year would help convince the American people that the law was working. This fact is evidenced by the authors of the law themselves, as professor Ezekiel Emanuel admitted the fact, they needed those people to be forced into the exchanges.

I used to think democrats studied history to learn how to implement harmful policies of the past to hurt America, it’s not that, they’re not that smart. In fact they are so devoid of intelligence, they do not realize they just have the same spirit as other despotic reprobate peoples before them, it therefore causes them to use the same tactics and rhetoric.

Cyber security experts say Healthcare.gov website for Obamacare is less safe and secure than it was in October.

They are also finally reporting something I told my family a few months ago. Not only can hackers get the information that you submit to the healthcare.gov website. Every computer system that healthcare.gov website is tied into is vulnerable because hackers can use the Obamacare website as a doorway into all the other systems, i.e. IRS, DHS, HHS, State computer systems, you name it.

Therefore every Americans information is vulnerable. For an identity thief this could not be better, they now have a way to make a complete profile on you, your assets, addresses, bank accounts, everything!

It is incomprehensible that a political party is so invested in a program that they would allow anywhere near this threat level to the American people and their information.

You keep hearing people say they need the young and healthy to buy into the exchanges to make Obamacare work. Why then does the law allow young adults to stay on their parents healthcare plans until they are 26 years of age? They were never counting on the young and healthy, they were depending on the millions and millions of people that have lost, are losing, or will be losing their current medical insurance plans to be kicked into the exchanges.

This was never about healthcare, this Obamacare law was simply about control. I do hope one of the consequences of this incredibly intrusive and abusive law is, that it will force out of business, those insurance companies who thought it was a good idea to join with government in this fascist manner because it forced with threat of penalty, the American people to buy those same insurers products, just as it is now forcing many small business people out of business and keeping others from growing the businesses they are able to keep. This would be the correct form of social justice!

See liberals, democrats or progressives are never really for, the things they say they are for, they consistently tell you the exact opposite of the truth. They have tried to destroy the best healthcare system in the world because they wanted to control the outcomes. The free market was doing a more efficient and cheaper job of spreading the wealth around with their policies, than the government will ever be able to do with theirs.

If the democrats and Obama anticipated the slow or low sign up for Obamacare, why would they now need to extend the 2014/15 sign up period from 45 days to 60 days and move the date of the beginning of the sign up period from 2 weeks before the election to 2 weeks after?

Democrat actions on Obamacare have proved beyond doubt; Liberals think it’s okay to force someone to do something that is good for them. Christian principles are good for people. Should people be forced to live by those principles, faith, prayer, church? No, and they should not be forced by government to do other things their conscience informs them is wrong, or that their hearts are against!

And no, I wasn’t serious in questioning  whether people should be forced to adopt christian principles, God, nor Jesus would approve of that. I am serious however, just as people should not be forced into religion, they certainly should not be forced into anything else!

As anyone can see they are making it up as they go and it’s anything goes with them when it comes to the lengths they will go to screw the American people

UPDATE: Now we have Jonathan Gruber one of the main Obamacare architects validating everything conservative Christians and TeaParty Patriots were warning about the Obamacare law were and are true.

UPDATE: Now since the mid-term elections of 2014 we have democrat Sen. Chucky Schumer coming out trying to save his job, saying democrats were wrong to do Obamacare, along with democrat Rep. Steny Hoyer trying to revise history and distance himself from the disastrous effects of the Obamacare law or Affordable Care Act as they like to mistakenly call it. I won’t even go into democrat Sen. Mary Landreu of Louisiana trying to save her job. Isn’t it amazing how the rats always desert the ship after they demo it, thus the name democrats.

Manufactured Crises: You Never Want To Let a Good Crisis Go To Waste

tsa-tyrannyDespots and tyrants have used crises or manufactured crises for centuries to further their despotic aims. It seems that we have had many of these “manufactured crises” under the leadership of the democrats and Barack Obama.

It was Leftist Democrat Rahm Emanuel who said “You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid”, he said this in November 2008 when he was part of  the team for newly elected Barack Obama.

The POTUS with the help of the democrats have been manufacturing crises ever since they took office. This is one of the reasons Harry Reid had not passed a budget for 5 years until he was recently forced to. This is the reason Obama ginned up the class warfare and the occupy wall street crowd.

from-republic-despotism-obama-politicsAn elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be; divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others. ~Thomas Jefferson [Notes on the State of Virginia, 1787]

What can we learn about the politics of taking advantage of crises by despotic government officials from history.

On taking Advantage of popular Commotions, accidental Excesses, and foreign Revolutions, to extend Prerogative and Power, and encroach on the Liberties of the People.

The riots in London, which, to the disgrace of magistracy, and the boasted vigilance of ministers, (richly paid as they are, to guard the public safety,) arrived from contemptible beginnings to a formidable magnitude in the year 1780, have been considered by courtiers[political pundits], and those who are continually laboring to exalt prerogative at the expense of liberty, as extremely favorable to their purpose. They caused an universal panic. The cowardice, folly, and perhaps wickedness of certain public functionaries, were the true cause of the extensive mischief; but the excesses of a few most wretched rioters, who scarcely knew what they were doing… were attributed to the people. Arguments were drawn from the event against popular characters, popular books, popular assemblies, and in favor of military coercion. Military associations in the capital were encouraged, and the bank of England became a barrack. Liberty has few votaries[devout adherents] in comparison with property. The alarm was artfully[slyly] increased, and the spirit of despotism grew under its operation. The Tory[Elitists] and Jacobite party[loyalists to the Stuarts] exulted over the ruins, and would have rejoiced in building a Bastille[prison fortress] with the dilapidation’s. “See,” said they, as they triumphed over the scene, “the effects of power in the hands of the people!”

But the truth is, the people, the grand mass of the community, were not at all concerned in effecting the mischief… The first irregularities might have been suppressed by the slightest exertions of manly spirit. But those who were possessed of efficient places[political office] and their emoluments[profits], enjoying the sweets of office without suffering a sense of its duties to embitter them, displayed no spirit, and left it to be fairly inferred[concluded by reason] that they had it not. The people at large were not to be blamed for these unfortunate events; the whole of the culpability belonged to the appointed ministers of the law, in whom the people trusted and were deceived. The blame, however, was laid on the people; and those who, from their arbitrary principles, wished to discredit all popular interference in government, rejoiced at the calamity, as an auspicious event, confirming all their theories and justifying their practice.

despot211The artful[sly, wicked] encroachers on liberty were not deceived in calculating the effects resulting from this total dereliction of duty on the part of the civil magistrate. Almost immediately a damp[was discouraged or a check] was cast on the generous ardor, which, under a Wyvill, a Richmond, a Portland, and a Pitt, was seeking the salvation of the country, in a well-timed and deliberate reform of the House of Commons[elected representatives]. A few, indeed, remained equally zealous in the virtuous cause; but the minds of the many were palsied[paralyzed] by the panic, and seemed ready to acquiesce under every corruption attended with tranquility, rather than risk a reform, which, they were taught to believe, could not be effected without popular commotion[an uprising]. Toryism saw the change with delight, and employed all its influence in augmenting and continuing the political torpor[keeping the status quo, political inactivity or interference from the people].

In a few years the public mind seemed to have relinquished its intentions of effecting a speedy reform. It seemed to adopt the physician’s maxim, Malum bene positum ne moveto[Though this evil is malum malè positum.*]; and hesitated to undertake the removal of a local pain, lest it should throw the morbid matter over the whole habit. The fear of exciting a general inflammation prevented men from probing and cleaning the inveterate ulcer. In the mean time, the sore is growing worse, and if not stopped in its progress, must terminate in a mortification.

(*The detestable principle from which this policy originally sprung was, that if the people were engaged in fighting with and killing each other, their fury would be spent, and they would think less of combining against their superiors. It was the old medical principle— malum bene positum ne moveto. In later times, the dread professed was, that a greater loss of life would be occasioned by collisions with the police.)

Thus important and extensive were the consequences of a popular tumult, dangerous indeed and terrible in itself, but artfully exaggerated and abused by interested courtiers, for the prevention of parliamentary reform, and the discredit of all popular proceedings. When any appeal to the people was in agitation, on any business whatever, it was sufficient to say, “Remember the riots,” and the intended measure was immediately relinquished. A glorious opportunity for the growth of despotic opinions! The high-church and high-government bigots rejoiced as if they had gained a complete victory. They already sang Te Deum [also known as Ambrosian Hymn or A Song of the Church is an early Christian hymn of praise, joy and thanksgiving].

But in the midst of their triumphs, as human affairs are seldom long stationary, the French revolution commenced. Every honest and enlightened mind exulted at it; but the news was like a death-bell to the ears of the sycophants. So large, so powerful a part of Europe emancipated[freed] from the fangs of despotism, blasted all the budding hopes of those who were rather meditating the establishment than the demolition of absolute rule. Aristocratical pride was mortified. Every sullen sentiment, every angry passion, rose in the disappointed bosom of that ambition, which seeks its own elevation on the depression of the people. But liberty and humanity sympathized in the joy of millions, restored to the rights which God and nature gave them; and which had been gradually stolen from them by the spirit of despotism, acting, for mutual aid, in alliance with superstition.

But the morning which rose so beautifully in the political horizon of France was soon overclouded. The passions of leaders, jealous of each other, menaced from within and from without, hunted by surrounding enemies till they were driven to frenzy, burst forth in tremendous fury. Cruelties, which even despots would shudder to perpetrate, were the effects of a situation rendered dangerous in the extreme, and almost desperate, by the general attack of all neighboring nations. The friends of liberty and humanity wept; but the factors of despotism triumphed once more. “Here,” said they, “we have another instance of the unfitness of the people for the possession of power, and the mischievous effects of excessive liberty.” Every art which ingenuity can practice, and influence assist in its operation, was exerted to abuse and vilify the French revolution. Associations were formed to disseminate childish books, favoring the spirit of despotism, addressed to the meanest of the people, who yet had too much sense to be seduced by sentiments, doctrines, and language calculated only for the meridian of the nursery. Prosecutions and persecutions abounded; and it became sedition to hint the propriety of parliamentary reformation. The alarmists, as they were called, were so successful in propagating the old Tory tenets, under the favorable influence of the panic of real danger, and the detestation and horror which French murders had justly occasioned, that some of the staunchest friends of the people, men brought into the country at the revolution, owing all their honours and emoluments to it, and hitherto professed and zealous Whigs[reformers], deserted the standard of liberty, and took distinguished posts under the banners of the enemy.

The spirit of despotism now went forth with greater confidence than it had ever assumed since the expulsion of the Stuarts. Its advocates no longer skulked; no longer walked in masquerade. They boasted of their principles, and pretended that they alone were friends to law, order, and religion. They talked of the laws of England not being severe enough for the punishment of sedition, and boldly expressed a wish that the laws of Scotland might be adopted in their place. Active promoters of parliamentary reform were now accused of treasonable intentions by the very persons who were once loudest in their invectives against the corruption of the house of commons. Newspapers were hired to calumniate the best friends of freedom. Writers appeared in various modes, commending the old government of France; and pouring the most virulent abuse on all who promoted or defended its abolition. Priests who panted for preferment preached despotism in their pulpits, and garretteers[soldiers] who hungered after places or pensions, racked their invention to propagate its spirit by their pamphlets. Fear in the well-meaning, self-interest in the knavish, and systematic subtility in the great party of tories, caused a general uproar in favour of principles and practices hostile to constitutional liberty.

It is, however, the nature of all violent paroxysms[attacks] to be of transient[short] duration. The friends of man may therefore hope that panic fears, servile sycophantism, and artful bigotry, will not long prevail over cool reason and liberal philanthropy. The drunken delirium will pass off, and sober sense will soon see and acknowledge, that the accidental evils, (dreadful as they have been,) which have arisen in a neighbouring nation, during a singular struggle for liberty, can be no arguments in favour of despotism, which is a constant evil of the most destructive nature. The body in high and robust health is most subject to the heat of an inflammatory fever; but no man in his senses will therefore cease to wish for high and robust health.

Sensible men, and true friends to the constitution…will be on their guard against false alarms excited by courtiers; lest in the fear of some future evil, from popular commotion, they lay aside that everwaking vigilance which is necessary to guard the good in possession, their constitutional liberty, from the secret depredation of the artful spoiler, who is always on the watch to encroach on popular rights and privileges.

Riots, tumults, and popular commotions, are indeed truly dreadful, and to be avoided with the utmost care by the lovers of liberty. Peace, good order, and security to all ranks, are the natural fruits of a free constitution. True patriots will be careful to discourage every thing which tends to destroy them; not only because whatever tends to destroy them tends to destroy all human happiness, but also because even an accidental outrage in popular assemblies and proceedings, is used by the artful to discredit the cause of liberty. By the utmost attention to preserving the public peace, true patriots will defeat the malicious designs of servile courtiers; but, whatever may happen, they will not desert the cause of human nature. Through a dread of licentiousness[acting without regard to law, ethics, or the rights of others.], they will not forsake the standard of liberty. It is the part of fools to fall upon Scylla in striving to avoid Charybdis[monsters that lived on opposite sides of a narrow channel of water; Greek mythology]. Who but a fool would wish to restore the perpetual[never ending] despotism of the old French government, through a dread of the transient outrages of a Parisian tumult? Both are despotic while they last. But the former is a torrent that flows for ever; the latter only a land flood, that covers the meadows to-day, and disappears on the morrow.

Dr. Price has a passage so applicable to the present subject, that I shall beg leave to close this section by the citation of it: and on the mention of his name, I must pay a trifling tribute to his memory, which is the more necessary, as his character has been scandalously aspersed by those who are ever busy in discrediting the people and their friends, and who, pretending a love of goodness and religion, blacken with their foulest calumny those who are singularly remarkable for both, for no other reason than that, under the influence of goodness and religion, such persons espouse the cause of freedom, and prefer the happiness of millions to the pomp and pride of a few aspirants to unlimited dominion. Meek, gentle, and humane; acute, eloquent, and profoundly skilled in politics and philosophy; take him for all and all, the qualities of his heart, with the abilities of his head, and you may rank Price among the first ornaments of his age. Let his enemies produce from all their boasted despots and despotical Satraps, any one of his contemporaries whom, in the manner of Plutarch, they may place by his side as a parallel. Posterity will do him the justice of which the proud have robbed him, and snatch him from the calumniators, to place him in the temple of personal honour, high among the benefactors of the human race.

But I return from the digression, into which I was led by an honest indignation against the vilest of calumnies against one of the best of men. These are the words of Dr. Price:

“Licentiousness and despotism are more nearly allied than is commonly imagined. They are both alike inconsistent with liberty, and the true end of government; nor is there any other difference between them, than that one is the licentiousness of great men, and the other the licentiousness of little men; or that by one, the persons and property of a people are subject to outrage and invasion from a king, or a lawless body of grandees[high ranked noblemen, i.e. government officials]; and that by the other, they are subject to the like outrage from a lawless mob. In avoiding one of these evils, mankind have often run into the other. But all well-constituted governments guard equally against both. Indeed, of the two, the last is, on several accounts, the least to be dreaded, and has done the least mischief. It may truly be said, if licentiousness has destroyed its thousands, despotism has destroyed its millions. The former having little power, and no system to support it, necessarily finds its own remedy; and a people soon get out of the tumult and anarchy attending it. But a despotism, wearing a form of government, and being armed with its force, is an evil not to be conquered without dreadful struggles. It goes on from age to age, debasing the human faculties, levelling all distinctions, and preying on the rights and blessings of society. It deserves to be added, that in a state disturbed by licentiousness, there is an animation which is favourable to the human mind, and puts it upon exerting its powers; but in a state habituated to despotism, all is still and torpid. A dark and savage tyranny stifles every effort of genius, and the mind loses all its spirit and dignity.”

Heaven grant, that in guarding against a fever[state of nervous excitement], we fall not into a palsy[paralysis and involuntary tremors]!

Source: The Spirit of Despotism by Vicesimus Knox, D.D. (first printed 1795)

Gun Control Lessons From Wounded Knee South Dakota as Experienced by the Sioux

History Teaches US The Lessons We Must Learn!

See also: The Consequence of Bad Legal Precedent in American Legislation
Wide Spread And Growing Corruption In The Public Service Of The States And Nation
Founders on the 2nd Amendment
Open letter to Speaker Boehner and Republican party
Open Letter to ALL Politicians and Bureaucrats, we’re coming for you
Constitution of the United States and it’s Governmental Operations (In Plain English so even Politicians, Lawyers and Bureaucrats can understand)
THE SOURCE AND SECURITY OF AMERICAN FREEDOM AND PROGRESS by Courtlandt Parker 1876

Wounded Knee

December 29, 2012 marked the 122nd Anniversary of the murder of 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota .  These 297 people, in their winter camp, were murdered by federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms “for their own safety and protection”.  The slaughter began after the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms.  The Calvary began shooting, and managed to wipe out the entire camp.  Two hundred of the 297 victims were women and children.  About 40 members of the 7th Cavalry were killed, but over half of them were victims of fratricide from the Hotchkiss guns of their overzealous comrades-in-arms.  Twenty members of the 7th Cavalry’s death squad were deemed “National Heroes” and were awarded the Medal of Honor for their acts of ‘heroism’.

We hear very little of Wounded Knee today.  It is usually not mentioned in our history classes or books. What little that does exist about Wounded Knee is normally a sanitized “Official Government Explanation”. And there are several historically inaccurate depictions of the events leading up to the massacre which appear in movie scripts and are not the least bit representative of the actual events that took place that day.

Wounded Knee was among the first federally backed gun confiscation attempts in United States history.  It ended in the senseless murder of 297 people.

Before you jump on the emotionally charged bandwagon for gun-control, take a moment to reflect on the real purpose of the Second Amendment, the right of the people to take up arms in defense of themselves, their families, and property in the face of an invading army or an oppressive government.  The argument that the Second Amendment only applies to hunting and target shooting is asinine.  When the United States Constitution was drafted, hunting was an everyday chore carried out by men and women to put meat on the table each night and target shooting was an unheard of concept.  Musket balls were a precious commodity and were certainly not wasted on target shooting.  The Second Amendment was written by people who fled oppressive and tyrannical regimes in Europe and it refers to the right of American citizens to be armed, should such tyranny arise in the United States .

As time goes forward, the average citizen in the United States continually loses little chunks of personal freedom or “liberty”.  Far too many times, unjust gun control bills were passed and signed into law under the guise of “for your safety or protection”.  The Patriot Act signed into law by G.W. Bush, was expanded and continues under Barack Obama.  It is just one of many examples of American citizens being stripped of their rights and privacy.  Now, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is on the table and will most likely be attacked to facilitate the path for the removal of our firearms, all in the name of safety.

Before we blindly accept whatever new firearms legislation that is about to be doled out, we should stop and think about something for just one minute.  Evil does exist in our world. It always has and always will.  Throughout history evil people have committed evil acts.  In the Bible one of the first stories is that of Cain killing Abel.  We cannot legislate evil into extinction. Good people will abide by the law and the criminal element will not.

Evil exists all around us, but looking back at the historical record of the past 200 years, across the globe, evil and malevolence is most often found in the hands of those with the power, the governments.  That greatest human tragedies on record and the largest loss of innocent human life can be attributed to governments.  Who do the governments always target?  Scapegoats and enemies within their own border, but only after they have been disarmed to the point where they are no longer a threat.  Ask any Native American, and they will tell you it was inferior technology and lack of arms that contributed to their demise.  Ask any Armenian why it was so easy for the Turks to exterminate millions of them and they will answer “We were disarmed before it happened”.  Ask any Jew what Hitler’s first step prior to the mass murders of the Holocaust was.  The confiscation of firearms from the people.

Wounded Knee is the prime example of why the Second Amendment exists and why we should vehemently resist any attempts to infringe on our Rights to Bear Arms. Without the Second Amendment we will be stripped of any ability to defend ourselves.

A few other lessons from history from various sources

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves against their ethnic-cleansing government, were arrested and exterminated.

In 1929, the former Soviet Union established gun control as a means of controlling the “more difficult” of their citizens. From 1929 to the death of Stalin, 40 million Soviets met an untimely end at the hand of various governmental agencies as they were arrested and exterminated.

After the rise of the Nazi’s, Germany established their version of gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves against the “Brown Shirts”, were arrested and exterminated. Interestingly, the Brown Shirts were eventually targeted for extermination themselves following their blind acts of allegiance to Hitler. Any American military and police would be wise to grasp the historical significance of the Brown Shirts’ fate.

After Communist China established gun control in 1935, an estimated 50 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves against their fascist leaders, were arrested and exterminated.

Closer to home, Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayans, unable to defend themselves against their ruthless dictatorship, were arrested and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves from their dictatorial government, were arrested and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million of the “educated” people, unable to defend themselves against their fascist government, were arrested and exterminated.

In 1994, Rwanda disarmed the Tutsi people and being unable to defend themselves from their totalitarian government, nearly one million were summarily executed.

The total numbers of victims who lost their lives because of gun control is approximately 70 million people in the 20th century. The historical voices from 70 million corpses speak loudly and clearly to those Americans who are advocating for a de facto gun ban. Governments murdered four times as many civilians as were killed in all the international and domestic wars combined. Governments murdered millions more people than were killed by common criminals and it all followed gun control.

Historically, American gun control legislation has been imitating Hitler’s Nazi Germany gun control legislation for quite some time. Consider the key provisions of the Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 and compare it with the United States Gun Control Act of 1968. The parallels of both the provisions and the legal language are eerily similar.

The Nazi Weapons Act
of 1938

United States Gun Control Act
of 1968

1 Classified guns for sporting purposes 1 Introduced term “sporting purpose”
2 All Germans desiring to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and submit to a background check 2 Exempted government agencies from the controls which applied to law-abiding citizens
3 The law assumed that non-Nazi German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazi’s from the gun control law 3 The Law assumes that mentally ill people will turn their guns on innocents and the government is given the power to limit the purchase by people DEEMED to be a threat by labeling them as mentally ill.
4 The Nazi’s assumed unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not, be owned by private persons 4 Authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to decide what firearms could or could not be owned by private persons
5 The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by governmental bureaucrats 5 The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by governmental bureaucrats
6 Citizens under 18 years of age could not buy firearms and ammunition 6 Age restriction of 18 years and 21 years were applied to anyone who wished to purchase firearms and ammunition

Thomas Jefferson was very clear in his writings regarding the right to bear arms. Jefferson knew that the preservation of the Republic ultimately rested upon a well-armed citizenry. Jefferson felt it was absolutely necessary for American citizens to be able to protect themselves. The protection that Jefferson spoke of was not from our obvious enemies of the day (France and Britain), but from our own government. Jefferson made this point quite clear when he admonished future generations of Americans to fulfill their duty to overthrow a government if they failed to serve the needs of the majority of its citizens.

Private ownership of guns is the necessary component needed to fulfill the Jeffersonian mandate for national self-defense. Yet, increasingly and reminiscent of Nazi Germany, the United States government is incrementally chipping away at private citizens right to own a gun. This does doesn’t make sense because FBI statistics clearly show that 90% of the guns used in the commission of a crime are stolen! Does the government really believe that criminals, both American citizens and illegal aliens, as well as terrorists, are suddenly going to perform their civic duty and immediately register their guns? How is America better-served if the only ones who don’t have access to guns are the law-abiding citizens? So, one must ask who are the gun control laws designed to protect and why?

A story of Germany: The Jew Alfred Flatow was found to be in possession of one revolver with twenty-two rounds of ammunition, two pocket pistols, one dagger, and thirty one knuckledusters. Arms in the hands of Jews are a danger to public safety.

Police First Sergeant Colisle
Via an arrest report from Berlin, October 4, 1938.

He was arrested based on the above while attempting to comply with an order to turn in all firearms to the government. His firearm was legally owned and registered. It wasn’t until November 11, 1938 that the Weapons Control Act of 1938 went into effect making it illegal for Jews to own firearms. Hence, he was arrested while complying with the law at the time.

After his arrest he was turned over to the Gestapo and transported to Terezin inOctober of 1942. He died of starvation in the Theresienstadt concentration camp in December 1942.

More lessons of the present day:

In Great Britain: Under regulations implementing Britain’s 1997 Firearms (Amendment) Act, gun club members must now register every time they use a range, and must record which particular gun they use. If the gun-owner does not use some of his legally-registered guns at the range often enough, his permission to own those guns will be revoked.

However, then Labor Party leaders brought Dunblane spokesperson Anne Pearston to a rally, and, in effect, denounced opponents of a handgun ban as accomplices in the murder of school children. Prime Minister Major, who was already doing badly in the polls, crumbled. He promptly announced that the Conservative government would ban handguns above .22 caliber, and .22 caliber handguns would have to be stored at shooting clubs, not in homes.

A few months later, Labor Party leader Tony Blair was swept into office in a landslide. One of his first acts was to complete the handgun ban by removing the exemption for .22s.

In California: In a letter dated November 24, 1997, The Man Who Would Be Governor declared that SKS rifles with detachable magazines, unless the owners can prove they acquired the rifles prior to June 1, 1989, are illegal “and must be relinquished to a local police or sheriff’s department.” This is a reversal of the opinion held by Mr. Lungren from the time he took office in January 1991, and which has been conveyed in numerous training sessions for peace officers, criminalists and prosecutors during the past four years.

In NYC: In 1991, New York City Mayor David Dinkins railroaded a bill through the city council banning possession of many semiautomatic rifles, claiming that they were actually assault weapons. Scores of thousands of residents who had registered in 1967 and scrupulously obeyed the law were stripped of their right to own their guns. Police are now using the registration lists to crack down on gun owners; police have sent out threatening letters, and policemen have gone door-to-door demanding that people surrender their guns, according to Stephen Halbrook, a lawyer and author of two books on gun control.

In Australia: Gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results:

Australia-wide, homicides went up 3.2 percent

Australia-wide, assaults went up 8.6 percent

Australia-wide, armed robberies went up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns.

It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too.

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady DECREASE in armed robbery with firearms, that changed drastically upward in the first  year after gun confiscation…since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety  has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late.

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind him of this history lesson.

With Guns………..We Are “Citizens”.

Without Them……..We Are “Subjects”.

During W.W.II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED.

Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor had attended Harvard University 1919-1921 & was Naval Attaché to the U. S. 1925-28. Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor and our Army had been deprived of funding and was ill prepared to defend the country.

It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U. S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U. S. and knew that almost all households had guns.

It is precisely due to that seemingly inevitable outcome that I will never register my firearms, should the question ever come up – such an act is nothing more than a ham-handed prelude to a larger, unconstitutional grab for power, and I refuse to make a totalitarian government’s life any easier. (On the flip side, what do you think an ATF Form 4473 is, other than a remarkably ineffective registration system…? Food for thought.)

If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message to all your friends.