Economic Diplomacy Continues – President Trump Softens Tone Toward China Currency Manipulation…

President Trump gave an interview to the Wall Street Journal where he changed a prior position on declaring China a “currency manipulator”:

(Via ABC) According to the Wall Street Journal, the president said the decision came in consideration of talks with China over its role in countering North Korean weapons testing. Trump said that any move to attach the designation could hamper China-U.S. relations. He claimed that, in recent months, China’s currency manipulation has halted. (link)

Is this a change in position? Yes.

It is an arbitrary change, or even an unexpected shift? Hell no.

As we have pointed out since the February 2016 GOP debate, the Trump approach toward North Korean hostilities is to leverage China to get control over N-Korea. –Expanded Backstory

President Trump is realigning U.S. geopolitical relationships based on America-First interests.   President Trump is using economic leverage to provide security and global stability. President Trump knows how to stroke the panda fur.

Last night President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping held another consultation call. 

Earlier today China abstained from vetoing a U.N. security council resolution against the use of chemical weapons in Syria.  Russia was forced to stand alone in alliance with Bashir Assad.  Russia is now isolated.  To emphasize that point, President Trump publicly states his support for NATO.

Earlier this week, following the April 6th, 7th Florida meeting between President Xi and President Trump, China refused to allow North Korean coal cargo ships to unload.  Today, China signaled they may temporarily ban the export of oil into North Korea.  Through these actions North Korea is becoming isolated.

China holds leverage over North Korea as the U.S. holds leverage over Puerto Rico.

As we stated in 2016, and again in January 2017, President Trump is positioning economic leverage with China to promote U.S. security interests.

The non-designation of China as a “currency manipulator” may be a billion benefit to China today, but if China can leverage productive action by North Korea, that same transactional exchange may save the U.S. billions in the use of military and peacekeeping assets, and provide enhanced security to South Korea – another strategic economic interest of the U.S.

This should come as no surprise to those who carefully followed Donald Trump’s public positions on the issues.   Bold predictive statements made earlier provide the leverage today for President Trump to find a larger economic and national security win.

In the last 24 hours:

♦ Russia said President Putin would not meet with U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.  Hours later Vladimir Putin hosted T-Rex for more than two hours.

♦ Russia vetos a U.N. Security Council resolution against Syria, and China refused to stand with them – that’s a historic shift of alliance.

♦ President Trump modifies his position on Chinese currency, and China announces the possibility of an oil embargo against North Korea.

[…]  A new nuclear test or an intercontinental ballistic missile test, if conducted by Pyongyang at this time, will be a slap in the face of the US government and will intensify the confrontation between North Korea and the US.

Presumably Beijing will react strongly to Pyongyang’s new nuclear actions. China will not remain indifferent to Pyongyang’s aggravating violation of the UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution.

More and more Chinese support the view that the government should enhance sanctions over Pyongyang’s nuclear activities. If the North makes another provocative move this month, the Chinese society will be willing to see the UNSC adopt severe restrictive measures that have never been seen before, such as restricting oil imports to the North.

Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program is intended for securing the regime, however, it is reaching a tipping point. Pyongyang hopes its gamble will work, but all signs point to the opposite direction. (link)

President Trump is leveraging China toward successful objectives in both Syria and North Korea.  In both instances Russia and North Korea are more isolated.  Additionally, in both of the key security interests of the United States, the use of this economic leverage means we do not have to involve our military.

The media are gleefully pointing out reversals or modifications of prior positions announced by candidate, now President, Donald Trump.   However, within each of these modified positions there are enormous benefits to the America-First platform.

America-First is not about isolationism; it is about the smart use of America’s aggregate scale and influence to shape outcomes that benefit America First.

….”Complicated business folks, … complicated business.”

Juvenile Delinquency versus the Victory of Donald Trump

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

The phenomenon of college professors inciting students to vehemently and violently protest against Mr. Donald Trump’s election as President of the United States should be understood as a manifestation of juvenile delinquency!

Truth be told, these professors are half-educated academics. They have been stupefied by the university-bred doctrine of multicultural moral relativism. This doctrine purveys nihilism, a denial of the existence of Truth. Nihilism denies the power of human reason, hence of man’s God-given capacity, to distinguish between good and evil.

This Nihilism has corrupted the minds of one generation after another of American college students since the end of the First World War. Although America won this European-inspired war on the battlefield, European philosophy defeated America on the campus. The skepticism of England’s philosopher David Hume, and the historical relativism of Germany’s philosophers Hegel and Marx, took American colleges and universities by storm.

European philosophy blitzed America by obliterating America’s primary intellectual and moral foundations, whose American bedrock was the Declaration of Independence. This foundational document embodied, and preserved for the American people, a concept known as “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” a concept rooted in the Creation Narrative of the Book of Genesis, which was undermined by Darwin’s doctrine of biological Evolution.

Darwin’s doctrine of evolution reinforced the academic doctrine of historical relativism. Historical relativism includes moral relativism, which is magnified by present-day Liberalism. This degraded form of Liberalism has utterly corrupted college youth. For this corruption we may thank half-educated American professors. These academics have taken civilization for granted. They are oblivious of how many centuries were required for thoughtful and virtuous men to overcome centuries of pagan polytheism.

Countless Liberals of the academic elite have taken civilization for granted, which means they have taken decency for granted.

While the elites of Liberal Democracy exalt freedom and equality, they are oblivious of the demonstrable truth that freedom and equality without rational and moral constraints cannot but lead to barbarism or neo-paganism. These constraints (as was known by America’s Founding Fathers) are nothing other than the Noahide Laws of morality embodied in the Book of Genesis.

Neo-paganism is manifested today not only by Muslim terrorists who behead “infidels” or burn them alive. Neo-paganism lurks in the hostile passions and prejudices of half-educated college youth who believe that by protesting against the presidential election of Donald Trump, they are upholding Democracy, when in fact they are displaying contempt for the rule of law without which Democracy degenerates into anarchy.

Unfortunately, not a single 2016 presidential candidate, not even the erudite professor Newt Gingrich, possessed the wherewithal to denounce the corrosive impact of moral relativism, a doctrine that has been propagated by America’s academic elite for several decades. Sadly, notwithstanding his merits, President-elect Donald Trump is not intellectually well-fitted to combat that sinister doctrine without arousing fools and scoundrels in the academic and electronic media to denounce him as a proponent of “absolutism” and “McCarthyism.”

It should also be noted that relativism has flourished in America despite the influence of Christianity. Indeed, the hundred denominations of Protestant Christianity encourage relativism. So, too, does the Catholic Church, which, apart from its logically untenable and sinister doctrine of “Replacement Theology,” has sullied itself by supporting independent statehood for the pagan Palestinian Authority, a device used to undermine Israel and Jewish possession of Jerusalem. Even the Vatican fosters atheism via the moral equivalency implied in its politically neutral attitude toward the Israel-Palestinian conflict!

Small wonder the evangelical atheism current in America and promoted via moral relativism will not be overcome by the established churches of Protestant and Catholic Christianity. They are more concerned about the rebirth of Israel, that is, about the intellectual threat Judaism poses to Christian theology, for example, by the compatibility of Judaism with scientific cosmology.

This compatibility, to begin with, was confirmed recently by a team of scientists headed by astronomer John M. Kovac of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Dr. Kovac announced on March 17, 2014 that his team of astrophysicists had found the evidence it was seeking to support the theory that the universe did indeed have a beginning. Of course, this finding, as mentioned, is only a beginning; but it’s the beginning of a worldwide intellectual revolution anticipated by the Sages of Israel.

That said, can it be that the presidential victory of Mr. Donald Trump, whose election has disconcerted America’s unknown but silently subversive academic establishment, has so rattled the eggheads of this intellectual clique as to prompt them and their students to behave as juvenile delinquents – can it be, I ask, that this election of an uncouth and
unlearned “outsider” heralds a step toward America’s redemption?☼

Why Democratic America Can’t Win the War against Islam

Eidelberg Report – Tamar Yonah Show, INR – December 11, 2006 Updated

Democracies cannot win a protracted war in an era in which their opinion makers have been indoctrinated and emasculated by the university-bred doctrine of multicultural moral relativism.

This relativism, which inclines liberal democracies to pacifism, corrupts 75-80 percent of American social scientists. These academics provide the experts of our policy makers and decision makers, as well as the mandarins of the mass media. Whether studying journalism, political science, sociology, psychology, etc., they have been taught there are no objective standards by which to determine whether the way of life of one individual, group, or nation is intrinsically superior to that of another. All lifestyles are morally equal. Hence there are no moral grounds for preferring the American way of life to the Islamic way of life.

This is a denial of evil. By denying the enormity of evil, relativism fosters sentimental humanism. This humanism underlies the strategy of “post-heroic” warfare, which would not only avoid casualties to your own troops, but also to avoid killing enemy civilians.

One would have to impose censorship on the universities and the media to conduct a war-winning strategy against Islamism and its global jihad.

Let me quote Nonie Darwish, that gallant Egyptian writer who immigrated to America in 1978 and has lectured around the world since 9/11. In her book, Now They Call Me Infidel, she refers to an authoritative Muslim leader who brazenly said this to Christians: “Thanks to your democratic laws we will invade you; thanks to our religious laws we will dominate you” (p. 144).

Darwish discerns how Muslims exploit the freedom of speech of liberal democracies to spread Islamism on university campuses where Muslim student organizations freely preach Islam, obscuring its history of despotism. She notes, moreover, that liberal professors are equally if not more radical than any imam in a radical mosque. And most mosques, she warns, preach anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, and jihad.

Darwish, the daughter of a famous shahid, but educated by Christians as well as by Muslims, writes that “In the Muslim world there are no real distinctions between moderate or radical Muslims; all are Muslims” (p. 135). Moreover, “there is nothing America or the non-Muslim West can do that will meet with gratitude and appreciation…. To the contrary, good deeds of non-Muslims toward Muslims only deepen their sense of dependency and inferiority … [and resentment]”

Darwish deplores the media, especially CNN, which has contributed, she says, to Arab hatred by regularly criticizing America. The media, she argues, have failed to inform the public that the 9/11 attack was an attack not only on America. It was an attack by the haters of civilization. Yet the public, and even college students, are largely misinformed about this culture of hatred. A huge PR campaign, supported primarily by Saudi money, has spread across U.S. campuses selling Islam as a religion of peace. But that’s exactly what
President Bush told the nation the day after 9/11!

As I wrote in New York nine days after 9/11, democratic America lacks the concepts and perseverance to win the war against Islamic Jihad. I’ve mentioned the dispiriting influence of relativism. Add the fact there are some 150 billion Muslims on this planet. Daniel Pipes estimates that 10 -15 percent (or 150-225 million) support jihad. Robert Spencer reports estimates of more than 50 percent.

To win any war, one must be ruthless. The compassionate Abraham Lincoln understood this, which is why he was so frustrated with timid generals until Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman came on the scene and ravaged the South to win the Civil War. Franklin D. Roosevelt understood this, which is why Dresden was napalmed. Harry S. Truman understood this, which is why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were vaporized. Today, when Israeli generals go abroad, they face the threat of being indicted as “war criminals” for having defended their country against Arab terrorists! They are shouted down as “war criminals” at American universities.

Higher education has eroded American resolve. Contrast the following. A CNN poll just days after 9/11 showed that 76 percent of Americans said they would support military action against al-Qaeda even if it meant 5,000 troops would be killed. Today, 56 percent are resigned to the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, and less than 10 percent supports military action to prevent that deadly outcome.

Why don’t college students know that a nuclear Iran could dominate the Middle East and the oil resources of the Persian Gulf? Why don’t they know that a pacifist Europe, already Islamized, would succumb to nuclear blackmail? Why don’t these student know that the loss of Europe would wreck the American economy and radically curtail the scholarships and funding on which the education and careers of these students ultimately depend? Why this ignorance or indifference?

Multicultural moral relativism erodes the American people’s confidence in the justice of their own cause vis-a-vis Islamic terrorism. Like the mandarins of BBC, those of CNN, ABC, NBC, USA Today, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, choke on the word “terrorism.” The same may be said of Barack Obama. This is not all.

Moral relativism has degenerated into “moral reversal.” The clearest example of this metamorphosis is the media’s coverage of the war between Israel and the PLO-Palestinian Authority. Whereas the victim, Israel, is portrayed as the villain, the villains, the Palestinian terrorists are portrayed as the victims. This moral inversion is conspicuous on university campuses, where Israel has been demonized.

But what is singularly significant, without denying the pivotal role of the race card, multicultural moral relativism prompted the large percentage of academics that voted for and facilitated the dovish Obama presidency. It should also be emphasized, however, that by curtailing American military power, Obama has promoted international anarchy.

Meanwhile, Obama has fostered a “culture of American self-hatred,” the inverse, ironically, of Islam’s culturally-induced hatred of all infidels!

Self-hatred, which is typical of the American Left, has influenced Hillary Clinton, whose mentor was the anti-American radical Saul Alinsky. Clinton’s goal in the 2016 election was to further the program – really the treachery of Barack Obama. Recall that his slogan in the 2004 presidential campaign was CHANGE, which signified nothing less than his sinister ambition to de-Americanize America. This corresponds to the “G’D damn America” malediction of his guru pastor Jeremiah Wright, a patron of the Left.

Hence we may thank the unrefined and very American Donald Trump, a political outsider, for bringing America back to its senses by relegating Hillary to the political wilderness, which the forthright Mr. Trump might inelegantly refer to as a political outhouse.☼

A Unity of Opposites: A Jewish Teaching that Private Vice Can Serve Public Virtue

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Consider Donald Trump vis-à-vis these extracts from my book American Exceptionalism:

  • The Father of America, George Washington, envisioned in this nation the growth of a great commercial Republic. He understood that a commercial Republic will inevitably foster, along with competition and self-interest, the passions of ambition and avarice, which would augment dissension and litigation. However, he agreed with his great Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, that under the rule of law and well-designed institutions, “ambition will check ambition,” and that avarice, rightly directed, “may serve the public as well as the private good.”
  • Hamilton also discerned that commercial republicanism can foster rationality, creativity, co-operation, as well as thrift, frugality, and even civic virtue.
  • The philosopher-scientist Alfred North Whitehead observed that “Commerce is the great example of intercourse by way of persuasion.” It transforms self-interest into “enlightened self-interest.” Thus modified, self-interest will produce public benefits, while public benefits will enable a larger number of citizens to prosper and contribute to the common good.


Strange as it may seem, Donald Trump has been more or less influenced by the teaching of the above paragraphs. His pompous boast “to make America great again,” his enormous avarice primed by vulgar egoism, should be viewed with the above paragraphs in mind, to justly evaluate the man who may become the next President of the United States.

Trump make americ great

Modern Liberalism and the Death of Civilization

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

The Nihilism (involving moral relativism) that contaminated higher education in America begins with the early 20th century flood of European philosophy in American academia.  Most influential was Germany’s (or Hegel’s) historical relativism, which contradicts the biblical narrative, as did England’s (or Hume’s) atheistic empiricism. Both dominate higher education to this day, even in the “Jewish” state of Israel.

As Leo Strauss has shown, the father of modern liberalism is none other than Spinoza. Spinoza is also the father of biblical criticism. This made Spinoza the darling of Germany, of the nineteenth-century German school of Bible Critics.

Spinoza must therefore have encouraged the European-educated John Stuart Mill, whose mid-nineteenth essay On Liberty made him the world’s leading exponent of unfettered freedom of speech, hence of the free speech Liberalism that continues to predominate the mentality of American law schools and judicial institutions.

Paradoxically, however, free speech Liberalism is now eviscerating academic freedom in the United States. American colleges and universities have succumbed to the virtual totalitarianism underlying the prohibition of what is called “hate speech,” speech that offends the sentiments, above all the religious beliefs of Muslims, The ban on “hate speech” means the end of the liberal dogma of unfettered freedom of speech. The ban on “hate speech” may readily be construed as indistinguishable from speech involving, however remotely the character of other human beings.

What irony! The unrestrained permissiveness of Liberalism regarded obscenity as a protected form of speech by the American Supreme Court. This ruling at least denied the existence of truth and of evil, hence of that which denies the existence of a rational God, as well as the distinction between the human and the subhuman.

That denial can readily undermine the distinction between the polite speech appropriate in the company of woman and the obscene speech typical among vile men. This involves a degradation of language. The foulness of language violates the language of Holy Writ, which utterly avoids obscenity and employs only euphemisms to avoid any degradation of the human body, the creation of God.

This lofty attitude toward speech or language was overruled by Israel’s ultra-Liberal Supreme Court president, Judge Aharon Barak, who nullified a law permitting the Film Censorship Board to ban pornographic movies by ruling that nothing can actually be declared pornography, “as one man’s pornography is another man’s art” (Station Film Company v. Film Censorship Board, 1997).

As a free speech Liberal, Barak seems to have been very much influenced by the academic doctrine of moral-cum-cultural relativism. Moral-cum-cultural relativism was, and effectively still is, the ruling dogma of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

The most famous and influential intellectual founder of this university was the German-educated Martin Buber. Buber, who renounced Judaism to the extent of marrying a Gentile, propagated the anti-Jewish Hegelian doctrine of Historical Relativism (or moral pluralism). Buber’s book, Two Kinds of Faith, happens to provide a philosophical basis of the “two-state solution” to the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

Buber wrote Two Kinds of Faith to justify by his marriage to a Gentile, a convenient academic justification for a Jew-turned cultural relativist!



The free speech Liberalism underlying American as well as Israeli law has sanctified public obscenity and even pornography, which are rooted in atheism. The denial of God, evident in contemporary Liberal education, engenders the denial of all moral distinctions. An important set of moral distinctions is related to men and women. The ascendency of free speech Liberalism, of unfettered freedom of speech, diminishes the differences in the language used in speaking to and about men and women.

This unrestrained Liberalism encourages not only homosexuality and the legalization of same-sex marriage. By its denial of truth it generates nihilism which in turn undermines any normative understanding of Islamic terrorism, as is evident in President Barak Obama’s attitude toward that savagery.

Same sex marriage, like Islamic terrorism, is a rejection of Western Civilization. Women (hence children) will be the first victims of this Liberalism, beginning, as mentioned, with our attitude toward Language. Since language distinguishes the human from the subhuman, its degradation in obscenity cannot but degrade human life. This is also the consequence of Islamic terrorism which, consistent with Islamic theology, substitutes the primacy of force over the primacy of reason.

Summing up: free speech Liberalism – with its denial of truth – is actually a negation of rational speech, hence of God’s gift to man. Unfettered freedom of speech, the tendency of modern Liberalism, and implicit in the above-mentioned decision of Judge Aharon Barak, signals the death of rational speech, hence of civilization.

With Barak-type Liberals laying down the law concerning what was traditionally known as distinctively human, and therefore hence of what is decent and indecent, the word “terrorism” will become as meaningless as the term “marriage.” Small wonder that neither Israelis nor Americans know where they are going, although there are signs that their ultimate destination is the grave.◙

Hate Can Be a Virtue

Progressives talk a lot about the evil of hate. We are told that if we object to Sharia law and jihad, then we are intolerant haters. But what about hating what harms people?

I hate wife-beating, yet the Sharia, Koran and Sunna support it.

I am intolerant of child abuse, including child marriage, but the Sunna and Sharia support it.

I hate the jihadist killings of Christians, Jews, Buddhists and apostates.

I am intolerant of religious leaders, such as the Pope and Dai Lama, who will not condemn the jihadic killing of their groups.

I hate dualistic ethics, which lack integrity.

I am intolerant of face coverings, since it cuts off open communication.

As a society, we have lost the ability to become morally outraged and are incapable of anger about the Islamic harm of innocents. I hate that.

Subject: A History Lesson: Thomas Jefferson VS Muslims

Post by  Paul Eidelberg

An INTERESTING INFORMATIVE and WORTHWHILE READ Oh for the days when elected officials had backbones


 When Thomas Jefferson saw there was no negotiating with Muslims, he formed what is now the Marines (sea going soldiers).  These Marines were attached to U. S. Merchant vessels. When the Muslims attacked U.S. merchant vessels they were repulsed by armed soldiers, but there is more.

The Marines followed the Muslims back to their villages and killed every man, woman, and child in the village.

It didn’t take long for the Muslims to leave U.S. Merchant vessels alone.

English and French merchant vessels started running up our flag when entering the Mediterranean to secure safe travel.

Why the Marine Hymn contains the verse, “To the Shores of Tripoli”.

This is very interesting and a must read piece of our history.  It points out where we may be heading.

Most Americans are unaware of the fact that over two hundred years ago the United States had declared war on Islam, and Thomas Jefferson led the charge!

At the height of the 18th century, Muslim pirates (the “Barbary Pirates”) were the terror of the Mediterranean and a large area of the North Atlantic.

They attacked every ship in sight, and held the crews for exorbitant ransoms.  Those taken hostage were subjected to barbaric treatment and wrote heart-breaking letters home, begging their governments and families to pay whatever their Mohammedan captors demanded.

These extortionists of the high seas represented the North African Islamic nations of Tripoli, Tunis, Morocco, and Algiers – collectively referred to as the Barbary Coast – and presented a dangerous and unprovoked threat to the new American Republic.

Before the Revolutionary War, U.S. merchant ships had been under the protection of Great Britain.  When the U.S. declared its independence and entered into war, the ships of the United States were protected by France.

However, once the war was won, America had to protect its own fleets.

Thus, the birth of the U.S. Navy.  Beginning in 1784, 17 years before he would become president, Thomas Jefferson became America’s Minister to France.  That same year, the U.S. Congress sought to appease its Muslim adversaries by following in the footsteps of European nations who paid bribes to the Barbary States rather than engaging them in war.

In July of 1785, Algerian pirates captured American ships, and the Dye of Algiers demanded an unheard-of ransom of $60,000.  It was a plain and simple case of extortion, and Thomas Jefferson was vehemently opposed to any further payments.

Instead, he proposed to Congress the formation of a coalition of allied nations who together could force the Islamic states into peace.

A disinterested Congress decided to pay the ransom.

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with Tripoli’s ambassador to Great Britain to ask by what right his nation attacked American ships and enslaved American citizens, and why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

The two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam “was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran that all nations who would not acknowledge their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

Despite this stunning admission of premeditated violence on non-Muslim nations, as well as the objections of many notable American leaders, including George Washington, who warned that caving in was both wrong and would only further embolden the enemy, for the following fifteen years the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages.

The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to over 20 percent of the United States government annual revenues in 1800.

Jefferson was disgusted.  Shortly after his being sworn in as the third President of the United States in 1801, the Pasha of Tripoli sent him a note demanding the immediate payment of $225,000 plus $25,000 a year for every year forthcoming.

That changed everything.

Jefferson let the Pasha know, in no uncertain terms, what he could do with his demand.  The Pasha responded by cutting down the flagpole at the American consulate and declared war on the United States.

Tunis, Morocco, and Algiers immediately followed suit.

Jefferson, until now, had been against America raising a naval force for anything beyond coastal defense, but, having watched his nation be cowed by Islamic thuggery for long enough, decided that it was finally time to meet force with force.

He dispatched a squadron of frigates to the Mediterranean and taught the Muslim nations of the Barbary Coast a lesson he hoped they would never forget.  Congress authorized Jefferson to empower U.S. ships to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli and to “cause to be done all other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war would justify.”


When Algiers and Tunis, who were both accustomed to American cowardice and acquiescence, saw the newly independent United States had both the will and the right to strike back, they quickly abandoned their allegiance to Tripoli.

The war with Tripoli lasted for four more years, and raged up again in 1815.  The bravery of the U.S. Marine Corps in these wars led to the line “to the shores of Tripoli” in the Marine Hymn, and they would forever be known as “leathernecks” for the leather collars of their uniforms, designed to prevent their heads from being cut off by the Muslim scimitars when boarding enemy ships.

Islam, and what its Barbary followers justified doing in the name of their prophet and their god, disturbed Jefferson quite deeply.

America had a tradition of religious tolerance. In fact Jefferson, himself, had co-authored the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, but fundamentalist Islam was like no other religion the world had ever seen.

A religion based on supremacy, whose holy book not only condoned but mandated violence against unbelievers, was unacceptable to him.

His greatest fear was that someday this brand of Islam would return and pose an even greater threat to the United States.

This should concern every American.  That Muslims have brought about women-only classes and swimming times at taxpayer-funded universities and public pools; that Christians, Jews, and Hindus have been banned from serving on juries where Muslim defendants are being judged; Piggy banks and Porky Pig tissue dispensers have been banned from workplaces because they offend Islamist sensibilities; ice cream has been discontinued at certain Burger King locations because the picture on the wrapper looks similar to the Arabic script for Allah; public schools are pulling pork from their menus; on and on and on and on..

It’s death by a thousand cuts, or inch-by-inch as some refer to it, and most Americans have no idea that this battle is being waged every day across America.  By not fighting back, by allowing groups to obfuscate what is really happening, and not insisting that the Islamists adapt to our culture, the United States is cutting its own throat with a politically correct knife, and helping to further the Islamists’ agenda.

Sadly, it appears that today America’s leaders would rather be politically correct than victorious!

If you have any doubts about the above information, Google “Thomas Jefferson vs. the Muslim World.”