Tag Archives: Thomas Jefferson

Selected Slavery: Loving to Hate America at UVA

Selected Slavery: Loving to Hate America at UVA-Why is it necessary to define slavery for the professors at UVA and other institutions of selected learning?

by Bill Lockwood

According to The Daily Caller, a group of 469 professors and students “at the University of Virginia (UVA) are calling for the school’s president to stop quoting school founder Thomas Jefferson, on the grounds that Jefferson was a slave owner.” The public letter composed by the group went on to add that “We would like for our administration to understand that although some members of this community may have come to this university because of Thomas Jefferson’s legacy, others of us came here in spite of it.”

In a related story, “the president of San Francisco’s board of education wants to remove George Washington and Thomas Jefferson from the names of all tax-payer funded schools in the city because the forefathers owned slaves.” The San Francisco Examiner reports that “Board of Education President Matt Haney is expected to introduce a resolution as early as next week encouraging schools in the San Francisco Unified School District that bear the names of men with questionable human rights legacies to consider proposing new monikers.”

The Examiner explains that “The idea came to him after listening to a sermon Sunday at Third Baptist Church, a black church in the Western Addition, about 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick protesting the national anthem in recent weeks. The song’s slave-owning author, Francis Scott Key, has a school named after him in the Outer Sunset.”

Why the Selected Slavery?

What shall we say to these things? First, I suppose the UVA crowd and the San Francisco authorities will be banning the reading of the Koran and building mosques. If it is SLAVERY that they so despise, then consistency drives them to ban the Koran because it teaches “chattel slavery” as a continuing positive institution endorsed by Allah. “Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; But if ye fear ye shall not deal justly with them, then only one, or a captive [slave] that your right hand possesses …” (Surah 4:3).

Mohammed himself was involved in every aspect of slavery. He had non-believing men killed so that their women and children could be made slaves (Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Mohammed, 466). He gave away slaves as gifts. He owned slaves, even a black slave by the name of Safina, whom he called “ship” because he carried Mohammed’s baggage for him.

Mohammed passed around slaves to his lieutenants that they might be used for sex. He stood by while others beat slaves. After one major battle he enjoyed the pleasures of forced sex with the widows of men he had recently slain. He captured slaves and wholesaled them in order to finance jihad. Mohammed received slaves as gifts from other rulers.

Mohammed’s pulpit from which he preached was made by slaves; he ate food prepared by slaves; he approved of an owner’s having sex with his slaves. The “prophet of Islam” put it right into the Koran for modern-day Muslims that they may “own those whom their right hand possesses.”  Slavery has always been a part of Islam; it is taught in the Muslim holy book.

Will our professors and student body at UVA therefore ban the Koran, or ban mosques, or ban Muslims? No. Because like all wild-eyed liberal, socialist and/or communistic societies, it is only our America, and its foundations, that they love to hate—not the institution of slavery.

Second, it would be interesting to hear the professors at UVA define slavery. I am going to launch out here and suggest that they do not even understand what is slavery. What is slavery? We normally say, “one person owned by another.” But what is it to “own” another? It means that all my production belongs to someone else. In other words, I work for free for someone else, and not on a voluntary basis.

Slavery is a “legal or economic system” in which the “principles of property law” are applied to persons. In other words, “While a person is enslaved, the owner is entitled to the productivity of the slave’s labor, without any remuneration” (Encyclopedia Britannica online).  A person is a SLAVE if he or she is “forced to work for another person without ability on the worker’s part to unilaterally terminate the arrangement.” Forcibly using one person by another. Forced labor is “the forced exploitation of a person’s labor.”

Why is it necessary to define slavery for the professors at UVA and other institutions of selected learning? For this. Many college students are completely in the dark, made so by liberal professorships. A government that forcibly removes the production of my labor, or forces me to labor for others is practicing slavery. But this is exactly the definition of SOCIALISM. Socialism is slavery at the government level. But this the professors want! See the vast numbers of college students who supported Bernie Sanders—the avowed socialist.

ObamaCare, which is on the way out, is a perfect illustration of socialism. Doctors may have financed their own education to the tune of a million dollars and need to re-coup their costs by the fees they charge—but Big Brother Government FORCES them to work for free. It steals their production and re-distributes it among others. This forcible labor the government calls “caring for the poor.” Collegiate masses favored this system of plunder!

If UVA professors or the San Francisco mayor wish to oppose slavery, they can start with the modern-day version of it—socialistic government. The legs of the lame are not equal. Slavery to the White House is fine with them; but slavery to a white’s house in American history is criminal.

Third, the Founding Fathers with one voice condemned slavery. It was a horrific institution which they tried to expunge from America from the colonial period forward. Thomas Jefferson’s first effort as a representative at the Virginia state assembly was to abolish slavery. The year was 1776. He and Madison both wished to clear out the “rubbish of feudalism, aristocracy, and slavery.” His proposed bill would eradicate slavery in one generation. The reason it did not occur was due to the fact that England forbade it. The founders later put right into the Constitution that slave trafficking would cease within 20 years of 1787 (Article 1.9.1).

At least the Founders were honest about it, recognizing that an institution which they had been born with was evil. They all set it on a course for extinction. The UVA letter also repeats the unfounded allegation against Thomas Jefferson that he had illegitimate children by Sally Hemings, a black slave he owned. Once again, what is occurring on campuses or in the halls of San Francisco government is nothing less than hatred of America. It is on display as they continue to libel the Founders of our great nation.

The Wild Wild West of News

The Wild Wild West of News –“Remember, Obama has actually bragged about lying to the American people…”

by Bill Lockwood

True to his Marxist roots President Obama, in the waning days of his tenure in office, decries what he calls the “wild wild west” of news while suggesting that some agency should have a “curating function” to filter what is “approved” for public consumption. Speaking at a Pittsburgh conference last week, comrade Obama even proposed that “we are going to have to rebuild within this wild-wild-west-of-information flow some sort of curating function that people agree to.” REBUILD? “We”—collectively?

A “curator” calls for someone or agency who is “in charge.” Sometimes it is used for “a guardian” to oversee a minor. This is exactly how Obama sees Americans. The free-flow of information is harmful to minors who need be spoon-fed government-approved information.

Continued the lying dictator-in-chief: “There has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard, because they just don’t have any basis in anything that’s actually happening in the world.” Remember, Obama has actually bragged about lying to the American people —“If you like your doctor, etc.”

Another government bureaucracy added “to sort” through internet, television, radio, and printed material to apply basic “truthiness” tests. This does not simply sound like the Hitler’s and Stalin’s of the world, it is precisely what their programs of totalitarianism enacted.

As unbelievably astounding as Obama’s proposal is, he continued unfazed: “The way I would like to see us operate is, yes, significant debate and contentious debate, but where we are operating on the same basic platform, same basic rules, on how do we determine what’s true and what’s not. Everything on the internet looks like it might be true. And so in this political season, we’ve seen — you just say stuff. And so everything suddenly becomes contested. That I do not think is good for democracy, and it’s certainly not good for science, for progress, for government, for fixing systems.”

A government-sponsored media-organ would not be “censorship” Obama schmoozed. “But it’s creating places where people can say ‘this is reliable’ and I’m still able to argue safely about facts and what we should do about it.” Only within certain parameters will “vigorous debate” be allowed.

Thomas Jefferson

Respect for the law of the land as well as basic components of liberty is something completely alien to Barack Obama as well as Hillary Clinton. There is an amendment of the Constitution that expressly, in so many words, declares that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

The core concept of the Bill of Rights is that people enjoy liberties because they are bestowed upon us by God Himself and that the government created for Americans is forbidden by the people to even touch the hem of the garment of these liberties.

As Thomas Jefferson observed, the fact that several liberties were enumerated in the First Amendment means that “whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others” and that “The liberty of speaking and writing … guards our other liberties.”

This election is about liberty. Will we enjoy what remains of that which God has given us in America? Much of it has already been eroded by the government. Or, will we succumb to the comrades of the Democratic Party who would love nothing more than to control you from cradle to grave?

Freedom-loving Americans resent the notion which lies behind all of these Big Brother proposals. It is the assumption that we need government to decide for us what political and religious information we will consume and what we will not. No thanks, Barack, we would rather live in the wild-wild-west of conflicting information and sort it out ourselves than be locked into government-sponsored “safe zones” being fed crumbs that fall from the rich man’s table.

Back to Homepage

Bill Lockwood: Obama’s War Against Freedom of Speech

Internet Giveaway: Obama’s War Against Freedom of Speech-“Hate,” like beauty, is the eye of the beholder. “

by Bill Lockwood

The danger is real. The threat is imminent. Under Barack Obama’s direction the United States is set to give up control of the internet to a world body controlled by other socialists such as himself. Obama’s Marxism is not the armchair sort where he simply cogitates about philosophies of life while puffing on a pipe. “Street-organizing” is called such for a reason.

As these lines are being composed Barack Obama, as has become his modus operandi, via the back door, is seeking to curtail freedom of speech. His proposal is to end the U.S. government’s oversight of the internet domain name system by turning it over to a world body called ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) composed of 162 nations. These nations, composed of dictatorships of the communist or Islamic brands, such as China or Iran, will certainly curtail the precious freedoms long-cherished by Americans.

The Left argues that this “danger” outlined above is overblown. No entity would ever “censor” the internet, we are assured by the globalists. As Senator Ted Cruz observed on the floor of Congress recently, “A representative of Iran is already on record stating, ‘we should not take it [for] granted that jurisdiction is already agreed to be totally based on U.S. law.’” Unbelievable. More unbelievable is the fact that this does not cause Barack Obama to even pause in his internet giveaway. He pushes it onto the fast track.

Further, as Cruz pointed out to the Senate, leading technology companies in the United States have already agreed with the European Union to remove ‘hate speech’ from their online platforms. Giant U.S. companies  are currently in the process of “censoring speech” that is deemed unacceptable. “Hate,” like beauty, is the eye of the beholder. Those who have Twitter or Facebook accounts know that this is already occurring.

Freedom of Speech

America has had a long history of cherishing the precious freedom of speech, the free flow and exchange of ideas. Our framers of government fought long and hard that they and we might enjoy this God-given freedom, which had been stifled throughout the governments of history.

Probably the most significant figure of the Founding period in America is Thomas Jefferson. As were all of those remarkable statesmen called Founding Fathers, Jefferson was a fierce lover of freedom. At his First Inaugural Address (1801) the Sage of Monticello admonished future generations, in memorable phraseology, to carefully guard the Freedom of Speech.

The diffusion of information and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of the public reason; freedom of religion; freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected. These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation.”

The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety.”

Elsewhere Jefferson rightly connected the freedom of speech with religion. “…Insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others” (Kentucky Resolutions, 1798).

Benjamin Franklin warned: “Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins. Republics and limited monarchies derive their strength and vigor from a popular examination into the action of the magistrates.”

Is it the case that this ‘principal pillar of free government’ is near evaporation? Will tyranny indeed be erected on its ruins? Marxist Obama does not cherish this freedom; the liberal establishment does not desire a free flow of ideas. Placing the forum of the internet into globalist hands assures us that tyranny is in the offing.

Back to Homepage

Founding Fathers Supported Islam?

Founding Fathers Supported Islam?

by Bill Lockwood

President Obama has jumped the gun. He had hoped that by now his Common Core education standards would have already dumbed-down Americans to the point that they know nothing of our own history nor would they be able to read the Koran for themselves. So he lectured America this week from a Baltimore mosque that “Islam has always been a part of America.”

Visiting the Islamic Society of Baltimore on Wednesday, Obama eagerly assured Muslims that the dramatic rise in Islamic bloody terror against Christians and non-Muslims around the world should not in turn cause suspicion of Islam. Anti-Muslim bias and ill-feeling must be denounced, regardless of how much infidel blood flows at the hands of Muslims.

Within his remarks Obama showed what purposeful brainwashing can do to a mind. To support his thesis that Islam has always been woven into the fabric of America he pointed out (1) That the religion of many African slaves brought to America in the 17th century was Islam; (2) That Thomas Jefferson wanted the “Islamic” religion to be protected as was other religions, and; (3) That Jefferson and John Adams had their own copies of the Koran. It is difficult to believe that any person considers these sophomoric suggestions as proof that somehow “Islam has been woven into the fabric of America from the beginning,” let alone a president who was supposedly Harvard-trained. Stunning.

Regarding Jefferson’s view of Islam, consider that even Columbia-degreed Denise Spellberg, author of Thomas Jefferson and the Quran: Islam and the Founders, reminds us that the Founders believed both Catholicism and Islam were violent religions and that Jefferson himself had a “personal disdain” for Islam. Jefferson knew from his experience as Minister to France that Islam was spread by the sword.

In spite of his disdain, Jefferson urged “toleration” toward individual Muslims who may be in America. However, to equate this toleration to “Muslims being a part of the fabric” or “founding” of America insults intelligence. Further, that Jefferson and Adams owned a copy of the Koran does not mean they appreciated any of Muhammed’s teachings any more than owning a copy of Dreams From My Father means anyone likes the content.

Perhaps Obama, while he is on Thomas Jefferson—who launched America’s first war against Muslim Barbary Coast Pirates–will announce to the public what Jefferson himself reported to John Jay and to the Congress regarding Islam. He learned it directly from the Tripoli Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. The ambassador answered us that [the right of piracy] was founded upon on the laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered 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 who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

Other Founders

What exactly did the Founders of America think of Islam? Not only did they eschew it, but were outspoken that CHRISTIANITY is the great basis upon our free republic rests. That the liberty to even be in America while believing Muhammad’s Koran is traceable solely to Christian concepts of freedom—it certainly does not work the other way around.

The Father of American jurisprudence, Justice Joseph Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, “Indeed, in a republic, there would seem to be a peculiar propriety in viewing the Christian religion, as the great basis, on which it must rest for its support and permanence, if it be, what it has ever been deemed by its truest friends to be, the religion of liberty.” Story went on to point out that not only did the Founders as a whole wish Christianity to receive “encouragement” from the state, but that the real object of the First Amendment “was not to countenance, much less advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity by prostrating Christianity …”

James Iredell, a U.S. Supreme Court judge appointed by George Washington, made the same point in 1788. But it is objected that the people of America may perhaps choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices … But it is never to be supposed that the people of America will trust their dearest rights to persons who have no religion at all, or a religion materially different from their own.

Samuel Johnston, governor of North Carolina and member of the Constitution ratifying convention in 1788, suggested that if Muslims ever became officials of the United States that it would be “an unfortunate” event and could only happen if people laid aside the Christian religion altogether. He likened this, as did other Founders, to having elected officials who were devoid of religion completely. Similar quotations could be multiplied many times over. The Founding generation, far from remotely supposing that Islam was “woven into the fabric” of our nation, disdained it as a violent religion.

Obama’s reminder that some of the African slaves brought to America is likely the truth. What he refuses to acknowledge, however, is that not one of those African slave came to America without the complicity of Muslim slave traders on the African continent. The Koran not only endorses slavery, but Muhammed himself, the epitome of what a Muslim should be, personally owned black slaves.

It is beyond sad to witness the occupant of the Oval Office so stultify his intelligence by re-writing history. But it is a forecast of what his Common Core standards have in mind for all students.

Back to Homepage

 

Recent Entries »