Major Hasan’s Islamist Life

Hello 92251 List Members,

Daniel Pipes did a good job of documenting what Maj. Hasan was about long before he committed his mass murders at Fort Hood. 

This is one of those posts where you want to follow the links.  You will see the evidence certainly points out that Hasan knew just what he was doing and was heading there for a long time. 

I am personally disturbed at how many people knew there was something seriously wrong with Hasan and chose the politically correct route over doing what is right.  That kind of thinking may yet be the downfall of our whole nation.  God forbid! 

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com

---

Major Hasan’s Islamist Life

by Daniel Pipes

FrontPageMagazine.com

November 20, 2009

http://www.danielpipes.org/7763/major-nidal-hasan-islamist-life

As the Pentagon and Senate launch what one analyst dubs “dueling Fort Hood investigations,” will they confront the hard truth of the Islamic angle?

Despite encouraging references to “violent Islamists” by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (Democrat of Connecticut), chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, there is reason to worry about a whitewash of the massacre that took place on Nov. 5; that is just so much easier than facing the implications of a hostile ideology nearly exclusive to Muslims.

Indeed, initial responses from the U.S. Army, law enforcement, politicians, and journalists broadly agreed that Maj. Nidal Hasan’s murderous rampage had nothing to do with Islam. Barack Obama declared “We cannot fully know what leads a man to do such a thing” and Evan Thomas of Newsweek dismissed Hasan as “a nut case.”

But evidence keeps accumulating that confirms Hasan’s Islamist outlook, his jihadi temperament, and his bitter hatred of kafirs (infidels). I reviewed the initial facts about his record in an article that appeared on Nov. 9 but much more information subsequently appeared; here follows a summary. The evidence divides into three parts, starting with Hasan’s stint at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center:

Ø      He delivered an hour-long formal medical presentation to his supervisors and some 25 mental health staff members in June 2007, the culminating exercise of his residency program at Walter Reed. What was supposed to be on a medical topic of his choosing instead turned into a 50-slide PowerPoint talk on “The Koranic World View As It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military” that offered such commentary as “It’s getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims” and the “Department of Defense should allow Muslims [sic] Soldiers the option of being released as ‘Conscientious objectors’ to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events.” One person present at the presentation recalls how, by the time of its conclusion, “The senior doctors looked really upset.”

Ø      Hasan informed at least one patient at Walter Reed that “Islam can save your soul.”

Ø      So apparent were Hasan’s Islamist proclivities, reports National Public Radio, that key psychiatry authorities at Walter Reed met to discuss if he was psychotic. One official told colleagues of his worries “that if Hasan deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, he might leak secret military information to Islamic extremists. Another official reportedly wondered aloud to colleagues whether Hasan might be capable of committing fratricide,” recalling Sergeant Hasan Akbar’s 2003 rampage.

Then followed Hasan’s record at Ft. Hood:

Ø      His supervisor, Captain Naomi Surman, recalled his telling her that as an infidel she who would be “ripped to shreds” and “burn in hell.” Another person reports his declaring that infidels should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats.

Ø      In his psychiatric counseling sessions with soldiers returned from Iraq and Afghanistan, Hasan heard information he considered tantamount to war crimes. As late as Nov. 2, three days before his murderous spree, he tried to convince at least two of his superior officers, Surman and Colonel Anthony Febbo, about the need legally to prosecute the soldiers.

Ø      Hasan routinely signed his e-mails with “Praise Be to Allah.”

Ø      He listed his first name as Abduwalli, rather than Nidal, in the e-mail address in his official Army personnel record. ‘Abd al-Wali is an Arabic name meaning “Slave of the Patron,” where Patron is one of God’s 99 names. It is not clear why Hasan did this, but Abduwalli could have been a nom de guerre, this being a common practice among Palestinians (Yasir Arafat even had two them - Yasir Arafat and Abu Ammar).

Finally, Hasan’s extracurricular activities revealed his outlook:

Ø      He designed green and white personal business cards that made no mention of his military affiliation. Instead, they included his name, then “Behavior Heatlh [sic] Mental Health and Life Skills,” a Maryland mobile phone number, an AOL e-mail address, and “SoA (SWT).” SoA is the jihadi abbreviation for Soldier of Allah and SWT stands for Subhanahu wa-Ta’ala, or “Glory to Him, the Exalted.”

Ø      Hasan contacted jihadi web sites via multiple e-mail addresses and screen names.

Ø      He traded 18 e-mails between Dec. 2008 and June 2009 with Anwar al-Awlaki, Al-Qaeda recruiter, inspiration for at least two other North American terror plots, and fugitive from U.S. justice. Awlaki had been Hasan’s spiritual leader at two mosques, Masjid Al-Ribat Al-Islami in San Diego and the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center outside Washington, D.C., and he acknowledges becoming Hasan’s confidant. Awlaki speculates that he may have influenced Hasan’s evolution and praises Hasan for the massacre, calling him a “hero” who “did the right thing” by killing U.S. soldiers before they could attack Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ø      In those e-mails, Hasan asked Awlaki when jihad is appropriate and about killing innocents in a suicide attack. “I can’t wait to join you” in the afterlife for discussions over non-alcoholic wine, Hasan wrote him. One Yemeni analyst calls Hasan “almost a member of Al-Qaeda.”

Ø      “My strength is my financial capabilities,” Hasan boasted to Awlaki, and he donated $20,000 to $30,000 a year to Islamic “charities” outside the United States, some of it going to Pakistan.

Ø      That Hasan, of Palestinian extraction, wore Pakistani clothing on the morning of his rampage points to his jihadi mentality.

Ø      Hasan had “more unexplained connections to people being tracked by the FBI,” other than Awlaki, including some in Europe. One official characterized these as “Islamic extremists if not necessarily al Qaeda.”

Ø      Duane Reasoner Jr., the 18-year-old Muslim convert whom Hasan mentored in Islam, calls himself a “extremist, fundamentalist, mujhadeen, Muslim” who outspokenly supports Awlaki, Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban, Omar Abdur Rahman (the blind sheikh) and Adam Gadahn (Al-Qaeda’s top American figure).

These symptoms in the aggregate leave little doubt about Hasan’s jihadi mentality. But will the investigations allow themselves to see his motivation? Doing so means changing it from a war on “overseas contingency operations” and “man-caused disasters” to a war on radical Islam. Are Americans ready for that?

---

Mr. Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.

Related Topics: Muslims in the United States, Radical Islam, Terrorism This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL

To subscribe to this list, go to http://www.danielpipes.org/list_subscribe.php

(Daniel Pipes sends out a mailing of his writings 1-2 times a week.)

Sign up for related (but non-duplicating) e-mail services:

Middle East Forum (media alerts, event reports, MEQ articles)

Campus Watch (research, news items, press releases)

at http://www.danielpipes.org/list_subscribe.php

---

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com

---

Coming Home to Roost

Coming Home to Roost

By Charlie Daniels

http://www.charliedaniels.com/soapbox-2009/soapbox-2009-1109.htm

Considering the condition of most of the media in this country, I can’t say I’m surprised at their reaction to the murder of 13 and wounding of 30 soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas.

They are trying to blame Maj. Nadal Malik Hasan’s terrorist act on the stress of being in the Army and harassment by other soldiers because of his religion. In other words, trying to blame it on anything besides what it is. The fact is that he is a radical Muslim who hates the United States of America and wants to destroy it.

Hasan had never been to war anywhere, so that dog won’t hunt. He was a major, and if he was under such heavy persecution why didn’t he simply resign his commission?

People are going to say that the Army knew about his disapproval of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and his radical Muslim beliefs, so why didn’t they simply put him out of the Army?

The answer to that is simple; it’s the accursed policies of political correctness. Can you imagine what would have happened if the Army had gotten rid of an officer because he was a Muslim? It would have been the biggest news story in the country. The justice department under Eric Holder would have ruined the careers of anybody who would have been a part of it.

So let’s forget all the Dr. Phil B.S. about stress and strain and persecution and all the rest and lets look at the facts.

No matter how the media tries to spin it, no matter how many times the president tells us not to jump to conclusions, no matter how many psychiatrists and psychologists they bring on board, the fact remains.

Hasan is a radical Muslim.

According to a classmate, Hasan viewed the War on Terror as a war against Islam. One of the strongest clues to Hasan’s mindset, prior to his rampage, was a post he made on a message board. On it, he tried to compare Islamic suicide bombers with heroic soldiers who would willingly jump on a grenade to save the lives of their fellow soldiers, implying that by blowing up themselves and their enemies, they were saving the lives of fellow Muslims. The thought of going to Afghanistan where he would be surrounded by soldiers who were killing Islamic terrorists was probably more than he could take.

Hasan hated America’s War on Terror policies, and reportedly shouted “Allahu Akbar” -which means “God is great” in Arabic- before he deliberately murdered and maimed 43 innocent Americans. He is a terrorist, plain and simple and there is no other was to define it.

I know that all Muslims are not terrorists. I have met some who seemed like fine people. However, radical Islam represents the biggest threat to the United States of America from without and within and if the Muslims of America truly care for this nation they need to start making a lot more noise than they have been.

If Islam is truly a peaceful or even a humane religion, this act should be totally condemned in all of the mosques of this nation. Instead of preaching jihad, the Mullahs should be steadfastly convincing their young people that what Hasan did is nothing more than murder.

On the other hand, it is up to the president and the powers that be to deal with this incident as what it is, an act of domestic terror.

And if anything should make Obama refute his order to close Guantanamo Bay, this should be what does it. Can you imagine bringing Islamic terrorists to the American mainland and putting them on trial knowing there are people out there who would be willing to murder the judge, jury and prosecutor before, during or after the trial?

I know Obama is supposed to be a smart man, but it is downright stupidity to even consider bringing these murderers to American soil and trying them in an American courtroom. They were captured on the field of battle and should be treated as military combatants and spies, falling under the auspices of a military tribunal.

If the prisoners at Gitmo are tried in America, the defense lawyers can demand and obtain the secret documents of the CIA and military intelligence exposing the names of our operatives and rendering them useless as well as placing them in danger of Islamic vengeance.

How many more Hasans are out there waiting to explode? How many deep cover crazies are in our society living as ordinary citizens and waiting for the time when they are activated to walk into the streets of America and shoot down our families.

How is the Obama administration going to deal with this? I know how they’d treat it if one of our soldiers went berserk in the marketplace in Bagdad and shot down 43 people.

This situation needs immediate and decisive action right now, not tomorrow, and to tell you the truth I don’t believe that Obama has the guts to deal with it.

Only time will tell.

My prayers and condolences go out to the families who lost loved ones at Fort Hood, and the ones who were wounded.

What do you think?

Pray for our troops, and for our country

God Bless America

Charlie Daniels

© Copyright - The Charlie Daniels Band 

---

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com

---

US Troops Wearing UN Colors

US Troops Wearing UN Colors

By Chuck Baldwin

November 17, 2009

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20091117.html

According to a report in World Net Daily, “Troops in the United States’ USNORTHCOM ranks appear to have adopted a shoulder patch showing a North American continental design, with an emphasis on United Nations colors, giving evidence of the strength to integrate North America.

“The patch reveals the continent of North America in the orange and blue colors typical to the U.N.

“It also carries the image of a mosque to designate the unit’s service in North Africa in World War II.”

The report also states, “The design of the patch with the U.S. eagle image superimposed seems to imply a hierarchy in which the U.S. 5^th Army exerts its military command under the authority of USNORTHCOM, with its domain defined as all North America, including the U.S., Mexico and Canada, for the United Nations, as implied in the orange and blue motif.”

See the report at:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115275

As most of my faithful readers know, USNORTHCOM is a combatant command “created to respond to national emergencies in North America.” Readers should also be aware that the US and Canada signed an agreement earlier this year allowing the armed forces from one country to assist the armed forces of the other country during a “domestic civil emergency, EVEN ONE THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE A CROSS-BORDER CRISIS.” (Emphasis added.)

Creation of a North American Union has long been the goal of the elitists at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and sister organizations. This objective is so far along now that anyone who would question it simply isn’t paying attention—or has an ulterior motive for denying it.

In fact, I have chronicled much pertinent information relative to this burgeoning North American Union on my web site. I encourage readers to review (and share) the information I have accumulated on this page. See it at:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/nau.html

Readers will recall that former President George W. Bush, then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, and then-Mexican President Vicente Fox signed the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) on March 23, 2005, in Waco, Texas. The SPP was based upon the CFR’s Task Force report entitled “Creating a North American Community,” which was issued just prior to the Waco gathering. Remember, too, that the SPP was signed without any knowledge, oversight, or consent of the US Congress—or any Canadian or Mexican legislative body either, for that matter.

As the WND report states, “The unannounced goal of the SPP was to create a North American Union by advancing the trade integration realized in NAFTA into continental political integration through the creation of some 20 trilateral bureaucratic working groups and the North American Competitiveness Council, or NACC, composed of 30 North American business executives--10 each hand-picked by the chambers of commerce in the three countries.”

In this regard, it makes absolutely no difference whether a Republican or Democratic President sits in the Oval Office. President Barack Obama is pushing forward with the same internationalist policies as did his predecessors, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George Herbert Walker Bush. (And, no, Martha, nothing would have changed had John McCain been elected last year.)

For the most part, the leaders of both major parties in Washington, D.C., are globalists. With few exceptions, they have all bought into the CFR’s philosophy of internationalism. The fact that we even have such a military command as USNORTHCOM—and even more, that the unit is wearing insignia with UN colors and a three-nation, North American patch—without the slightest protest from virtually any US congressman or senator, demonstrates the apathy of Washington elitists regarding America’s merger into a multinational governing structure.

Add to the compliance of Washington politicians the US Chamber of Commerce, the US military Joint Chiefs of Staff, the mainstream news media (with the exception of Lou Dobbs, and look what happened to him: CNN reportedly paid him $8 million to leave the network), the National Education Association—along with the vast majority of America’s top educational institutions, and even America’s leading churchmen (for example: mega-church pastor and Pied Piper author, Rick Warren, and Southern Baptist spokesman, Richard Land, are both members of the CFR). In other words, virtually every major institution in America is betraying our country’s sovereignty and independence.

Even Big Labor is, for the most part, silent in its opposition against international unification. Where is the union-led protest of President Obama’s policy reversal to continue President Bush’s plan allowing Mexican trucks to roll down US highways? Where is Big Labor’s opposition to Obama’s decision to continue pushing the goals and objectives of the CFR and Chamber of Commerce via the SPP and related supranational agreements?

Without a doubt, the attempted merger of North America is well underway. But this, too, is part of a much bigger picture. The destruction of the dollar, the formation of a global currency, the development of a new UN army (of which USNORTHCOM is the prototype), perpetual war, state-sponsored fear mongering over super-hyped “pandemics” such as the Swine Flu, the push for universal health care, etc., all serve the purpose of collapsing US sovereignty and independence, and creating global government.

Of course, one thing the elitists driving this global merger are counting on is the continued apathy and indifference of the American people. Obviously, an awakened, energized, and angry populace could seriously jeopardize their pernicious plans. They are somewhat rattled at the success of grassroots Tea Parties, etc., but they are counting on the major news media and establishment churches to keep the sheep asleep.

If America’s pastors would wake up and begin sounding the clarion call for freedom and independence (as did their brave forebears), they could—almost single-handedly—turn the country around. Until they do, it is left to the rest of us to keep Thomas Jefferson’s “spirit of resistance” alive.

As for me and my house, we plan to do our part by pledging no loyalty to the North American Union, the UN, or any other globalist entity.

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

© Chuck Baldwin 

---

NOTE TO THE READER:

To subscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/subscribe.php

Chuck Baldwin’s commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished, reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied intact and that full credit is given and that Chuck’s web site address is included.

Editors or Publishers of publications charging for subscriptions or advertising who want to run these columns must contact Chuck Baldwin for permission. Radio or television Talk Show Hosts interested in scheduling an interview with Chuck should contact chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com

Readers may also respond to this column via snail mail. The postal address is P.O. Box 37070, Pensacola, Florida. When responding, please include your name, city and state. And, unless otherwise requested, all respondents will be added to the Chuck Wagon address list.

Please visit Chuck’s web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com

---

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com

---

Children

Hello All,

There are times when you just have to love plain old cowboy logic.  Charlie Daniels sure used some of that here.  Charlie is one of my favorite old cowboys! 

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com

---

  

Children

By Charlie Daniels

http://www.charliedaniels.com/soapbox-2009/soapbox-2009-1102.htm

I love children. I love their innocence, their openness and their wide-eyed wonder.

Recently on a trip to Hong Kong we visited an orphanage and found ourselves in the company of a dozen or so four to six-years-olds who didn’t speak English and had never seen us before in their young lives.

They were just a tad standoffish to start with, but before long Hazel and myself had a lap full of rowdy, laughing Chinese kids and the only language we really needed were the smiles on our faces and the feeling in our hearts.

They were so precious and the only problem with our visiting them was that when we left we wanted to take them all with us.

A child can melt my heart in a second and I cannot bear the thought of them being mistreated. To me the worst crime anybody can commit is to harm a little child.

Even though they are the most defenseless of our citizens they are among the most under represented, unable to defend themselves against drug crazed parents, irresponsible judges, politicians who refuse to pass laws with teeth in them and society’s lowest form of scum, child molesters.

To me the penalty for raping an infant or a small child should be a death sentence, plain and simple. We can’t even imagine the pain a baby feels when some perverted monster violates their innocent bodies.

What worse crime can there be? And yet there are judges who turn serial child rapists back on to the street in amazingly short amounts of time. These judges have no more business on the bench of justice than a department store dummy.

There is something about pedophilia that makes it practically incurable.

Have you ever heard of an organization called NAMBLA? That’s an acronym for the North American Man Boy Love Association, and their only reason for existing is for full-grown pedophiles to prey on young boys, and believe it or not, Kevin Jennings, the White House’s “Safe Schools Czar,” has said that he has always been “inspired” by NAMBLA founder, Harry Hay.

Yes folks, they are all around us stalking innocent children and the suffering they cause is catastrophic, they ruin and many times take young lives, they destroy families and wreak havoc on the human beings that have no defense against them.

They’ve got to be taken off the streets.

Years ago there was a horrible case of two boys in North Carolina raping and killing a very young girl.

She was begging for her mother as they molested her and when they were done they took a stick and rammed her panties down her throat until she suffocated. It took five minutes for her to die.

The prosecutor got a conviction and asked for the death penalty. In ending his summation, he told the jury that there would be a silent period of five minutes. During which he told them to try to hold their breath.

I think that anybody who doesn’t agree that pedophiles are the worst of criminals should try to hold their breath for five minutes and then go out and insert a fence post in their rectums.

Protect our children, whatever it takes. Judges and politicians be damned.

What do you think?

Pray for our troops, and for our country.

God Bless America.

Charlie Daniels

© Copyright - The Charlie Daniels Band

---

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com

---

A Man With No Honor

A Man With No Honor

Gill Rapoza

November 17, 2009

Just a brief post that portrays a strong message for now.  I’ll let a series of three pictures tell most of the story.

Picture Number One: When candidate BHO was running for office, there was a photo taken of him with Hillary Clinton and New Mexico Governor Richards while the Pledge of Allegiance was being recited.  Picture below: 

Note that Clinton, Richards, and an unidentified woman in the picture had no problem with the pledge and all placed their hands over their hearts out of respect for our flag and country.  BHO covered his crotch instead.  When questioned later, BHO’s supporters garbled something about he was not brought up to put his hand over his heart during the pledge, but only during the National Anthem.  Another reason given was that he was distracted and we did not see the whole picture in context. 

Picture Number Two: BHO went to Russia after becoming the president.  You recall the Russians, the folks that made Socialism and Communism the “in thing,” and killed millions in the process.  That was a reminder for those too young to recall or to have read their history.  What does BHO do in Russia?  Picture below:

BHO faithfully places his hand over his heart, and is otherwise standing at attention, out of respect for the Russians as they honor their military, play their song, and display their flag.  From what I have read from BHO’s fan club, he was just being “respectful,” as he was the “guest” of the Russian government on an official visit. 

How are we doing so far?  Is it proper that a “leader” of our nation would not place hand on heart at an American flag event, but will do so at Russian event?  No honor! 

Picture Number Three: Finally, BHO gets back home and Veterans’ Day comes around.  It is time to honor our veterans, particularly for those who gave all they had.  Big event.  The high ranking military officers on the podium all salute.  The civilian on the podium with BHO places his hand over his heart.  What does BHO do?  Picture below: 

The new “commander-in-chief” covers his crotch.  I see a man who does not respect his flag.  He does not respect his nation.  He “honors” the troops by covering his privates with his hands and gives that same smug and detached look he had in the first picture.  No excuse before and no excuse now! 

I have not heard the spin on this one, and it has been covered very sparsely.  None of the big media outlets mentioned or showed it at all that I can tell. 

What do you see in these pictures?  I see a man that does not show honor for our country, our flag, our troops, our dead, or the American people.  I see a man that gives reverence to Muslim leaders when he bows before them, a man that bows low to the leaders of other nations, and a man who shows indifference to our own. 

All in all, I see a man with no honor! 

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com

---

Hello All,

 

Yesterday I put up this post entitled “A Man With No Honor.”  I wish to make a correction.

 

I have since been advised that there is a reasonable explanation for the third picture in the series.  BHO was at the Memorial Day service at Arlington on May 25, 2009, not Veterans Day.  The military officers and the civilian were paying tribute to BHO as he came out.  I have since found other pictures that indicate he placed his hand on his heart later on in the ceremony. 

 

Fair is fair.  The guy does enough to convince me where his heart is that there is no harm being truthful at all times.

 

Of course it does not explain the other pictures and all that submissive bowing to other leaders. 

 

I stand corrected on this point and thank the person that sent it to me, which I have already done in a separate posting.

 

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com

 

---

Calling All Freedomists!

Calling All Freedomists!

by Timothy Baldwin

Posted on 13 November 2009

Subtitle: Conservative or Liberal: Pick Your Poison

http://libertydefenseleague.com/liberty/2009/11/13/calling-all-freedomists/

Human nature and history teach us that political labels are used to influence society to accomplish a certain political end. Many times, words used to describe original principles are somehow conquered or hijacked and then proclaimed to be a part of those original principles, but are realistically far from them. As I was growing up, I remember thinking this: “‘liberal’ equals bad and ‘conservative’ equals good.” “Conservative” was proposed to be a word purely describing the principles believed and proclaimed by America’s founding fathers. “Liberal” was proposed to describe those whose only goal was to bring Americans under the control and dominion of the federal government. As it turns out, these words and descriptions were not only misleading and narrow-minded in their application, but they were also incorrect in their origin. Today, neither “conservative” nor “liberal” accurately describe the philosophy and principles they purport to advocate. Consequently, freedom suffers because of America’s ignorance of and infatuation with these labels, contrary to George Washington’s warning of this very tragedy.

The United States were born and raised on the principles of a constitutionally limited government, (state) powers checking (federal) powers, federalism, natural rights, natural laws of God, individual liberty, self-government, consent of the governed, state and individual sovereignty, and meaningful checks and balances, just to name a few. With these ideas, America threw off the enslaving chains of Great Britain’s national and centralized government control in the individual, familial, commercial and religious affairs of the people, to the point that most of our constitution’s framers and ratifiers believed that the government which governs least, governs best. So, were these principles advocated by conservatives or liberals from 1776 to 1787? Perhaps those who call themselves conservatives today should understand the original application of that word before being proud of it. Same goes for liberals.

Conservatives in the 1700 and 1800’s preferred government controls, privileges, monopolies, cartels and subsidies in the areas in which the revolutionary Americans believed government had no business whatsoever. Conservatives were those who wanted America to be the “British system without Great Britain.” (Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty: Libertarian Manifesto, 2nd Ed. [Auburn, AL, Ludwig Von Mises Institute, 2006], 8. These conservatives unsuccessfully attempted to interject their ideas for a centralized/national and monarchical government at the Constitutional Convention debates in 1787. These conservatives attempted to annihilate the existence, sovereignty and power of the states in the union. (Alexander Hamilton, The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Ed. Henry Cabot Lodge, vol. 1, [New York, NY, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904], 397-398, 400: “We must establish a general and national government, completely sovereign, and annihilate the State distinctions and State operations; and, unless we do this, no good purpose can be answered…I believe the British government forms the best model.”) These conservatives possessed Old World ideas completely contrary to the foundations of American Revolution during the 1700 and early 1800s. For this, the Federalist Party died (another example of a deceptive use of a word: in this case, “Federalist”). However, their kind, agenda and philosophy did not die, but still thrives today under different labels, even under the label, “conservative”.

Conversely, liberals of the 1700 and 1800s were those who believed that government was to leave individuals, families, commerce and religion alone; that the freedom of the people to produce and prosper was more important than government sustainability and energy; and that the natural rights of man were to be protected, preferred and secured at the cost of government power and control. It was this freedom movement that led us from victory during the American Revolution in the 1700s to the Industrial revolution in the 1800s. Classic liberal leaders like Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams and John Randolph fought vigorously to keep Old World conservatives like John Adams, Henry Clay, and Alexander Hamilton from creating in America through subversive constitutional (de)construction what they could not accomplish through transparent constitutional debates and ratification in 1787. From Jefferson’s Presidential election in 1801 to James Buchanan’s election in 1857, classic liberal concepts, such as laissez-faire, individual and natural rights, state sovereignty and limited and divided government, prevailed in public opinion, believing that “the ideal government…is one which barely escapes being no government at all.” (Henry Louis Mencken, Prejudices: Third Series, [New York, NY, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1922], 292.)

Over time, the labels, “conservative” and “liberal”, changed meaning and application. You hear the word “liberal” today, and every notion contrary to classic liberalism comes to mind. Liberalism’s ideals of freedom were distorted, through the government-controlled education systems, into socialistic and fascist forms and masquerades, where “individual rights” are obtained through government force, control and regulation. Through duplicity and deceit, classic liberalism was replaced with social liberalism, whereby the “[government] must regulate industry for the public good; substitute organized cooperation for the dog-eat-dog of the free and competitive marketplace; and above all, substitute for the nation-destroying liberal tenets of peace and free trade the nation-glorifying measures of war, protectionism, empire and military prowess.” Rothbard, For A New Liberty, 12.

Admittedly, conservatives today attempt to present themselves in a form similar with classic liberals of the 1700 and 1800s, but their substance is far removed from those ideals. Consider this: since Abraham Lincoln, more supposed conservative presidents have been elected than any other political or philosophical category; and yet, since Lincoln, the power of the federal government has become exponentially more centralized and powerful. Like social liberals, these conservatives claim to advocate freedom for society (and even the world!), only this freedom comes by government centralization, control, war and force. Consider the following few historical illustrations.

Abraham Lincoln engaged in what became America’s most horrific war–against our own people, no less! And for what purpose? Most Americans have been taught Lincoln “had to, to save the union”? The truth is, Lincoln destroyed the union, by destroying the principles that formed the union. In Lincoln’s own words, the Civil War was to reform (replace) the original nature and character of the union from a federation of states to a nation of people, despite our original formation under the constitution. Lincoln says, “[T]he awful calamity of civil war, which now desolates the land, may be but a punishment inflicted upon us, for our presumptuous sins, to the needful end of national reformation as a whole People[.]” (Abraham Lincoln, The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union, [Washington D.C., Government Printing Office, 1899], 106). Lincoln knew that for the ratified federal union to become a national system (which was rejected by the people and founders), the nature and character of the union must be reformed. For this cause, Lincoln waged war against the Confederate States of America, creating substantially the same national system of government that the colonies seceded from in 1776 and the states rejected in 1787. This is “saving the union”!? This is “American”!? This is “freedom”!?

Shortly after the Lincoln administration, President William McKinley led a war against Spain in 1898, eventually giving the United States empirical control of former Spanish colonies, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Guam. What was the driving force behind this “conservative” President?–well, in his own words, to commercialize and imperialize the Spanish territory. McKinley says, “I don’t know how it was, but it came [to me]: (1) that we could not give them [the islands] back to Spain…(2) that we could not turn over to France or Germany – our commercial rivals in the Orient – that would be bad business and discreditable; (3) that we could not leave them to themselves – they were unfit for self-government – and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there worse than Spain’s was; and (4) that there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them…I told [the War Department] to put the Philippines on the map of the United States…and there they are and there they will stay while I am President!” If there is anything contrary to the American ideal of justice, it is empire-building, colonizing, foreign entanglements, and unjust wars. Yet, many conservative presidents have towed that line.

Even modern conservatives’ model president, Ronald Reagan, adopted the imperialistic approach to the United States’ involvement in foreign affairs–a notion completely contrary to the laws of nations as expressed by our founders. Reagan describes the United States role as peace-giver to the world! He says,

“Our dream, our challenge, and yes, our mission, is to make the golden age of peace, prosperity, and brotherhood a living reality in all countries of the Middle East. Let us remember that whether we be Christians or Jew or Moslem, we are all children of Abraham, we are all children of the same God… If you take away the belief in a greater future, you cannot explain America – that we’re a people who believed we were chosen by God to create a greater world.” (John W. Robbins, Freedom and Capitalism, [Unicoi, TN, The Trinity Foundation, 2006], 123).

To these past conservative presidents, America has to force others to accept (their version of) peace, way of life and government. To do this, of course, America must entangle itself in the affairs of foreign sovereign nations and force the states in the union to participate in unconstitutional acts. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington despised and warned us about these very dangers: empire-building, military-industrial union, corporate statism, and foreign entanglement. Yet, somehow, many conservatives and liberals in America erroneously believe this philosophy to be what our forefathers accepted in principle.

The immeasurable expansion, size and control of the federal government includes both foreign affairs and domestic society–at the hands of both conservative and liberal. Of course, we know that politicians can advocate for good causes, but these causes have been the distraction to the more important and fundamental matters of freedom. What good is it for those on a train heading over a cliff to enjoy the ride before falling? Do you want someone advocating that you have tastier food, more comfortable seats, and a better view on the train or do you want someone trying to stop and reverse the train before falling? Evidently, conservatives and liberals in America have not protected, preserved and defended the American ideals adopted by the people of the states from 1776 to 1787. How do we know? Well, they have had a DU-nopoly in America for the past 150 years. Yet , here we are!

A country does not go from good to bad over night. It takes decades. A country does not go from libertarian to fascist, communist or socialist in a matter of months. It takes generations. You think Obama has caused all of our problems? How ludicrous! By chance, to those who now criticize Obama’s enormous federal spending, did you criticize G.W. Bush for his 4 Trillion dollar debt increase, setting a federal spending record at that time? Wake up! Slavery is accomplished by the gradual sink method, not by the mere election of a democrat or republican president. And if these presidents in fact make this determination, then we no longer live in a confederate republic, but a despotic monarchy; and this whole system is just a matrix of lies and deceit to make the people think they have anything whatsoever to do with the outcome of political, social and individual freedom.

Could I agree with certain ideas advocated by conservatives and liberals? Certainly. Even a blind squirrel will find a nut every so often, and talk is cheap. You cannot dump every American into the red-blue, republican-democrat, conservative-liberal pigeon holes–despite the politicians’ and media’s attempt to do so (because it gives them monopolistic control over all public debate and perception).

However, conservatism and liberalism today are missing the ultimate goal for which our forefathers fought and died, and serve only to place those in power who perpetuate the very form and substance of government that continues to deny us our contractual and natural rights derived from God and secured by our Constitution. If that is what being a conservative and liberal is, I do not classify myself as either. Rather, call me a Freedomist! If you agree, join me!

---

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com

---