Category Civil Society

Dec 12 2015

The growing threat of historical presentism


these kinds of moments are very dangerous, lets hope its not going to last.

deacon303's avatarWhiskey Tango Foxtrot

The outrage began with the calls for removal of the Confederate Flag and exploded to assaults on John Calhoun, Woodrow Wilson, and most recently on Thomas Jefferson. My purpose here is not necessarily to defend the merits of these individuals, as I find some more deserving of recognition than others. Rather I argue that the protests calling for the removal of affiliations with these historical characters or movements very closely resembles mob rule, and that these protests are founded on the snare of “historical presentism” whereby one applies contemporary moral judgments and worldviews to those of the past.

James Madison’s fears of mob rule and majoritarianism is a well explored topic. Suffice it to say that in Federalist 10, he wrote to the citizens of New York that “measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force…

View original post 594 more words

Dec 11 2015

“Who Are We?”


Post by Prof. Paul Eidelberg

The title of this article is that of a book written by Harvard Professor Samuel P. Huntington, who traces his ancestry to the Samuel Huntington who signed the Declaration of Independence.

As I have written in Rescuing America from Nihilism, Huntington begins to define America’s national identity with these precise remarks:

Until the middle of the eighteenth century, Americans defined themselves in terms of race, ethnicity, and culture, particularly religion. The creedal component of American identity only began to emerge as relations with Britain deteriorated over issues of trade, taxes, military security, and the extent of Parliament’s power over the colonies…. As their debates over their relations with Britain intensified, Americans also began to invoke more universalistic Enlightenment self-evident truths concerning liberty, equality, and individual rights. Combined, these two sources generated the creedal definition of American identity embodied most notably in the Declaration of Independence, but also expressed in many other documents, sermons, pamphlets, writings, and speeches in the 1770s and 1780s.

This is what Huntington says in Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2002), 47

Tragically, America has lost or has forsaken her national identity. No longer is America animated by what Abraham Lincoln called “our ancient faith.” That faith, Lincoln saw, was embodied in America’s primary foundational document, the Declaration of Independence. It was in this revolutionary document that America’s Founding Fathers proclaimed the cardinal principles of American Exceptionalism, principles that transcend space and time, principles derived from the universal and trans-historical truths of the Bible of Israel and encapsulated in the Declaration pivotal terms, “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” the source of man’s inalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

It should be obvious that President Barack Obama’s paramount objective is to destroy America’s unique national identity by flooding the country with Muslim migrants. No greater traitor has ever arisen in this country, whose would-be leaders, however, lack the courage and wisdom to articulate their convictions in such a way as to identify America’s greatest enemy.

Dec 10 2015

Capital Punishment and Abortion


Post By Professor Paul Eidelberg

Barack Obama opposes capital punishment.  Yet he voted against legislation that would put an end to full-birth abortion.  Full-birth abortion means nothing less than “kill the baby”—inflicting capital punishment not on the guilty but on the innocent! Hence, I am prompted to republish an article I wrote three decades ago.  The reader should bear in mind however, that wherever the article refers to the “unborn child,” today we must add the “born but unwanted child.”

*  *  *

In the Mishna we read: “Therefore but a single man was created in the world, to teach that if any man has caused a single soul to perish, Scripture imputes it to him as though he had caused a whole world to perish; and if any man saves alive a single soul, Scripture imputes it to him as though he had saved alive a whole world.”

To avoid misunderstanding, let me state at the outset that, except in extreme cases – such as Islamic terrorism – I do not advocate capital punishment in Israel at this time.  Nor do I regard as correct the Catholic view of abortion.  But there is something very curious about the liberal position on these two issues, especially by liberals who advocate the American practice of “abortion on demand.”

Among the arguments against capital punishment is the contention that society has no right to take the life even of the most savage murderer.  Yet many if not most opponents of capital punishment assert the right of a woman, six and even more months pregnant, to snuff out, with the aid of a physician, the life of her unborn child.  Murderers would thus be spared while the innocent would be murdered.

Oh, but now we have become “humane” and “progressive.”  For now we feel compassion, perhaps some responsibility, for those who have taken life, not for those who have just begun to live.  Without a twinge of moral doubt or remorse we execute the unborn and condemn as cruel and barbaric the execution of murderers.

That capital punishment should be called cruel and barbaric by its opponents is a nice commentary on our forefathers. Meanwhile, their humane descendants each year execute countless unborn babies whose only crime was to be unwanted.

An individual accused of murder receives due process of law.  He is provided legal counsel to defend him, witnesses to testify on his behalf.  In the United States, a jury of twelve persons is empanelled to hear and weigh evidence bearing on his guilt or innocence.  Let only one member of that jury harbor a reasonable doubt as to his guilt and the accused is acquitted, his life spared.

Compare the plight of the unwanted, unborn child.  He is utterly abandoned.  Society affords him no defense, no legal counsel or friendly witness.  Yet the life of the unborn child is on trial.  He is on trial for being an inconvenient “fetus.”

But we too are on trial, on trial in the courtroom of indifference called the “humane” and “progressive” society.  We are not only spectators; we are also the jury.  And we have been instructed by judges.  They have told us that this unborn child is not a human being—which we are all the more ready to believe having been taught to regard it as a mere “fetus.”

Had we not been thus instructed, had we only harbored a reasonable doubt on this life and death issue, we would have acquitted the child rather than become his executioners.  Only a reasonable doubt, nothing more than this, and we would have affirmed the child’s as well as our own humanity.

Liberal advocates of abortion intone the idea that a person has the right to control his or her own body.  Some derive this right from British common law. To stretch the common law to justify “abortion on demand” is rather ironic. For the common law prohibited the arbitrary control of another person’s body and regarded a “fetus” as a “person”! This being so, it was impermissible to execute a pregnant murderess.  But this is not the only irony.

The idea of “abortion on demand” actually violates the very nature of a woman’s body and the essence of motherhood. This can best be seen by reflecting on the Hebrew word for a woman’s womb—rechem.  One cognate of the word means to feel pity or pain at another’s suffering.  Another is to feel joy at another’s happiness.  Who feels more pain than a mother when her child is ill, or more joy when her child is well and successful.  But this is not all.

The mother’s body nourishes the child in her womb.  She gives of her own life’s substance to the child, a giving that signifies her selflessness.  The very opposite character trait underlies “abortion on demand.”

The laws of our supposedly barbaric forefathers prohibited abortion unless the mother’s life was in danger.  Many of our forefathers were doctors. Today many doctors, having added abortions to their repertoire of services, have also multiplied their yearly earnings.  Because of this vested interest, the medical profession has become one of the principal supporters of abortion.

As for capital punishment, consider a few aspects of Judaic law on the subject.  First, neither circumstantial evidence nor the confession of the accused is admissible in court.  Second, the murder had to be witnessed by two eligible persons, and they had to warn the would-be murderer of the consequences of his intended crime.  To be culpable, the malefactor had to be sane, and the act of murder had to be deliberate. These qualifications made conviction for capital punishment exceedingly rare.

Clearly, these laws governing capital punishment do not depreciate the value of human life.  To the contrary. Precisely because human life is sacred, those laws require the execution of convicted murderers, of those whose act of murder was itself a denial that human life is sacred.

By taking the life of a human being the murderer negates his own humanity; he reduces himself to the level of the beast.  And it is more as a beast, homo lupus, than as homo civilis, that the murderer, after being duly tried and convicted, is executed.  Imposing upon him the extreme penalty of death does not deny his humanity so much as it affirms the humanity or dignity of his victim.  Perhaps, in the last analysis, the punishment of death is a profound public affirmation of the sanctity of life.

But these thoughts are not intended as a defense of capital punishment, else far more would have to be said on the subject. Let them rather stand as an argument against capital punishment: the capital punishment tolerated under the name of “abortion on demand” or its equivalent. If capital punishment is opposed on the ground that human life is so precious that even the life of the most vicious murderer must be spared, do we not cheapen life by the wholesale destruction of countless unborn children?  Is the murderer more human than the unborn child?

One last word.  In Alex Haley’s celebrated book, Roots, Omoro, one of the principal characters, tries to explain life and death to young Kunta Kinte: “He said that three groups of people lived in every village. First were those you could see walking around, eating, sleeping, and working.  Second were the ancestors, whom Grandma Yaisa had now joined.” “And the third people—who are they?” asked Kunta.

“The third people,” said Omoro, “are those waiting to be born.”

Dec 10 2015

An Interview with an All-American


Introduction:

Paul Eidelberg writes for us on attempting to show us what really matters and in this post of his I think he gets to the heart of it as this persons in an interview at the end of this post refuses to be anything but an American which he is just as I am and as all the rest of you are as well. If we left them divide us then they will rule us in my opinion you are either a free American or you consent to be a serf/slave; but the choice is yours to make!. After reading this post you will understand why a  Muslims will find it difficult to be an Americans!

Post by Prof. Paul Eidelberg

The provocative nature or question concerning Muslim immigration to the United States arises from certain principles of American liberalism. Some Americans believe that indiscriminate immigration of Muslims may undermine the survival of the United States.

To consider this issue seriously, that is, to avoid doctrinarism or mere dogma, certain demonstrable facts need to be considered:

(1)   According to Islamic doctrine, Jihad (or the slaying of non-Muslims) is a supreme moral imperative.

(2)   Moreover, Islam preaches a theologically inspired Love of Death, This love of death is encapsulated in the Quranic verse Sura 9:111, which exalts the Muslim who “slays and is slain for Allah.” Or as stated in the Islamic doctrines compiled in the Hadith: “the purest joy in Islam is to kill and be killed in the name of Allah.”

These ancient and binding dogmas of Islam are diametrically opposed to America’s primary foundational document, the Declaration of Independence, which affirms man’s God-given and inalienable rights to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Moreover, Islamic theology rejects as blasphemous the Judaic principle of the Book of Genesis, that “all men are created equal.”

This makes Islamic theology a racist or Nazi-like creed. It divides mankind not into “Aryans” and “non-Aryans,” but into “believers” and “infidels”; and it regards infidels  –  as Nazis regarded Jews – as inferior creatures, as “apes” and “dogs” or “pigs” which may be slaughtered indiscriminately – as indeed non-Muslims have been slaughtered in fourteen centuries of Islamic genocide.

Here, let us pause. Back in 1997, there occurred a telephone interview with New York Times reporter Ward Connerly. Connerly was then a leading proponent of an initiative measure in California prohibiting affirmative action by the state government. The following exchange took place:

Reporter: What are you?”

Connerly: “I am an American.”

Reporter: No, no, no! What are you?”

Connery: “Yes, yes, yes! I am an American.”

Reporter: “That is not what I mean. I was told that you are African American. Are you ashamed to be African American?”

Connerly: “No, I am just proud to be American.”

Connerly then explained that his ancestry included Africans, French, Irish, and American Indians. And so the dialogue concluded:

Reporter: “What does that make you?”

Connerly: “That makes me all-American!”

Dec 10 2015

Some Prerequisites on Becoming a Naturalized Citizen of the United States


By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

On becoming a naturalized citizen of the United States, the Naturalization Act of 1790 set the criteria for naturalization to two years of residency, proof of good moral character, and an oath to support the Constitution.

It also mandated that one must “absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign Prince, Potentate, State or Sovereignty.”

Does the latter prerequisite place in question whether a devout Muslim immigrant is eligible for citizenship in the United States?

Dec 10 2015

Thoughts on Citizenship


By Prof. Paul Eidelberg
December 9, 2015

1) Citizenship is the grant of a personal status to the citizen and it creates a bond of loyalty between the citizen and the State, and endows him or her with nationality.

2) Naturalized citizens may be required to take a pledge of loyalty. For example:

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States and to the Republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.”

3) Citizenship carries with it both rights and responsibilities. Citizens should work toward the betterment of their community through economic participation, public service, volunteer work, and other such efforts to improve life for all citizens.

4) Citizenship as thus defined will not be conspicuous in a population whose children were not imbued with a strong sense of national character. This obviously applies to illegal Muslim and Hispanic immigrants in America who maintain their past sympathies or attachments.

5) Japan does not give citizenship to a child born of Japanese parents if the child was raised abroad by his own parents, as might happen if the parents were in the diplomatic corps.

6) Under Jordan’s Nationality law of February 4, 1954, a person became a Jordanian national if, “not being Jewish, he possessed Palestine nationality before May 14, 1948 and, at the date of publication of this law, was ordinarily resident in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.” This is less a manifestation of racism than of national pride and political prudence.

7) Making Muslims citizens of a Jewish state is more foolish than making Jews citizens of any Muslim state, considering only the disparity in their respective populations in the Middle East.

Just as only Jews are qualified to make the laws of a Jewish state – think of the knowledge and reverence required to preserve the Jewish tradition, its religious precepts and practices, its methods of education, the memory of its great teachers and leaders – so only Muslims are qualified to make the laws of any Muslim state.

8) A large majority of Muslim citizens of Israel identify with Israel’s enemies, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran. In fact, many of these Muslim citizens have aided and/or committed terrorist attacks against Israel.

9) The Balfour Declaration, the St. Remo Convention, the Anglo-American Accord, the UN Resolution affirming the establishment of the State of Israel, and Israel’s own Declaration of Independence, designate Israel as a Jewish state, and not as a multicultural state. The latter designation simply reflects the disloyal preference of post-Zionists in Israel, as well as of certain members of Israel’s Supreme Court, as may be seen in various rulings of the Court’s former and most influential Chief Justice, Aharon Barak.

10) That it is not simple for a devout Muslim to identify with Israel as a Jewish state is obvious. It is also obvious that Muslims in America are not thrilled to pledge allegiance to secular America. But that is the condition of enjoying the rights and opportunities that come with Israeli or American citizenship.

11) Citizenship for an immigrant with traditional moral values can be problematic in certain democracies.

12) The reason is this. There are two kinds of Democracy, contemporary, normless democracy, and classical normative democracy. Freedom and Equality are their basic principles. However, in a Normless democracy, freedom and equality lack ethical and rational constraints. The situation is otherwise in a normative democracy, where freedom and equality are rooted in the Bible’s conception of man’s creation in the Image of God.

13) Neither Israel nor America can be classified rightly as a Normative Democracy, not only because their Supreme Courts have legalized pornography, homosexuality, and same-sex marriage. The political leaders of these two democracies have amplified their normless propensities by consorting with and appeasing Muslim despots dedicated to their country’s destruction.

14) Therefore, given the absence of substantive normative principles and the pervasive moral equivalency in present-day America and Israel, and further, given the fact that this immoral posture goes on and on in both countries without discernible public protest or outrage; and further, since both countries have thereby betrayed their Judeo-Christian foundations – citizenship in both countries has become a travesty.

As a consequence, one may well wonder whether they are worthy of citizens sacrificing life and limb against their Islamic enemies, whose disloyal acts and pronounced dedication to the demise of both Israel and America, render these Muslims unworthy of respect and even tolerance.

Dec 8 2015

The gate is now closing only Trump can stop it!


How tyrants enslave free people….

Marx said, “Remove one freedom per generation and soon you will have no freedom and no one would have noticed.”

There was a chemistry professor in a large college that had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab, the professor noticed one young man, an exchange student, who kept rubbing his back and stretching as if his back hurt.

The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country’s government and install a new communist regime. In the midst of his story, he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked: “Do you know how to catch wild pigs?”

wild-pigs1

The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said that it was no joke. “You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come every day to eat the free food”.

“When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence”. “They get used to that and start to eat again.

You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side”. “The pigs, which are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat that free corn again. You then slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd”.

“Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.”

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening in America . The government keeps pushing us toward Communism/Socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tax exemptions, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare entitlements, medicine, drugs, etc., while we continually lose our freedoms, just a little at a time as the government forces us to participate in many of these programs whether or not we want to.

One should always remember two truths: There is no such thing as a free lunch, and you can never hire someone to provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself. If you see that all of this wonderful government “help” is a problem confronting the future of democracy in America, you might want to share this with your friends.
……help us all when the gate slams shut!

Dec 7 2015

The US government wants this here and so it is what is coming here and very soon!


The French Are to Surrender ALL Rights?

Posted on December 7, 2015 by

Hollande-3

The French newspaper LeMonde has reported from leaked documents just how much the Hollande Government wants to repeal the Constitution. Under this state of emergency, Hollande was to allow “searches of vehicles and luggage without the consent of individuals”, the “identity checks (…) without the need for law enforcement to prove circumstances special “and” an obligation to report his movements measurement (intermediate step before the arrest) “.

That still does not go far enough for Hollande. He wants without consent to “make the DNA samples” and fingerprints, for example. Then it gets much worse. He wants to “prohibit the free Wi-Fi connections and shared” during the state of emergency and remove the “public WiFi connections”, “under penalty criminal sanctions “, because of the difficulty of identifying people connected.

By declare war on TERRORISM, one does not face a country or army. Thus, this becomes a war that can never end. We no longer need an invading army to destroy Western culture. Our politicians will do it for us.

Franklin-Liberty

Dec 3 2015

Why Have There Been More Mass Shootings Under Obama than the Four Previous Presidents Combined?


The answer is actually very simple. Before Obama can get rid of the US Constitution he needs to get rid of the 2nd amendment i.e. guns. Therefore he has fostered a divisive policy to stir up angst between the various factions of the citizens. I believe the mass shooting are a direct result of Obama’s goal of fundamentally changing the country.

deacon303's avatarWhiskey Tango Foxtrot

We live in a world of short-term memories and long-term memory deficiencies. If the 24-hour news cycle was any indication, Americans appear to be bouncing from one catastrophic mass shooting to the next, with hardly any breathing room. Like this is just a regular occurrence America has learned to endure because… guns. It’s the prevalence of firearms in the hands of the people, the anti-gunners say. Calls to limit, rewrite, redefine, or outright dispose of the 2nd Amendment are rampant.

But no one is looking at the data. If they did, they would realize something is really, really, really wrong here.

No, there haven’t always been so many mass shootings. It hasn’t always been this way. Mass shootings have skyrocketed in this country just in the last seven years under President Obama.

The following was compiled using the database over at Mother Jones on mass shootings in the U.S…

View original post 875 more words

Dec 1 2015

This is not a Day Care. It’s a University!


This message should be posted at ALL UNIVERSITIES for it this trend continues these kids will not be employable.