Wednesday, June 24, 2009

All Honor to Jefferson

Source: Imprimis

May-June 2009

Jean Yarbrough
Professor of Government, Bowdoin College

“All Honor to Jefferson”

Jean Yarbrough is professor of government and Gary M. Pendy, Sr. Professor of Social Sciences at Bowdoin College. She received her B.A. at Cedar Crest College and her M.A. and Ph.D. at the New School for Social Research. The author of American Virtues: Thomas Jefferson on the Character of a Free People and editor of The Essential Jefferson, she is currently completing a study of Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive critique of the Founders.

The following address was delivered at Hillsdale College on April 16, 2009, at the dedication of a statue of Thomas Jefferson by Hillsdale College Associate Professor of Art Anthony Frudakis.

It is one of the wonders of the modern political world that John Adams and Thomas Jefferson both died on the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Unaware that the “Sage of Monticello” had died earlier in the day, the crusty Adams, as he felt his own life slipping away, uttered his last words, “Thomas Jefferson still lives.” And so he does.

Today, as we dedicate this marvelous statue of our third President, and place him in the company of George Washington, Winston Churchill, and Margaret Thatcher on Hillsdale’s Liberty Walk, soon to be joined by Abraham Lincoln, it is fitting to reflect on what of Thomas Jefferson still lives. What is it that we honor him for here today?

Without question, pride of place must go to Jefferson as the author of the Declaration of Independence. That document established Jefferson as one of America’s great political poets, second only to Abraham Lincoln. And fittingly, it was Lincoln himself who recognized the signal importance of its first two paragraphs when he wrote: “All honor to Jefferson—to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times,” where it continues to stand as “a rebuke and a stumbling block to the very harbingers of reappearing tyranny and oppression.”

That abstract truth, of course, was that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights Governments are instituted among Men, 
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” It is surely a sign of our times that so many Americans no longer know what these words mean, or what their signal importance has been to peoples around the world. The one thing they are certain of, however, is that Jefferson was a hypocrite. How could he assert that all men were created equal and yet own slaves? What these critics fail to notice is that this is precisely what makes Jefferson’s statement so remarkable. Under no necessity for doing so, he penned the immortal words that would ultimately be invoked to put the institution of slavery on the road to extinction. His own draft of the Declaration was even stronger. In it, he made it clear that blacks were human and that slavery was a moral abomination and a blot upon the honor of his country.

Jefferson was serving as Minister in Paris while the Constitution was being drafted, and played no direct part in framing it. But he did make known his objections, the most important being the omission of a Bill of Rights. After the Constitution was ratified, he returned to the United States to serve as Secretary of State in the Washington administration. In and out of government in the 1790s, he challenged Hamilton’s expansive views of federal power, warning against a mounting federal debt, a growing patronage machine, and what he considered dangerous monarchical pretensions.

In the tumultuous contest for the presidency in 1800, Jefferson presided over the first peaceful transition of power in modern history, assuring those he had defeated that they too had rights that the majority was bound to respect. His observation, “We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists,” established a standard toward which every incoming administration continues to strive.

As president of the United States, Jefferson sought to rally the country around the principles of limited government. His First Inaugural Address reminded his fellow citizens that their happiness and prosperity rested upon a “wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” This, he thought, was “the sum of good government” and all that was “necessary to close the circle of our felicities.” Although Jefferson had omitted property from the inalienable rights enumerated in the Declaration, he strongly defended private property because it encouraged industry and liberality—and, most importantly, because he thought it just that each individual enjoy the equal right to the fruits of his labor.

From these political principles, Jefferson never wavered. Writing in 1816, he once again insisted that the tasks of a liberal republic were few: government should restrain individuals from encroaching on the equal rights of others, compel them to contribute to the necessities of society, and require them to submit their disputes to an impartial judge. “When the laws have declared and enforced all this, they have fulfilled their functions.”

At the same time, Jefferson believed that constitutions must keep pace with the times. If the people wished to alter their frame of government, say, to fund public improvements or education, they were free to do so. But they should do so by constitutional amendment and not by allowing their representatives to construe the powers of government broadly. He particularly objected to the Court’s sitting in judgment on the powers of the legislative and executive branches, or acting as an umpire between the states and the federal government. To cede to the judiciary this authority, he believed, would render the Constitution a “ball of wax” in the hands of federal judges. In his battles with Chief Justice John Marshall, he defended the principle of coordinate construction, as Lincoln (and almost every strong president since then) did after him, arguing that each branch of government must determine for itself the constitutionality of its acts.

After his retirement from politics, Jefferson returned to Monticello, where he continued to think about the meaning and requirements of republican government. Republicanism, he was convinced, was more than just a set of institutional arrangements; at bottom, it depended upon the character of the people. To keep alive this civic spirit, he championed public education for both boys and girls, with the most talented boys going on at public expense all the way through college. He envisioned the University of Virginia, to which he devoted the last years of his life, as a temple that would keep alive the “vestal flame” of republicanism and train men for public service. And here, I cannot help but notice how the recent renovations and additions to the Hillsdale campus seem to take their inspiration from Mr. Jefferson’s university, paying graceful homage to an architecture of democracy that inspires and ennobles.

As Jefferson understood it, education had a distinctly political mission, beginning at the elementary level: schools were to form citizens who understood their rights and duties, who knew how earlier free societies had risen to greatness, and by what errors and vices they had declined. Knowing was not enough, however. Jefferson also believed that citizens must have the opportunity to act. Anticipating Tocqueville, Jefferson admired the strength of the New England townships and sought to adapt them to Virginia. The wards, as he called them, would allow citizens to have a say on those matters most interesting to them, such as the education of their children and the protection of their property. If ever they became too dispirited to care about these things, republican government could not survive.

The wards were certainly not the greatest of Jefferson’s contributions to the natural rights republic—that honor must be awarded to the Declaration—but they were his most original. Instead of consolidating power or attempting to forge a general will, Jefferson went in the opposite direction, “dividing and sub-dividing” political power, while multiplying the number of interests and views that could be heard. He saw these units of local self-government as a way of bringing the large republic within the reach of citizens and so keeping alive the spirit of republicanism so vital to its preservation. And in this day and age, when the federal government seems to intrude on every aspect of our daily lives, and people feel powerless over matters of most interest to them, can we doubt that he was right? For this insight, too, let us echo Lincoln: “All honor to Jefferson”!

Stimulus For Terrorists - The ACLU supports financial aid to terrorists...Obama too!

Source: Investors Business Daily
The Jihad Cash Spigot

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Tuesday, June 23, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Homeland Security: Recognizing that money is the mother's milk of terrorism, the U.S. cracked down on charitable fronts after 9/11. The new administration thinks it went too far.

In fact, it's hinting at loosening restrictions, a move that threatens to reopen the financial pipeline between several Muslim charities and overseas terrorists that Treasury shut off after 9/11. Left-wing activists, meanwhile, are helping convince the public the charities deserve a second chance.

On the heels of President Obama's Cairo speech, in which he suggested relaxing Treasury anti-terror "rules," the ACLU published a well-timed report slamming those very rules.

It makes a point of noting throughout the thick report that Treasury policies "developed under the Bush administration" are undercutting Obama's mission to reach out to Muslim countries. What's more, they're denying American Muslims the "right" to make donations to Islamic charities.

"U.S. terrorism financing laws and policies developed under the Bush administration are inhibiting American Muslims' ability to freely and fully practice their religion," the ACLU says, noting that "zakat," or Muslim charitable giving, is a pillar of Islam.

The New York Times gave the report currency with a sympathetic story: "ACLU Report Says Anti-Terror Fight Undercuts Liberty of Muslim Donors." It highlighted Obama's pledge in Cairo to work "with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat."

"In the United States," the president explained, "rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligations."

First, there are no "rules" barring Muslims from giving to charity, as he suggests. There are laws against giving material support to terrorists, and those laws were first enacted under the Clinton administration. They've also made it harder for jihadists to fulfill their own perverted religious obligation to murder Westerners. If it weren't for Treasury's crackdown on charitable fronts, they'd still be siphoning off donations for terrorist attacks.

Material-support laws have become a sore subject for Muslim groups and their allies like the ACLU because the vast majority of terror is carried out by Muslim groups — with Muslim money.

Second, the president and the ACLU imply that the right to give donations in the name of zakat is absolute. It's not. And nothing is stopping Muslims from giving donations to legitimate charities — Muslim or non-Muslim — or through their mosques to fulfill their religious obligation.

The ACLU whines that its choices are limited now that nine major U.S. Muslim charities have been shut down. In each case, however, evidence that the charities funneled money to al-Qaida, Hamas and other terrorist groups was overwhelming.

The ACLU argues that "only one" was actually convicted. True, but it was the largest Muslim charity in America, and it funneled more than $12 million to terrorists. The Holy Land Foundation and its leaders were convicted on all 108 counts. Top leaders recently got life sentences.

Never mind that. The ACLU demands Treasury unfreeze all the Muslim charity assets it's frozen, including Holy Land's assets. It also wants the Justice Department to expunge the names of the Council on American-Islamic Relations and other Muslim front groups from its unindicted co-conspirator list. ACLU says CAIR was "smeared," ignoring the dozens of court exhibits linking CAIR to the radical Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

The ACLU's real agenda is revealed in the section of the 165-page report where it recommends "reforms." Turns out it also wants to deny the government key anti-terror tools, such as blacklisting individuals and groups as "specially designated global terrorists."

Other goals: purging the FBI terror watch list; passing the End Racial Profiling Act drafted by Rep. John Conyers, a Detroit Democrat, with help from CAIR; demanding an end to FBI raids of charities and undercover operations at mosques.

The ACLU, moreover, proposes giving charities advance notice of investigations to provide them "the opportunity to cure any issues." Or shred documents, as Holy Land executives did. They also stored incriminating papers at off-site locations and swept their offices for FBI bugs.

The real purpose of the ACLU and its report is to dismantle, piece by piece, the terror-fighting infrastructure erected after 9/11 to protect the nation. It's no coincidence that the flow of terrorism slowed after we choked off the flow of money and other activities.

Reopening the spigot now may win points with Muslim leaders like CAIR and placate the civil-liberties crowd.

But it's a suicide wish.

___________________

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies in the heart of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear. The traitor is the plague..." Marcus Tullius Cicero, speech to the Roman Senate.

Home

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

"...for the cries of freedom and democracy" ...but that's not all, there's much more at stake! "Nuclear holocaust" ?

Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Iran gives an emotional speech before the National Press Club...for the cries of freedom and democracy. Good catch words I'm sure, "freedom" and "democracy" but there is much more than meets the eye said here. Heard loud and clear to my ears was "Slowdown of globalization" as if that would be a problem. Indeed globalization is a huge part of today's world problems mainly because it is being forced upon us by the politic elite instead of letting nature take its course via the citizenry's natural tendency to meld communities. This has been proven with the growth of America...only the melting pot has been turned into a witch's cauldron by the Leftists of the Democratic Party.
Prince Pahlavi mentions a "possible nuclear holocaust"...no catch words with that statement! This should be taken as a warning and it will happen if people don't wake up. When will it happen? Well if you have been paying attention to my previous warnings nothing has convinced me to make changes to my year 2010 almanac. - Norman E. Hooben
(scroll down for 2nd version of video below)

Source: http://video.newsmax.com/?bcpid=20972460001&bclid=22770166001&bctid=27141270001&s=al&promo_code=81F9-1

If the above video is unavailable please watch the YouTube version below.


Home

Sunday, June 21, 2009

He Is Not Above The Law...or is he? (He sure acts like it!)

Source: Examiner.com

Obama's High Crimes And Misdemeanors
June 19, 3:43 PM · Anthony G. Martin - Columbia Conservative Examiner

According to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the power to impeach and remove from office any President that is charged and found guilty of 'high crimes and misdemeanors.' The term encompasses felonies and other unlawful acts that are not considered felonies.

Barack Obama has a truckload of problems on his hands. He has enacted policies that fit the description of impeachable offenses. He can be thankful that Congress is controlled by his partners-in-crime, or else he would be facing serious charges.

Let's take a look at some of his offenses, shall we?

*He violated the law and the provisions of the Constitution by seizing control of GM and Chrysler without proper authorization from Congress. Although his unlawful cronies in Congress granted him the authority after the fact, his action to seize corporations was a violation of the law at the time it was implemented. The fact that the U.S. Supreme Court allowed this atrocity is no matter. Thomas Jefferson said it best when he articulated a key principle of liberty--any government that willfully violates the rule of law and encroaches on the rights of the people ceases to be a legitimate government. This government has violated the provisions of the 5th Amendment regarding due process and fair compensation at the very least.

*His use of ACORN as a campaign vehicle is a violation of the law. Entities such as ACORN are prohibited by the Federal Government from engaging in partisan political activity. It is clear to anybody with eyes and ears that this organization was an overtly pro-Obama entity, the goal of which was to do nothing but get out the vote for BO.

*His consistent and blatant pandering to America's sworn enemies in the Muslim world is tantamount to treason, the definition of which, according to the U.S. Constitution, is the aiding and abetting of America's enemies. Can there be any doubt that Obama should at least be charged with the offense, given his penchant for going out of his way to offend our allies such as Israel, Britain, France, and Germany, while implementing policies that favor Hamas, Iran, Egypt, Syria, and other terrorist hotbeds?

*He broke a law that he himself pushed and helped pass as a Senator that provides protections for Inspectors-General who do their jobs by investigating corruption, waste, and fraud in government programs. Yet when these government watchdogs get too close to the thuggery of Obama's friends, they get summarily fired for no good reason, such as Mr. Walpin.

*And then there are those who believe that Barack Obama has no valid U.S. birth certificate. At first such charges were dismissed as the musings of kooks. But increasingly many level-headed Americans are beginning to look closely, realizing that perhaps those who first broke this story are not kooks after all. So far, no valid copy of Obama's birth certificate has been produced, meaning that if he doesn't have one, he is not even eligible to serve, which can only point to yet another violation of the law--fraud.

*Several citizens have filed criminal complaints calling for the impeachment of Barack Obama based upon these and other issues. One of those issues is the illegal use of the military in Alabama to police the streets of a small town that had been hit with a crime wave.

Canada Free Press published an interview with one man who filed a criminal complaint against Obama based upon the illegal use of the military, his missing birth certificate, and his treasonous acts regarding America's enemies. Here is the reporter's introduction to the interview:

In light of the now almost daily bombardment of the US Constitution by the sitting US Commander in Chief, the question ‘is our Constitution still the law of the land?’ is increasingly being asked by We-the-People. The problem of Barack Hussein Obama seeming not to be a natural-born citizen is still an extremely salient issue—an issue that has led Obama to hire a team of lawyers to keep all information on his actual country of birth and all of his college records hidden. The latest estimate on the fees charged to do so is over $1Million.

This, coupled with Obama’s continued and strong apparent push to completely bankrupt the USA and turn it into his own personal totalitarian utopia has led to unprecedented actions by some US citizens.

Recently, retired Navy Commander Walter Francis Fitzpatrick III filed a criminal complaint of Treason against Barack Hussein Obama. This has prompted other individuals around the country to do the same. As our Republic now stands on the brink of complete collapse, I thought an interview of Commander Fitzpatrick was in order.

And here is an excerpt of this explosive interview:

Sher: For those who haven’t yet read the criminal complaint, please tell us what it entails.

Walt: Mr. Obama is named in the commission of the crime of TREASON by a commissioned officer in the U.S. military. TREASON is the only criminal act our Constitution records. Mr. Obama is described in the criminal complaint as a ‘foreign born domestic enemy and a traitor’. This simple declarative sentence is intended to state clearly Mr. Obama meets elements of the crime of TREASON by being an enemy of the United States and our constitutional form of government. It states also Mr. Obama adheres to other U.S. enemies and gives them aid and comfort (Obama’s criminal assistants).


Sher: After you filed the complaint against Obama, I understand that you were visited by the Secret Service. Can you tell me and my readers what transpired? And what legal reason did they give you as their justification to interrogate you?


Read the entire article to find out the conclusion of Mr. Fitzpatrick's 'visit' from the Secret Service.

The upshot of all of this is that a man occupies the White House who under normal circumstances would be facing impeachment hearings in Congress.

For more commentary on a variety of issues, please visit my blog, updated daily, at The Liberty Sphere.

_______________________

Hypocrite: The most popular example is that of someone who voted for John F. Kennedy and also voted for Edward M. Kennedy. (Just goes to show you that some people have no values whatsoever.)

Home