A resort to the militia

I've long been a proponent of readopting Founding era philosophy. It's the only way to genuinely "save" the country. Anyone proposing any other way, or some new "party" to that end, is selling a fantasy. The United States government, and freedoms it recognized, were the product of an idiosyncratic ethos and set of circumstances. It can only be preserved, or restored, through the principles and values that produced it. As I've told people for years (which they always ignore), you must read the books those men read, adopt the values they held, and conduct yourself according to the (religious) principles that governed their comportment, etc. This is extremely unpopular among an almost completely debauched society however, that prefers vacuous and hyper-simplistic slogans (typically dispensed in meme form) to study, erudition, and probity. They want all the same freedoms the Founders had, with none of the obligatory beliefs, values, and requisite self-restraint upon personal conduct that produced and are requisite to sustain them. Which is philosophically tantamount to expecting a recipe for tacos to result in a chocolate cake. It should be an a priori maxim, to any thinking person, that you can't get the same thing (limited government) from completely different ingredients (beliefs, values, conduct, etc). But that kind of simple sense is something disturbingly absent in "modern" America.

One such ingredient for freedom that's conspicuously absent today is the militia, which in the Founding era was intended to be a check upon tyranny, particularly by means of military force. As seen in my contribution on the Second Amendment (henceforth 2-A):

"A well regulated Militia, composed of the gentlemen, freeholders, and other freeman, is the natural strength, and only safe and stable security of a free Government, and that such Militia will [...] render it unnecessary to keep any Standing Army (ever dangerous to liberty) in this Colony." - Extracts from the Proceedings of the Committee of Fairfax County (Virginia), on the 17th of January, 1775.

Indeed, when one reads the language of the 2-A, it's immediately apparent one is merely reading a blatant reiteration (almost verbatim) of the sentiments held by the Revolutionists of Fairfax County above in 1775.

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

It should be understood that the militia was not intended to be duplicative of the military. This is made unequivocally clear by Patrick Henry, when he expresses his ardent disapproval of the new Constitution, which at that time did not contain a bill of rights with explicit protection of the people's liberties. In particular he expounds at some length about how the militia will be rendered impotent, and incapable of resisting the federal government, through deliberate and systematic disarmament of the people by that same government.

"My great objection to this government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights , or of waging war against tyrants. [....] O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone. [...] Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? [...] A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? [....] What resistance could be made? The attempt would be madness. [....] You cannot force them to receive their punishment: Of what service would militia be to you, when, most probably, you will not have a single musket in the state? For, as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not furnish them. Will the oppressor let go the oppressed? Was there ever an instance? Can the annals of mankind exhibit one single example where rulers overcharged with power willingly let go the oppressed, though solicited and requested most earnestly? [...] Sometimes, the oppressed have got loose by one of those bloody struggles that desolate a country; but a willing relinquishment of power is one of those things which human nature never was, nor ever will be, capable of." - Remarks At The Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5th, 1788.

As plainly illustrated above, the purpose of including the 2-A in the Bill of Rights was not to protect game hunting, or even home defense, but to ensure the ability to "wage war" against a tyrannical government. (The first two, it should go without saying, are inherent concomitants of the third.) Henry literally refers to "the militia" as "our only defense" against a wayward congress, and "the means of resisting disciplined armies." Peaceful appeals, says Henry, are not and have never been sufficient to reform a tyrannical state. (An assertion being vindicated before our very eyes in China.) How does he know that? Because the Framers tried it.

"We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne!" - Speech to the Second Virginian Convention, March 23, 1775.

There is only one means by which tyrants might be reformed.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." - Remarks At The Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5th, 1788.

Once a people allow their Constitution to be subverted, and their liberties usurped said Adams, they shall never regain their liberties under that government again.

"A constitution of government, once changed from freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. When the people once surrender [...] their right of defending the limitations upon Government, and of resisting every encroachment upon them, they can never regain it. - John Adams, to Abigail Adams, July 7th, 1775.

Hence why the people must take great care to prevent tyranny as opposed to waiting until it's established to resist. Once the people deviate too far from the proper balance (i.e., the separation of powers), Says Adams (Discourses on Davila), "the departure increases rapidly till the whole is lost."

A standing army should be ephemeral and only convoked ("raised") for specific causes. This is why the Constitution confers to congress (the people's representatives; not the executive) the power "to raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years." The militia by contrast was intended to be a perennial force. In a free society once a conflict is over the army "raised" should be disbanded and dispersed. It is the militia (and not the military) that was meant to be the standby force, and first "resort" in the event force of arms was needed to suppress insurrections, oppose domestic tyrannical machinations, repel foreign invasions, and to provide time (if necessary) for an army to be raised for any such purposes. The men of Fairfax held this position because they knew history, and the role that permanent standing armies had played in the subversion of liberty in Europe, and under governments long before. Permanent standing armies and nationalized constabularies are a conspicuous feature, and tool of oppression, in all modern tyrannical states as well. Everywhere you see a tyrannical government today, it is preserved by the military and/or police of that state, just as it was in Imperial Rome.

Furthermore, whereas officers in the United States military are chosen by said military, officers in the Revolutionary militias were chosen by the members of the militia, assuring their loyalty to their men and local interests.

"We the subscribers, inhabitants of Fairfax County, have freely and voluntarily agreed, and hereby do agree and solemnly promise, to enroll and embody ourselves into a Militia for this County, intended to consist of all the able-bodied freemen from eighteen to fifty years of age, under Officers of their own choice, [...] from among our friends and acquaintance, upon whose justice, humanity and bravery, we can rely." - Extracts from the Proceedings of the Committee of Fairfax County.

Hence why federalists like Hamilton, cognizant of this, dismissed fears of federal usurpation of the militias.

"There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia. [...] Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests?" - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #29.

To preserve this autonomy, though the United States Congress is by the Constitution empowered to organize, arm, and discipline militias to the extent they may be "employed in the service of the United States," the states retain the right of "appointment of the officers and the authority of training" those militias, as to not render them completely subservient to the federal government.

"What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the sole and exclusive appointment of the officers? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia." - Ibidem.

Whereas the U.S. Military is for the purpose of settling disputes between nations, for example, and could be sent abroad to that end, the militia's agency was primarily domestic in nature and scope. The United States government might, in the event of a large scale invasion for example, assume command of the militias to coordinate their efforts with that of the U.S. Military. But the states choosing the officers therein, and conducting their training, ensures their loyalty to their state and local interests should the federal government seek to subsume them for tyrannical purposes.

Another key distinction is that the militia exists to safeguard the liberties of the people, even from their own government, whereas the military being a proxy of government may (and has numerous times throughout history) become the enemy of such. (It seems largely forgotten in America today that the Revolutionary War was in fact English citizens taking up arms to protect their rights from their own government.) The Committee of Fairfax above makes this explicitly clear in its subsequent declaration during the same proceedings.

"We will always hold ourselves in readiness, in case of necessity, hostile invasion, or real danger, to defend and preserve to the utmost of our power, our religion, the laws of our country, and the just rights and privileges of our fellow-subjects, our posterity, and ourselves." 
- Extracts from the Proceedings of the Committee of Fairfax County.

The use of arms to defend one's "religion" is a concept now anathema in modern America; revealing how the very beliefs that produced our country have become alien to its populace. After all, the American Revolution philosophically began in America's churches, and the first shots of the Revolutiony War killed 8 men on a church lawn. But I digress.

Simply put the military (standing army) is a government entity which, in a free society, exists for the collective defense of the common interests of the whole. By contrast the militia is a state or local entity the purpose of which is the defense of the constituent components, and in the event a national government turns tyrannical, from the whole. The federal government, being comprised by laws derived from the people's representatives, should be working in the people's interests also. But in the event it should deviate from that paradigm the militia and the use of arms was intended to be the recourse. 

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #28.

It's indisputably clear that one of the primary purposes of the militia, was to protect us from our own government and military, through the possession of and use (if necessary) of comparable weaponry. 

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Federalist #29.

Thus the notion only the military should have 'military style' rifles is patently fallacious, as the militia was intended to not only be a direct rival to the military capable of overcoming it for the purposes of resisting tyranny, but was also at times expected to become an auxiliary military force. And again, in this capacity militia members would be using their personal firearms (see Uniform Militia Act of 1792), which were no different in substance than those utilized by standing armies of the day. This truth, and proof this notion was not the wayward disposition of one or a few counties during the Revolution, is provided in the very works arguing for the adoption of the U.S. Constitution; The Federalist Papers. The fact that the existence of the militia, and its role as a check upon the military is acknowledged by the proponents and authors of the Constitution and subsequently codified into that document, illustrates unequivocally that such is not at odds with that document or a federal government operating within its legitimate Constitutional trammels. Id est, the militia, its members bearing personal firearms, those firearms being of use in a military capacity, and the militia's function as a tyranny thwarting entity are 100% "Constitutional." Indeed, governmental aversion to the militia is a conspicuous indicator it's become tyrannical. As one of the purposes of the militia according to Hamilton was to "lessen the call for military establishments," i.e., to have less need of a military; i.e., to allow for a government of limited scope and power.

I think it really needs to be emphasized that contrary to leftist assertions, the purpose of the 2-A is not to arm militias, but rather to arm people so they can form them. Hence the Amendment's distinction between militias and people, explicitly conferring the right to the latter, and not the former. ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.") A subtle but crucial nuance lost on far too many today.

Again, the Founders were well aware that permanent standing armies have traditionally been a threat to liberty, and a preferred tool of oppressive rulers/governments. As Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice appointed by James Madison, Founder of Harvard Law, and author of America's first treatise on the meaning of the Constitution (from whence more than one quotation in this contribution is derived) observes.

"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms, and by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the militia. [...] The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to [...] trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers. - Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, Amendments to the Constitution, 1840.

Notice Story's sentiment regarding the role of the militia; "defense against sudden foreign invasion, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers." Notice his assertion the right of the citizens (not the soldiery) to keep and bear arms is correctly considered the "palladium" (protector) of the liberties of a republic. These are all duties and attributes that would be ascribed to a military establishment exclusively in the minds of the American people today. Yet the Constitution explicitly acknowledges the militia may be called upon by congress to "execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."

Some (leftists) will naturally argue that "well regulated militia" is a reference to the military, or something comparable to such (e.g., constabularies), and that the 2-A is conferring to members of such organizations the right to bear arms exclusively. But again primary source material refutes this notion. According to Hamilton to maintain a well-regulated militia nationwide would be impractical, if not impossible, as sequestering the whole free male populace for the time requisite to induce such discipline would result in a staggering toll on economic productivity. To produce a well-regulated militia, he observes, "is a business that requires time and practice."

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious. [...] To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped. [...] The scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable." - Federalist #29.

Clearly the objective of the 2-A was not that only those in a well-regulated militia should be armed. Neither were militias intended to keep firearms out of the hands of civilians, as the militia in the case of the men of Fairfax County, was comprised of civilian volunteers. The Militia Act of 1792 made enrollment in the militia and procurement of a personally owned firearm to that end compulsory. Thus militias inherently sought and served to arm civilians (as opposed to disarming them), and to inculcate upon them "such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need," that in such an event said people would be "ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it." It's common to hear leftists today speciously argue that only those with "training" should have firearms, and to construe the militia as being comprised exclusively of such persons, in an effort to construe their agenda to systematically disarm the populace as rooted in American history and law. Training with a firearm was not a prerequisite for admission into the militia however, nor lack of such a disqualification, because one of the purposes of a militia was to provide said training.

Unfortunately, the student of history observes numerous and conspicuous precursors to tyranny on display in present day America. We see a growing aversion to the keeping and use of personal firearms, considered by our antecedents "the palladium of the liberties of a republic," among the general population. And the militia, deemed by our forefathers "the natural strength and only safe and stable security of a free Government," and "the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers," has become nigh non-existent. Instead they now look to the military establishment, and a permanent standing army they naively trust to assume all those responsibilities, instead. And what this has shown us, is that growing reliance upon a permanent military establishment for all these things, diminishes in proportion the scope of personal commitment to such for the average citizen. It whittles away at their sense of duty, and personal responsibility for ensuring their own safety and liberty, until having little or none left that authority is delegated away entirely to a standing army necessarily rendered permanent by their civic apathy. A most dangerous circumstance for freedom, and something predicted by Justice Story.

"Among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline. [...] There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our National Bill of Rights." - Story, A Familiar Exposition.

Yet another factor, in addition to civic apathy, contributes to this state of affairs. Proscribed by the Constitution from appointing the officers of or training the militia, unlike the standing army in which it may do both, the leaders of the military establishment may not pack the former with sycophants loyal to itself. Thus the latter (federal government) assiduously discourages, imprecates, and has even taken an overtly bellicose disposition toward the former (the militia), aggressively promoting enlistment in and support of the military establishment in its place. And so a sort of reciprocal subversion of liberty has ensued, in which the more apathetic the citizenry becomes the more it looks to the military establishment as its defender and protector, and the more the military establishment assumes the role of defender and protector the more (the penchant of government being always to increase and never to decrease) it reserves that role for itself exclusively. 

We're seeing in present day America a convergence of numerous tyranny inducing elements. One is the substitution of a regular army in the place of the militia which Story warns is the means by which "ambitious and unprincipled rulers trample upon the rights of the people." Another is a state of perpetual paranoia and warfare, which Hamilton warns engenders among the populace a disposition of idolization, and ultimately obsequiousness to those in the military establishment.

"Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. [...] The continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free. [....] The perpetual menacings of danger oblige the government to be always prepared to repel it; its armies must be numerous enough for instant defense. The continual necessity for their services enhances the importance of the soldier, and proportionably degrades the condition of the citizen. The military state becomes elevated above the civil. [...] And by degrees the people are brought to consider the soldiery not only as their protectors, but as their superiors. The transition from this disposition to that of considering them masters, is neither remote nor difficult." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #8.

Hitler used continual warfare to enthrall Germany in precisely the manner Hamilton describes above. (The war effort took precedence over all else and any dissent was vilified as unpatriotic; an unacceptable failure to support Germany's venerated servicemen.) It should likewise be a cause of concern that we are now a country that's been at war so long an entire generation has been born and reached voting age. We have an entire generation of Americans who've never known anything other than a country at war, many of which are therefore highly disinclined to question the validity of such, anymore than the average person today questions the validity of Social Security, the IRS, or any other number of illegitimate federal acts or bureaucracies. And this is by design and being perpetrated by both major parties. One perpetually pushes dependency upon the government, and the other perpetually elevates (if not beatifies) its proxies (which it assiduously construes as protectors) in the eyes of the populace.

As I have long said, the real threat to American liberty comes not from the Democrats "or" the Republicans, but from the Democrats and the Republicans obliviously working in conjunction with one another despite ostensibly working against each other; i.e., the cumulative result of their polices combined. From each comes often disparate contributions, the danger of which when viewed independently is often not readily apparent, but which ultimately accrete to form a far more comprehensive tyranny. From the Democrats you get the tyranny of government controlled medicine, for example, while the Republicans demand abridgment of liberty for the sake of security; e.g., your government spying on you for your own safety. And it's common for each to adopt the other's position when in power, and to promote an abridgment today that yesterday they vociferously rebuked (because their rivals proposed it). Viewed separately, their agendas will often seem disparate, and even deceptively benign. But they both by increments contribute to tyranny in their own way, as the Democrats (Socialists) and Republicans (Nationalists), ever more groom the average citizen into a combination of both (Nationalism and Socialism), which would not so successfully be achieved independently of one another. Vindicating the sagacity of John Adams's admonition.

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution." - John Adams, October 2, 1780.

Though one party opposes the measures of the other, they are always amenable to the measures of their own party, each incrementally advancing tyranny to varying extents. None of their partisan shills, blinded by partisan hatred, sees the loss of liberty that occurs under their own party. They only see that which occurs under their rivals. And so they take turns cumulatively advancing different aspects of tyranny, that ultimately come together to produce a general tyranny blame for which each attributes to the other in perpetuity, and which neither scales back to any meaningful degree when in power.

People today incessantly whine that government keeps getting bigger and more oppressive, but always fail to acknowledge the integral role they play, and manner in which they facilitate that circumstance. Bigger and more oppressive government in a democratic or representative society, is a direct product of a pervading public acceptance or want for bigger and more oppressive government, which is itself a product of a pervading moral collapse. "Vice destroys freedom" exhorts Gouverneur Morris, who witnessed firsthand the perturbatious travesty of the French Revolution, and "arbitrary power (and misconduct in those who rule a republic) is founded on public immorality." And what is the power of the executive to selectively ban firearm components, without legislative authority and despite the U.S. Constitution's explicit forbiddence of such regulation, if not "arbitrary?" Anyone who argues otherwise is simply estranged to reason.

So, in closing, what should one glean from all this? Some key points to consider.

• The militia is a protector of liberty according to those who birthed our nation, the "only safe and stable security of a free Government," yet the militia is virtually non-existent in modern America.

• Large standing armies, and constant warfare are a threat to liberty, and facilitate tyranny by gradually inducing subservience and/or serfdom in the populace. Yet we have a large standing army in the United States prosecuting perpetual warfare, support for which is maintained by convincing society we are in a "state of continual danger," and the continuance of which is established upon the pretext it provides "safety from external danger." (Duties originally consigned to the militia.) Any opposition to this paradigm inversion is stifled, through vilifying cynicism or criticism as unpatriotic, seditious, treasonous, etc., by those who elevate (if not revere) and view as "protectors" members of the military, and increasingly militarized para-military organizations (e.g., the police), above civilians. In reality most if not all of the alleged threats to our own soil from "terrorism," could be neutralized by coherent and austere immigration laws and enforcement, as opposed to wildly expensive interminable foreign warfare and nation building boondoggles.

We've been at war for 18 years without respite, and remain deluged by our national government (under both parties) with an endless procession of ostensible threats to our national security, safety, and existence. One party tells us that peoples and nations who've never actually attacked us, and probably never would (e.g., North Korea), are an imminent threat for which we need a massive military establishment and permanent standing army for protection. The other tells us that imaginary climatic crises, that are either complete fabrications or beyond our control to any meaningful extent, will at any moment wipe out human civilization unless we allow them to regulate virtually everything.

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

The remedy is obvious. It's provided by the very men that devised our Constitution. If you really want to "save" America from federal tyranny, read the literature of our Founding, buy a gun, and join or form a militia. Or... just keep tightening the noose around your own neck that is your continued support for political duopoly in America. The choice is yours.

The Crusades were called in self-defense

Due to a public education system which now deliberately omits the truth regarding our religious history, a complicit entertainment industry that deliberately seeks to mislead the populace about such, and a church egregiously derelict in rectifying such ignorance, proper edification of those near me becomes incumbent upon my person. It is a common, fallacious assertion from secularists and Muslims, that the Crusades were a Christian war of aggression waged against Islamic victims. Nothing could be further from the truth. Since the days of Muhammad, a murderer who raided caravans slaying and robbing those he found, Islam has been expanding through assiduous brutality.

Contrary to the Crusades being called to forcibly convert Muslim lands to Christianity (which is precisely what Islam had done to get them), it was a war of self-defense in response to centuries of Muslim aggression. The first time European Christians had any significant exposure to Islam was some three hundred years prior to the first Crusade; when Muslims invaded Christian Spain and France (about 711 A.D.). This was the true beginning of the war on terror, which has been ongoing ever since. They were halted in France, but Spain would spend many centuries (until 1492) repelling Muslim invaders.

Long before the first Crusade Muhammad had demanded conversion from the Christian Byzantine Empire (the eastern remnants of the Roman Empire) as the price of safety (i.e. not being attacked). The result of the Byzantine's declination was centuries of attack from Muslim armies (to compel conversion), until a beleaguered Byzantine Emperor finally appealed to the Pope for help. This, was the cause of the first Crusade; the first of numerous efforts to repel Muslim invaders and reclaim Christian lands lost to Islamic conquest.

"For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them." - Pope Urban II, Calling the first Crusade, 1095 A.D.

Notice Pope Urban states that the consequence of deference in the face of Islamic aggression is more Islamic aggression.

The whole notion that Christianity was the aggressor against Islam, which did not exist until well over 500 years after Christ walked the earth, is absurd. Damascus, a once mostly Christian city in Syria, to which Paul was heading when he encountered Christ, was conquered by Muslim invaders who demolished the Basilica of Saint John the Baptist and built a mosque upon it. Damascus is unsafe for "infidels" like Paul today.

"The armed Islamist Opposition in Syria has murdered more than 200 Christians in the city of Homs, including entire families with young children. These Islamic gangs kidnapped Christians and demanded high ransoms. In two cases, after the ransoms were paid, the men's bodies were found." - Arabisouri.wordpress.com, Syria: Armed gangs of mercenaries kill Christians, February 9, 2012.

All the lands now held by Muslims in the middle east are lands they stole from other peoples, which they subsequently eradicated, if not by force, then by imposition of the "dhimmitude;" measures which render "kafirs" (non-Muslims) second class citizens, impose a tax upon kafirs, and enact rigid statutes which proscribe kafirs from disseminating their faith to others (even their own children). Intended to compel the conversion of conquered subjects, who ultimately acquiesce to escape the onerous conditions of life as a dhimmi, it gradually extirpates different faiths from lands conquered by Islam.

Getting back to Pope Urban's call to arms. The Byzantine Empire ultimately fell to Muslim forces, and the Hagia Sophia, a beautiful church in the Byzantine capital of Constantinople (much like the Byzantine Basilica in Damascus), was converted into a mosque by the invading Muslims. (Supplanting a conquered peoples' houses of worship with mosques is an expression of dominance over the vanquished foe.) With this a large portion of once Christian land became Islamic; and is erroneously viewed, along with many others, as always having been such by most today.

Every Christian in America needs to understand some things.

• If not for the crusades which impeded islamic expansion across Europe, there would be no Europe, nor consequently America as we know it. Period. (One need simply observe the condition of islamic states, which are spectacles of barbarism and oppression, to see how much we owe to the Crusades.)

• Our conflict with Islam is not the result of any thing we do, per se, or any "foreign policy" we currently have. It is the result of Islamic dictum, from Muhammad, which states "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshiped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle,... so if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me." (1)

• The only thing your well intended "civility" will accomplish is the facilitation of the Islamic conquest of the west, with far less trouble than those middle eastern lands they took only after violent resistance, and the negation of the sacrifice of countless lives lost in defense of Christian civilization against centuries of Islamic aggression.

The notion that groups like ISIS are something new, the worst manifestation of Islamic aggression or violence ever seen, or a byproduct of American foreign policy is a result of profound historical ignorance. The conduct of groups like ISIS literally stems back to Muhammad himself, and history is replete with similar examples of such from that time unto the present day. The town of Otranto (Italy) for example, was invaded and conquered by Muslims in 1480, and over 800 men were massacred for refusing to convert to Islam. The archbishop was decapitated at the alter, two Bishops were sawn in half while still alive, the hundreds of remaining men were likewise decapitated and the women and children enslaved. The remains of those murdered are ensconced within the walls of the town cathedral.

Much like Islam began attacking the Christian Byzantine Empire without provocation, Muslims also began attacking the Untied States without provocation during the administration of its first president, when the still infant nation had no substantial foreign policy and long before it ever dropped bombs on or "invaded" Muslim lands. We didn't even have a navy at the time. George Washington laments our nation's inability to defend itself from this Islamic aggression in a letter to Lafayette.

"How is it possible the great maritime powers of Europe should submit to pay an annual tribute to the little piratical States of Barbary? Would to heaven we had a navy able to reform those enemies to mankind, or crush them into non-existence." - George Washington, to Marquis de Lafayette, August 15, 1786. 

This Islamic aggression was a primary catalyst for the reestablishment of the United States Navy (which had been disbanded after the Revolutionary War) via the Naval Act of 1794.

The "annual tribute" to which Washington alludes was basically a system of widespread extortion being perpetrated by Muslim pirates operating under the auspices of Islamic states such as Tripoli, Algiers, Morocco, et al., who were attacking European and eventually American vessels, and capturing the crews and selling them into slavery. The Islamic states demanded large sums of money, and various other forms of "tribute" (e.g., ships), to halt this practice. This was a very lucrative arrangement for the Muslim perpetrators. In 1795 at least 16% of the United States federal budget was allocated to extortion fees to Islamic terrorist states. By 1800 20% (one fifth) of the United States federal budget was dedicated to these extortion fees, which had no discernible point of cessation and would conceivably need to be paid forever, proving that peace with Islamic terrorist states is arguably more expensive than warfare.

It cannot be emphasized enough that people who believe and claim that Islamic aggression today is a result of invasive European and American foreign policy or military action are simply clueless. Indeed, these things are the only reason Islam didn't conquer the entire world. To allow Islam to subsume the west today is an abject betrayal of your faith and the sacrifice of your ancestors. So stop being manipulated into feeling guilty for your faith, and be grateful for those Christian warriors who saved the western world from Islamic tyranny. They're the only reason your way of life exists. And they're needed now as much as ever.

(Originally posted 2012.)

1. Hadith

Republicanism, democracy, and anarchy

It's a common occurrence to hear leftists referring to our "democracy" and the danger posed to such by Conservatives.

The problem with this notion is the United States was not Founded as, and was never intended to be, a democracy. The United States was Founded as, and always intended to be, a Republic. There's no disputing this. As Madison states in Federalist #39.

"The first question that offers itself is, whether the general form and aspect of the government be strictly republican. It is evident that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the Revolution; or with that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government. If the plan of the convention, therefore, be found to depart from the republican character, its advocates must abandon it as no longer defensible."

The United States Constitution in Article 4 Section 4 explicitly states.

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government."

Similarly, the Ordinance of 1787 explicitly states that all territories seeking admission into the Union will be admitted.

"Provided, the constitution and government so to be formed, shall be republican."

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, appointed by James Madison, explains the meaning of Article 4 Section 4 above thus.

"If any of the States were to be at liberty to adopt any other form of Government, than a republican form, it would necessarily endanger, and might destroy, the safety of the Union. [....] They shall not exchange republican for anti-republican Constitutions." - Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, Guarantee of Republican Government, 1840. 

"We are all Republicans," declares Thomas Jefferson in his first inaugural address. "Let us, then, with courage and confidence pursue our own Federal and Republican principles." The United States government was unequivocally republican. Not democratic. Because as explicitly stated by James Madison in Federalist #10, and John Adams to John Taylor, in 1814.

"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." 

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

Much contemplation was given to what form of government the United States should have.

"There is a state of society in which a republican government is the best, and, in America, the only one which ought to be adopted or thought of, because the morals of the people, and the circumstances of the country, not only can bear it, but require it." - John Adams, May 6, 1778. 

The Founders wanted America to be a republic because a republic preserves the popular element of democratic governance on a small scale, which Jefferson states in 1816 is "impracticable beyond the limits of a town," while impeding the tendency for mob rule endemic to democracies by conferring legislative power to elected representatives on a large scale.

"The causes of faction cannot be removed, and [...] relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects. [...] When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government [...] enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. [....] A pure democracy [...] can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. [....] Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, --is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it." - James Madison, Federalist #10.

It should be noted the democracy of which the Founders spoke, in reference to the United States, was not the democracy promoted by modern leftists.

"Our ideal should be a strong federal government powered by a proportionally elected unicameral legislature. But intermediary steps toward that vision can be taken by abolishing the filibuster, establishing federal control over elections and developing a simpler way to amend the Constitution through national referendum." - Meagan Day and Bhaskar Sunkara, staff writer and editor at Jacobin (a Socialist magazine), writing for the New York Times.

What the Jacobin Socialists above seek, as always, is the complete converse of that sought by the Founders.

"It is wise, therefore, in every government, and especially in a republic, to provide peaceable means for altering and improving the structure, as time and experience shall show it necessary, for the public safety and happiness. But, at the same time, it is equally important to guard against too easy and frequent changes; to secure due deliberation and caution in making them; and to follow experience, rather than speculation and theory. A government, which is always changing and changeable, is in a perpetual state of internal agitation, and incapable of any steady and permanent operations. It has a constant tendency to confusion and anarchy." - Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, Mode of making Amendments, 1833.

A government "incapable of any steady and permanent operations" should concern you, being that purpose of our government as explicitly stated by the U.S. Constitution, is to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." Basically, Socialists want to break down all of the boundaries against democracy established by the Founders, because it's a precursor and intermediary stage in the transition to a Socialist oligarchy or autocracy. As Founder Morris observed regarding the French Revolution.

"We have seen the tumults of democracy terminate, in France, as they have everywhere terminated, in despotism." - Gouverneur Morris, An Oration Delivered on Wednesday, June 29, 1814.

Democracies are inherently capricious and facile. And through a majority whose opinions are formed and directed by an education system, entertainment industry, and media apparatus controlled nigh exclusively by the left, they will procure a "democratically" established tyrannical state. (Not unlike the Bolsheviks in Russia, the National Socialists in Germany, etc.) Through strategic and selective media coverage, assiduous brainwashing through entertainment and education, the "majority" of the people will incrementally cede ever more of their liberty to the state in perpetuity. Until words like "democratic" and "republic," become no less meaningless and representative of our form of government, than they are in "the Democratic People's Republic of Korea."

The Amendment process was not intended to be "simple," at least not so simple as leftists would like. (The Founders thought it quite simple and more than adequate.) It requires super majorities for a reason; to compel thorough deliberation and unanimous consent among the people. Conversely under a democratic government which allows for "simple" changes to the Constitution through "national referendum," changes to the most fundamental aspects of our government, like its form and structure, its protections for our liberties, etc., could be proposed and passed quickly and often precluding thorough deliberation or even cognition among the people. (It cannot be emphasized enough that this is how the Nazis came to dominate Germany. In essentially a few years, through rapid changes, they fundamentally altered the form of the German government.) Protections established by a republic and a constitution, for rights like property, would essentially evaporate. They could be altered or outright revoked overnight by a mere referendum. Those who own no land, for example, vastly outnumber those that do. And if given the chance would, through referendum, redistribute the property of the latter to themselves. John Adams specifically addresses this in his writings.

"Suppose a nation, rich and poor, high and low, ten millions in number, all assembled together; not more than one or two millions will have lands, houses, or any personal property. [...], A great majority of every nation is wholly destitute of property, except a small quantity of clothes, and a few trifles of other movables. [...] If all were to be decided by a vote of the majority, the eight or nine millions who have no property, would not think of usurping over the rights of the one or two millions who have? - John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. VI, p. 9.

The ostentatious goal of all Socialists is to do precisely what Adams describes. To use the state to redistribute property from others to themselves.

"One of the first decrees of the Soviet Power in Russia was the decree concerning the separation of the church from the State. All its landed estates were taken away from the church and handed over to the working population. All the capital of the church became the property of the workers." - The ABC of Communism, Why religion and communism are incompatible, Separation of the church from the state, Separation of the school from the church, Struggle with the religious prejudice of the masses, 1920.

Democracy, as such, is a de facto abolition of inalienable rights. Your rights are whatever a fickle "majority" deems them to be at any given time.

"Under the confusion of names," said Madison, "it has been an easy task to transfer to a republic observations applicable to a democracy only." This confusion has plainly persisted to the present day, as leftists (and modern dictionaries) often attempt to obfuscate the difference between these two forms of government, and even conflate them. The perhaps easiest way to remember the fundamental difference between the two, is that in a democracy everyone is a legislator, whereas in a republic the power of legislation is consigned to representatives exclusively.

Noah Webster defines "republic" in his 1828 dictionary thus.

"A state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person." 

 And "democracy" as.

"A form of government, in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the people collectively, or in which the people exercise the powers of legislation. Such was the government of Athens."

Madison mirrors this distinction in Federalist #14.

"In a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents."

Speaking of Greece, modern "secular" Socialists will often suggest or argue that the American Republic was merely a copy of the licentious pagan Greco-Roman Republics. But Franklin, during his motion (which directly references the Bible multiple times) for the Continental Congress to be opened with prayer in 1787, gives a very different account of its basis.

"We have gone back to ancient history for models of government, and examined the different forms of those Republics which having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution now no longer exist. And we have viewed Modern States all round Europe, but find none of their constitutions suitable to our circumstances. [...] I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that 'except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel. [...] I therefore beg leave to move, that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of the City be requested to officiate in that service." (Contains references to Mat 10:29, Psa 127:1, and Gen 11:9.)

As Alexis De Tocqueville, a Frenchman who visited the United States and traveled the country, subsequently writing a book about his observations states.

"In the United States [...] the mass of the institutions of the country is essentially republican; and in order permanently to destroy the laws which form the basis of the republic, it would be necessary to abolish all the laws at once." - Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Of the Republican Institutions of The United States, and What Their Chances of Duration Are.

In a republic the elected legislators are intended to serve as a check upon the caprice of a potentially less informed, misinformed, or wayward populace, whereas a democracy is mob rule and consequently one of the easiest types of government to subvert and manipulate. If you own the education system, media, and entertainment industry in a democracy (i.e., all of the things that form and influence public opinion), you effectively own the democracy.  Hence why Socialists have spent decades infiltrating and subverting these institutions.

The Founders deliberately put checks in place, e.g., the electoral college (which leftists naturally want removed), to prevent the United States from degrading into a democracy.

"The great object, then, of political wisdom in framing our Constitution, was to guard against licentiousness, that inbred malady of democracies." - Fisher Ames, Framer of the First Amendment, Works of Fisher Ames, 1809. 

So in a sense leftists are right when they make the allegation that Conservatives, institutions like the electoral college, and enfranchised middle Americans are a "threat to democracy." Socialists want America to be a Democracy, and those who adhere to traditional values and originalist/republican Constitutional precepts, are a direct impediment and threat to that agenda.

As the Socialist Party Platform 2015-17 plainly states.

"We call for the elimination of the Electoral College and support instant run-off voting of all elected officials."

All of the major population centers in America are inveterate Socialist enclaves that consistently swing representative and gubernatorial races over to the Democratic party in state elections. And if not for the electoral college a Democrat victory would essentially be guaranteed in every future presidential election. (Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, which is what Socialists want to determine the outcome of presidential elections, not the electoral college.) Likewise representation being based purely upon population would give heavily populated Socialist meccas, like New York and California, vastly more political power than more Conservative central states like Oklahoma in the legislative branch at the federal level.

The left controlling the education system, media, and entertainment to a significant degree allows them to control the narrative of the coverage of political candidates, and how they're perceived by the public at large (i.e, influence the outcome of elections). As such it behooves them for elections to be decided quickly, by simple referendum, as opposed to electors who place obligation to principle, protocols, or party over subjective preference, and for representation to be predicated purely upon population as opposed to each state having equal representation in the senate, which was originally intended to serve the interests of the states, and be a check upon federal encroachment by having the state legislatures (and not the general populace) appoint federal senators.

Simply put, without the electoral college a few counties, or even the populous cities (depicted in blue above), would decide the outcome of presidential elections, disenfranchising the vast preponderance of the geographical United States (in red), and lunging the entire country profoundly left, as winning the presidency would require winning the nations large metropolitan enters like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, et al., and consequently catering to the political sensibilities of their overwhelmingly radical leftist inhabitants. John Doe farmer in rural Oklahoma would become politically nugatory in regard to presidential aspirations. Joy Reid criticizes this as rural Americans having a "disproportionate power over the urban majority" when in reality this is the inversion of truth. These systems were implemented by the Founders precisely to prevent the "urban majority" from being able to completely nullify the political will of the "rural minority," and to protect smaller, less wealthy and powerful states, from exploitation, depredation, and subjugation by larger, wealthier, more powerful states.

Joy Reid's sentiments are the utter antithesis of the republic our Founders established, and the explicit declaration in the Ordinance of 1787, that new states "shall be admitted [...] on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever." In Joy Reid's mind, the interests of the state of Oklahoma, and Kansas, and Arkansas are subordinate to the interests of New York, California, and Massachusetts, and the latter should dictate policy for the former. The paradigmatic, and abject leftist hypocrisy on display, is as always nauseating. Here's someone from the party incessantly whining about "disenfranchisement," seeking to disenfranchise the voters of 35 states, that the interests of 15 be served. The reason the Founders chose a republic over a democracy was precisely to prevent those 15 states from dictating policy for the other 35.

Perhaps the second most vocal, and no less ill informed, contingent I encounter in my interactions with others seems to be anarchists (or anarcho-Libertarians) who argue the Founders were anarchists, that essentially any degree of government is unjust and oppressive, and that all taxation is "theft." During my last dialogue on the topic, one such person actually said to me:

As I explained to this gentleman, that's actually exactly what it means. The definition of anarchy is literally "a state of society without government or law."

The problem with these lot is their inability to understand it's impossible to enter a confederation without the constituent members forfeiting a portion of their autonomy. 100% liberty means being 100% autonomous. The moment you enter into a compact with others for mutual benefit, you're trading a portion of your liberties for the benefit that mutual arrangement provides. Marriage, for example, serves as a reductionistic illustration of this. Once you enter into a marriage compact, for the mutual benefit of you and your spouse, you surrender your liberty to go bar hopping like a single, fully autonomous person. You both surrender a small portion of your liberties for the benefits provided to you, your children, etc., by the union of marriage. 

This is no less true on a collective level. There is no way around this. No person or society is exempt from it. No social compact can exist without this occurring. Any time you entire into a social compact (like the Constitution), you are by default conferring to some other person or parties (e.g., congress), the power to make decisions and policies to which you will be subordinated to some degree. As James Bayard states in 1833 regarding the adoption of the United States Constitution.  

"They were about to surrender a portion of their civil rights, for the security of the remainder." 

The federal government is explicitly conferred the power to "to regulate Commerce [...] among the several States," for example, which means the states have necessarily forfeited a portion of their rights in that regard. 

The notion that any and all taxation is illegitimate and the Founders were anarchists is rather farcical, given that the Constitution they devised specifically empowers the federal government to impose taxes "to establish post offices and post roads," for example, and that the impetus behind the creation of the Constitution in the first place was to prevent anarchy. 

"It must in truth be acknowledged [...] that there are material imperfections in our national system, and that something is necessary to be done to rescue us from impending anarchy." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #15.

Which its principle advocates repeatedly unequivocally denounce in their work urging its adoption by the country. 

"The citizens of America have too much discernment to be argued into anarchy. And I am much mistaken, if experience has not wrought a deep and solemn conviction in the public mind, that greater energy of government is essential to the welfare and prosperity of the community." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #26. 

"If mankind were to resolve to agree in no institution of government, until every part of it had been adjusted to the most exact standard of perfection, society would soon become a general scene of anarchy, and the world a desert." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #65.

What is most paradoxical thing about anarchists however, is that the natural culmination of their belief that government should be involved in nothing, results in the very thing they dread; too little government results in excessive government. 

"In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, Anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful." - James Madison, Federalist #51.

The natural product of democracy is anarchy, the diminution if not loss of personal security and property rights, and the natural product of this anarchy is tyranny, as a populace seeking respite from insecurity, uncertainty, and depredation, ultimately supports a powerful government, perhaps under an autocrat, that promises to restore order and provide safety and security. As Jonathan Smith, a farmer, stated when recounting his experience during Shay's Rebellion before the Massachusetts Ratification Convention in 1788.

"I have lived in a part of the country where I have known the worth of a good government by the want of it. [....] (People) would rob you of your property, threaten to burn your houses; oblige you to be on your guard night and day. [...] Our distress was so great that we should have been glad to snatch at anything that looked like a government. Had any person that was able to protect us come and set up his standard, we should all have flocked to it, even if it had been a monarch, and that monarch might have proved a tyrant. So that you see that anarchy leads to tyranny; and better have one tyrant than so many at once."

And so there was no "democracy" of the variety espoused by Socialists, nor anarchy, in mind when the Founders established the United States.

"From the day of the Declaration, the people of the North American union, and of its constituent states, were associated bodies of civilized men and Christians, in a state of nature, but not of anarchy. They were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of the gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledged as the rules of their conduct." - John Quincy Adams, An Address Delivered at the Request of the Committee of Arrangements for the Celebrating the Anniversary of Independence at the City of Washington on the Fourth of July 1821 upon the Occasion of Reading The Declaration of Independence.

And thus anarchists, who believe themselves the opposite of Socialists, are in reality oblivious proponents of the same thing. Socialism? Anarchy? The culmination of either is the same, and as such, our only concern as Constitutional patriots is opposing both.

In closing, I leave you with Joseph Story and Alexis De Tocqueville's admonitions, which have never been more relevant than they are right now.

"Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them." - Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, Concluding Remarks, 1840.

"When the Americans lose their republican institutions they will speedily arrive at a despotic government. [...] Nothing is more absolute than the authority of a prince who immediately succeeds a republic, since the powers which had been fearlessly entrusted to an elected magistrate, are then transferred to a [...] sovereign." - Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Of the Republican Institutions of The United States, and What Their Chances of Duration Are.