Lincoln and Coolidge Said it!

This from Abraham Lincoln's speech of July 10, 1858, responding to Steven Douglas's speech of the 9th. Douglas had this take on what the Founding Fathers had meant:


"I am free to say to you," Douglas said, "that in my opinion this government of ours is founded on the white basis. It was made by the white man, for the benefit of the white man, to be administered by white men, in such manner as they should determine."

His also was perhaps the first call for tolerance of diversity, that is to say, half slave and half free.

Mr. Lincoln answered:

Those arguments that are made, that the inferior race are to be treated with as much allowance as they are capable of enjoying; that as much is to be done for them as their condition will allow. What are these arguments? They are the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of king-craft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden. That is their argument, and this argument of the Judge is the same old serpent that says you work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it. Turn in whatever way you will---whether it come from the mouth of a King, an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same old serpent, and I hold if that course of argumentation that is made for the purpose of convincing the public mind that we should not care about this, should be granted, it does not stop with the negro. I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle and making exceptions to it where will it stop. If one man says it does not mean a negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man? If that declaration is not the truth, let us get the Statute book, in which we find it and tear it out! Who is so bold as to do it?

And this from Calvin Coolidge on the 150th anniversary of 1776

About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.

Happy Independence Day

Ironically, this from the NYT as well.

KATHARINE GRAHAM, the publisher of The Washington Post who died in 2001, backed her editors through tense battles during the Watergate era. But in a 1986 speech, she warned that the media sometimes made “tragic” mistakes.
Her example was the disclosure, after the bombing of the American embassy in Beirut in 1983, that American intelligence was reading coded radio traffic between terrorist plotters in Syria and their overseers in Iran. The communications stopped, and five months later they struck again, destroying the Marine barracks in Beirut and killing 241 Americans.

“This kind of result, albeit unintentional, points up the necessity for full cooperation wherever possible between the media and the authorities,” Ms. Graham said.

Cooperation?

The British already knew, didn't they?

Well, it wasn't my Photoshop job as I snagged it from Powerline, so don't consider me that clever. But, it makes a great point on the eve of Independence Day.

And lets teach 'em here at home, too!

The article was posted from Investor's Business Daily's website
Here for your perusal.

Some of the things California's 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled it's OK for kids in PUBLIC SCHOOL in California to do:

Reciting aloud Muslim prayers that begin with "In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful . . . ."

Memorizing the Muslim profession of faith: "Allah is the only true God and Muhammad is his messenger."

Chanting "Praise be to Allah" in response to teacher prompts.

Professing as "true" the Muslim belief that "The Holy Quran is God's word."

Giving up candy and TV to demonstrate Ramadan, the Muslim holy month of fasting.

Designing prayer rugs, taking an Arabic name and essentially "becoming a Muslim" for two full weeks.

Now, when it comes taking "In God We Trust" off everything, or getting rid of the Pledge of Allegiance, no problem.

Getting liberal judges to recognize the 14th Amendment? No way.

Teach your children well...

Nope, it ain't Crosby, Stills, and Nash I'm talking about. Its an article by Nina Shea in the Washington Post. After 9/11, the Saudis were supposed to tone down the 'anti-everyone else' in their Wahhabi school system. No such luck. Here's the breakdown of what they're teaching currently. Remember: The Saudis are our friends.

FIRST GRADE

" Every religion other than Islam is false."
"Fill in the blanks with the appropriate words (Islam, hellfire): Every religion other than ______________ is false. Whoever dies outside of Islam enters ____________."

FOURTH GRADE

"True belief means . . . that you hate the polytheists and infidels but do not treat them unjustly."

FIFTH GRADE

"Whoever obeys the Prophet and accepts the oneness of God cannot maintain a loyal friendship with those who oppose God and His Prophet, even if they are his closest relatives."
"It is forbidden for a Muslim to be a loyal friend to someone who does not believe in God and His Prophet, or someone who fights the religion of Islam."
"A Muslim, even if he lives far away, is your brother in religion. Someone who opposes God, even if he is your brother by family tie, is your enemy in religion."

SIXTH GRADE

"Just as Muslims were successful in the past when they came together in a sincere endeavor to evict the Christian crusaders from Palestine, so will the Arabs and Muslims emerge victorious, God willing, against the Jews and their allies if they stand together and fight a true jihad for God, for this is within God's power."

EIGHTH GRADE

"As cited in Ibn Abbas: The apes are Jews, the people of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Christians, the infidels of the communion of Jesus."

"God told His Prophet, Muhammad, about the Jews, who learned from parts of God's book [the Torah and the Gospels] that God alone is worthy of worship. Despite this, they espouse falsehood through idol-worship, soothsaying, and sorcery. In doing so, they obey the devil. They prefer the people of falsehood to the people of the truth out of envy and hostility. This earns them condemnation and is a warning to us not to do as they did."

"They are the Jews, whom God has cursed and with whom He is so angry that He will never again be satisfied [with them]."

"Some of the people of the Sabbath were punished by being turned into apes and swine. Some of them were made to worship the devil, and not God, through consecration, sacrifice, prayer, appeals for help, and other types of worship. Some of the Jews worship the devil. Likewise, some members of this nation worship the devil, and not God."

"Activity: The student writes a composition on the danger of imitating the infidels."

NINTH GRADE

"The clash between this [Muslim] community (umma) and the Jews and Christians has endured, and it will continue as long as God wills."

"It is part of God's wisdom that the struggle between the Muslim and the Jews should continue until the hour [of judgment]."

"Muslims will triumph because they are right. He who is right is always victorious, even if most people are against him."

TENTH GRADET

The 10th-grade text on jurisprudence teaches that life for non-Muslims (as well as women, and, by implication, slaves) is worth a fraction of that of a "free Muslim male." Blood money is retribution paid to the victim or the victim's heirs for murder or injury:

"Blood money for a free infidel. [Its quantity] is half of the blood money for a male Muslim, whether or not he is 'of the book' or not 'of the book' (such as a pagan, Zoroastrian, etc.).

"Blood money for a woman: Half of the blood money for a man, in accordance with his religion. The blood money for a Muslim woman is half of the blood money for a male Muslim, and the blood money for an infidel woman is half of the blood money for a male infidel."

ELEVENTH GRADE

"The greeting 'Peace be upon you' is specifically for believers. It cannot be said to others."

"If one comes to a place where there is a mixture of Muslims and infidels, one should offer a greeting intended for the Muslims."

"Do not yield to them [Christians and Jews] on a narrow road out of honor and respect."

TWELFTH GRADE

"Jihad in the path of God -- which consists of battling against unbelief, oppression, injustice, and those who perpetrate it -- is the summit of Islam. This religion arose through jihad and through jihad was its banner raised high. It is one of the noblest acts, which brings one closer to God, and one of the most magnificent acts of obedience to God."

Nina Shea is director of the Center for Religious Freedom at Freedom House.

Its not like I actually have an answer to Immigration...but

What to do, what to do?

1. Seal the border. For those of you who say it can't be done, I say you can bring it down to a trickle. A trickle is easier to deal with than a flood.

2. Make it hurt in the right places. Companies want labor at the lowest cost. If hiring illegal aliens cost too much in fines or imprisonment or both, companies will go to the next cheapest alternative. I'll let them figure what that alternative needs to be.

3. Make it hurt in other places. Require all illegal aliens to do what the rest of us do when we break laws that actually don't kill or maim someone. Fine them. Use the IRS to something good for once, and garner their wages, $10,000 each. Hey, if companies think illegal labor is so vital, let them pay the fine for their employees. Give them a drop-dead date to register and comply. People that want to stay will work out a payment plan. That will help offset the burden on our social and educational systems they've created. Those that want to cheat will be deported, and fined.

4. While we're at it, tax the money going back to Mexico. Consider it the price of working here, until you get legal.

We just need to reason with these people, right?

Mohammed Taheri-azar's most recent quote:

"The U.S. government is responsible for the deaths of and the torture of countless followers of Allah, my brothers and sisters. My attack on Americans at UNC-CH on March 3rd was in retaliation for similar attacks orchestrated by the U.S. government on my fellow followers of Allah in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, and other Islamic territories. I did not act out of hatred for Americans, but out of love for Allah instead."

But I don't want the Gov't to sell public lands...

Recently, I got into a debate about the Feds selling about 300,000 acres of forested land to private entities. Part of the gov't's rationale was that the parcels weren't contiguous, so it made enconomic sense to get rid of it. Oh, selling it was such a bad idea. Those private developers were going take those chunks and rape and pillage at will.

Well, how about just giving it away instead? This from Dr. Ronald Utt, the 'privatization czar' under Reagan, that has a pretty good handle on how government wastes money. This scheme here is an especially insidious type of 'earmark' that cheats the taxpayer by giving away land, rather than selling it.

According to Utt:

"Despite near consistent opposition to land sale proposals that would benefit the broad public, Congress sometimes votes to give valuable parcels away to politically influential developers or to communities in their state or district that, in turn, sell or transfer the land to for-profit developers. Although federal spending remains unaffected by these transfers, the government loses valuable assets and the opportunity to raise more revenues for programs, tax relief and/or deficit reduction."

Tsk.

Thoughts at large, or small

This probably should be filed under "moral equivalency".

We get from news reports over the last few days that a peace activist, Tom Fox was not only executed by terrorists in Iraq, it appears that he was tortured before he died. Obstensibly, Mr. Fox was part of a Christian organization trying to help the Iraqi people. From what I could gather, the organization was against the US invasion of Iraq, etc. The Fox News article alluded to numerous foreigners being kidnapped, and so many of them being killed. The article also mentioned other killings and kidnappings within Iraq.

With all the hullaballoo over Gitmo and Abu Grahib, where is the morally equivalent outrage?

"We're America. We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard", is the usual answer.

Well, how about holding everone to a higher standard, like NOT TORTURING PEOPLE TRYING TO HELP OTHERS, GIVING THEM TWO SHOTS IN THE HEAD AND CHEST, AND DUMPING THEM BY THE RAILROAD TRACKS LIKE DISEASED CATTLE?

Well, at least some of the story got corrected...

But, Heaven forbid they use Dr. Maxwell's terminology of topping. It had to be 'overrunning'

WASHINGTON (AP) _ In a March 1 story, The Associated Press reported that federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees in New Orleans, citing confidential video footage of an Aug. 28 briefing among U.S. officials.

The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun. The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking.

The day before the storm hit, Bush was told there were grave concerns that the levees could be overrun. It wasn't until the next morning, as the storm was hitting, that Michael Brown, then head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said Bush had inquired about reports of breaches. Bush did not participate in that briefing.