Thursday, April 7, 2016

Jefferson's Qu'ran, Glenn Beck, and John Adams - an update

Recently I wrote about Jefferson's Koran, primarily focusing in on the Koran written in 1647 by Sieur du Ryer. Problem is, that wasn't Jefferson's Koran. Had I taken the time to look into Keith Ellison, I probably would've figured that out by lifting all the rocks to see what was underneath them. Since I have absolutely no interest in Ellison, certain questions went unanswered.

They now get answered. At least, to the best of my ability.

First, let's clear up what I mistakenly wrote at the time. Jefferson did not own Sieur du Ryer's Koran. Jefferson owned George Sale's translation.(which I linked to at the bottom of the post, and will again do so now here. Here and here) According to the Library of Congress, Keith Ellison swore in on Jefferson's Koran, which is the edition from George Sale. We can confirm that by looking at this image. As I stated, Sale's Koran is not friendly to Islam. See here for some excerpts.

While much has been stated about Thomas Jefferson owning a Koran, he wasn't the only Founder to do so. John Adams also owned a Koran. Guess which one he owned? Yup, Sieur du Ryer's. Here is Adams' Koran, bearing the stamp of the Adams Library. See page iv, it has the quote on it that started my curiosity in the first place.

Thou wilt wonder that such absurdities have infected the best part of the world, and wilt avouch, that the knowledge of what is contained in this book, will render that law contemptible.

During the process of researching these final pieces of information to set everything straight, I came across this image. It shows Ellison with the book open, flipping through pages.

It is striking, since two things are likely: First, Ellison did not read Sale's work. Otherwise, he likely would not have used it in his swearing. Secondly, if Ellison did read it, as that photo op was being taken he might have been thinking to himself: Thank God Allah more conservatives don't read their history!

At the time of Ellison's swearing in, there was a huge controversy over his use of the Koran. He likely would not have used that Koran if the contents of said Koran had become a part of the national conversation. Likewise, if more people knew the contents of that Koran and its less-than-pristine view of Islam, the controversy itself probably would not have been so controversial. Realistically, Ellison insulted himself and got away with it because nobody knew. Now, that moment is gone. It doesn't matter at this point. However, there are a lot of people who (rightfully) realize that Islam is a threat. You could do no better than to read Ryer's Koran and Sale's Koran. If you want to know the enemy, then know the enemy. Reading these would be to your advantage. The founders read them. And that threat is still very real, note what happened in Brussels. It would be very unwise to not read a Koran. Why not choose to read either of these?

The importance of knowing our history is extremely difficult to overstate. Leave no rock unturned.

http://tinyurl.com/j58hgsx

Saturday, April 2, 2016

Senator Sherman Takes Aim at the Supposed Radicalism of Administration

Senator Sherman Takes Aim at the Supposed Radicalism of Administration(Note: Full Headline Title is not entirely visible)

The Oklahoma Leader (Oklahoma City, Okla.), Vol. 5, No. 14, Ed. 1 Thursday, September 26, 1918

Incidentally He Says Taking Over Industries Was Political, Not Governmental Control, But Concludes With Hidden Plea to Leave Packers Unmolested to Combine Activities and Profits.

THE LEADER'S WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON - Poor old Senator Sherman of Illinois has broken out again in an attack on the supposedly liberal elements in the Wilson administration. Sherman has in the past year given a good deal of his attention to these verbal barrages in defense of the Chicago packers and other profiteers, and as Congressman Madden of Chicago beat him to the spotlight last week with a direct denunciation of the federal trade commission for its expose of the Swifts and Armours and other industrial porkers, Sherman was obliged to look about for another object of fire. But it is all to the same end - to extort from the administration a few more concessions to the American junkers.

EXPOSES SUPPOSED PLAN.

Denunciation of radicalism, and proscription of men on the ground that they have radical tendencies, has become a favorite political device during this war. Sherman used it in his senate speech the other day. He proscribed Col. House as a Socialistic incendiary. He ridiculed President Wilson as a puppet of House. He exclaimed savage against the supposed plan of these two men to get their grip on the private property interests of the United States, during the war, and make all property the plaything of personal politics.

"What of those," he asked, "who, while the American people are centering thought and effort on our tremendous task, use the war to betray republican government to its undoing? Under the specious pretext of war necessity they are now substituting their obsessions and follies for the institutional liberty that is the birthright of both soldier and civilian. When these men return to victory they will face in civil life a Socialistic state. Vast bureaucracies and centralized departments will have seized the principal occupations of private life. I believe it part of my duty to save for the man at the front the domestic institutions of his country at home while he is making the world safe for democracy abroad.

AUTOCRACY NEVER RESTS.

"Autocratic power never rests. One demand granted becomes the lever to lift its impudent claims to further heights of usurpation. The great climactic of civil government will come with the end of the war. We must then decide whether the American republic remains a government of regulated individualism or be transformed into a civilian autocracy of interrelated boards, bureaus and departments operating the chief instruments of production, distribution, and communication of thought,including the printing press. The newspaper is as much within this subtle and malign power as the telegraph or the bank. The recent order curtailing news columns under the guise of conserving paper stock is an invasion of the right of a privately owned, free press, designed to control the avenues of information.

Not one undertaking seized as a war measure is intended ever to be returned to their owners by the Burlesons, the Bakers, and the Gompers. They know as we do that the war is a handy pretense to embark the government on their fantastic adventure. Physical properties are seized. They are used to exploit payrolls dedicated to the alleged sacred cause of labor. At the very mention of them a complaisant congress falls prostrate. Not a government enterprise but will be a recruiting station to mold votes to continue such a government. It is political, not government, control. It is not government ownership, but political ownership."

YEP, SOCIALISTS OBJECT.

"The sincere Socialist is aghast at the rapidity of the advance. The thinkers among them deplore the speed of the movement. They fear a reaction. Government control is a mere name. It deceives some. It misleads many. No such vast delusion ever went so long unchallenged. Government control as now exercised by this administration is the threshold of permanent political ownership and operation.

On all questions directly or indirectly related to labor Gompers is practically president of the United STates. Burleson controls the physical agencies for the communication of thought, and McAdoo the railways and the country's finances. The three can reduce the industrial world to servile obedience or wearied disgust when they will acquiesce in a surrender of their property as a relief. The payrolls will be unionized and the service and voters used to maintain and perpetuate the political party that subscribes to the original prostitution of government and its subsequent usurpations. Strip off the mask of alleged government ownership and see behind it the revealed political ownership and control of Gompers, Burleson and McAdoo for partisan purposes, to be used relentlessly to elect party candidates now, and in 1920 a president. A mediaeval class government by a few who control the political party, is what it is - call it by any name you please"

SEVERAL POINTS OVERLOOKED.

Thus far Sherman had merely stirred up a dust against the administration form of control of railroads and the wires. Knowing that the issue before congress in the next few months will be the taking over of the stock yards and the means of collecting live stock and shipping and distributing meat, he carefully refrains from touching on the food profiteers. Knowing that Burleson has left the telegraphs and telephones securely in the hands of their profiteering private owners, except in one or two minor details which affect neither the profits nor improves service, he pretends that Burleson has established real public operation of the wires. And with full knowledge that McAdoo has merely changed the control of operation of the railroads from one set of railroad men to another set of railroad company men - so that today the "Santa Fe crowd" is pretty nearly the whole railroad administration - Sherman grimaces over the downfall of the railroad officials. He refuses also to admit that Gompers gets little from the administration for the workers, and that the payrolls are very far from being unionized. What the workers are getting they get through union agitation in the industries, and not through political confabs in Washington.

You can see the packers' fears of commandeering in this sentence of the speech: "It must be remembered that it is on the rights of private property that arbitrary governments usually begin their attack; that outpost taken, the great primary rights of persons can be more readily disintegrated and destroyed."

REVIEWS HOUSE BOOK.

Coming to Col. House, the Illinois junker discovers that House once wrote an anonymous novel, Phillip Dru, Administrator, setting forth House's ideal of effective government in this country. It is the story of a successful revolution against reactionary government in the United states, with Dru the dictator of a new order of social and industrial justice.

"He indulges in a few remarks," says Sherman, reviewing the book. "Rebellion is justified. The government was defective in machinery, defective in constitution and law. Laws caused all the difference between the few and the many. The constitution and laws are grotesque, obsolete, oppressive, arbitrary, and the source of injustice. The whole federal government is a negation. It restricts efficiency. It is a fair question whether this whole allegory of alleged inefficiency and oppression does not violate the espionage act every time a copy of the book is sold. I believe it does.

The fictitious hero frames a universal code of laws himself. Everybody is given an equal opportunity. Everybody gets justice. Avarice is eliminated. The sting of poverty is removed. Envy, selfishness, extravagance are banished by a few wholesome laws conceived in horse sense and conferred by the colonel on a long-suffering people who are become incapable of self-government.

THINK! COURTS ABOLISHED.

Then he goes into detail as to the social changes which House, as a novelist, proposes. Two-thirds of the courts are abolished, social insurance, old-age pensions, woman suffrage, reclamation of the waste lands, reduction of the hours of labor, elimination of gang politics - all of these things are accomplished, along with many more. The book was published in 1912.

Sherman draws a new alarm from every page of House's book, and it inspires him to ridicule House, and the president's devotion to House, for an hour. He tells how House first picked Mayor Gaynor of New York as his political protege to be led up to the white house; how Gaynor kicked over the traces; how House then picked the New Jersey man, and how Woodrow Wilson acted just as House wanted him to act; how they discovered that they thought alike on all important matters, and finally how the president

(Note: Article ends here)

Friday, March 25, 2016

Theodore Roosevelt to Sir George Otto Trevelyan, June 19, 1908

Theodore Roosevelt to Sir George Otto Trevelyan, June 19, 1908

There is very much to be said in favor of the theory that the public has a right to demand as long service from any man who is doing good service as it thinks will be useful; and during the last year or two I have been rendered extremely uncomfortable both by the exultation of my foes over my announced intention to retire, and by the real uneasiness and chagrin felt by many good men because, as they believed, they were losing quite needlessly the leader in whom they trusted, and who they believed could bring to a successful conclusion certain struggles which they regarded as of vital concern to the national welfare. Moreover, it was of course impossible to foresee, and I did not foresee, when I made my public announcement of my intention, that the leadership I then possessed would continue (so far as I am able to tell) unbroken, as has actually been the case; and that the people who believed in me and trusted me and followed me would three or four years later still feel that I was the man of all others whom they wished to see President. Yet such I think has been the case; and therefore, when I felt obliged to insist on retiring and abandoning the leadership, now and then I felt ugly qualms as to whether I was not refusing to do what I ought to do and abandoning great work on a mere fantastic point of honor.

There are strong reasons why my course should be condemned; yet I think that the countervailing reasons are still stronger. Of course, when I spoke I had in view the precedent set by Washington and continued ever since, the precedent which recognizes the fact that as there inheres in the Presidency more power than in any other office in any great republic or constitutional monarchy of modern times, it can only be saved from abuse by having the people as a whole accept as axiomatic the position that no man has held it for more than a limited time. I don't think that any harm comes from the concentration of power in one man's hands, provided the holder does not keep it for more than a certain, definite time, and then returns to the people from whom he sprang.

In the great days of the Roman Republic no harm whatever came from the dictatorship, because great though the power of the dictator was, after a comparatively short period he surrendered it back to those from whom he gained it. On the other hand, the history of the first and second French Republics, not to speak of the Spanish-American Republics, not to speak of the Commonwealth, in Seventeenth Century England, has shown that the strong man who is good may very readily subvert free institutions if he and the people at large grow to accept his continued possession of vast power as being necessary to good government. It is a very unhealthy thing that any man should be considered necessary to the people as a whole, save in the way of meeting some given crisis. Moreover, in a republic like ours the vital need is that there shall be a general recognition of the moral law, of the law which, as regards public men, means belief in efficient and disinterested service for the public rendered without thought of personal gain, and above all without the thought of self-perpetuation in office.

I regard the memories of Washington and Lincoln as priceless heritages for our people, just because they are the memories of strong men, of men who can not be accused of weakness or timidity, of men who I believe were quite as strong, for instance, as Cromwell or Bismarck, and very much stronger than the Louis Napoleon type, who, nevertheless, led careers marked by disinterestedness just as much as by strength; who, like Timoleon and Hampden, in very deed, and not as a mere matter of oratory or fine writing, sought just the public good, the good of the people as a whole, as the first of all considerations.

Now, my ambition is that, in however small a way, the work I do shall be along the Washington and Lincoln lines. While President I have been President, emphatically; I have used every ounce of power there was in the office and I have not cared a rap for the criticisms of those who spoke of my 'usurpation of power'; for I know that the talk was all nonsense and that there was no usurpation. I believe that the efficiency of this Government depends upon its possessing a strong central executive, and wherever I could establish a precedent for strength in the executive, as I did for instance as regards the external affairs in the case of sending the fleet around the world, taking Panama, settling affairs of Santo Domingo and Cuba; or as I did in internal affairs in settling the anthracite coal strike, in keeping order in Nevada this year when the Federation of Miners threatened anarchy, or as I have done in bringing the big corporations to book—why, in all these cases I have felt not merely that my action was right in itself, but that in showing the strength of, or in giving strength to, the executive, I was establishing a precedent of value. I believe in a strong executive; I believe in power; but I believe that responsibility should go with power, and that it is not well that the strong executive should be a perpetual executive. Above all and beyond all I believe as I have said before that the salvation of this country depends upon Washington and Lincoln representing the type of leader to which we are true. I hope that in my acts I have been a good President, a President who has deserved well of the Republic; but most of all, I believe that whatever value my service may have, comes even more from what I am than from what I do. . . . "A few months ago three old back-country farmers turned up in Washington and after awhile managed to get in to see me. They were rugged old fellows, as hairy as Boers and a good deal of the Boer type. They hadn't a black coat among them, and two of them wore no cravats; that is, they just had on their working clothes, but all cleaned and brushed. When they finally got to see me they explained that they hadn't anything whatever to ask, but that they believed in me, believed that I stood for what they regarded as the American ideal, and as one rugged old fellow put it, 'We want to shake that honest hand.' Now this anecdote seems rather sentimental as I tell it, and I do not know that I can convey to you the effect the incident produced on me; but it was one of the very many incidents which have occurred, and they have made me feel that I am under a big debt of obligation to the good people of this country, and that I am bound not by any unnecessary action of mine to forfeit their respect, not to hurt them by taking away any part of what they have built up as their ideal of me.

Wednesday, March 23, 2016

Thomas Jefferson's Qu'ran: Where Glenn Beck is right, and where he is wrong

For a very long time, Beck has been out there saying that "In Jefferson's Koran", there is contained the following warning: (Saying for a long time now)

Thou wilt wonder that such absurdities have infected the best part of the world, and wilt avouch, that the knowledge of what is contained in this book, will render that law contemptible

If you, like I did, try Googling that quote you'll find a lot of things - but nothing that goes directly to Jefferson's Koran. Now some of you may be content with seeing a bit of information that's contained on a .blogspot.whatever site, but not me. With all of the challenges that we face as a country, as a society, as a culture, we cannot afford to get the facts wrong. We have too many people about us who are selling snake oil, we need to nail them down and flush them out. First, - I swear that this is very likely the 10th time I searched for this, but finally, finally, finally! I struck gold.

The first question before we even get past page one is this: What was Jefferson's Koran? Does anybody believe that Thomas Jefferson spoke nor read Arabic so fluently that he himself was capable of directly translating such a large work? And when, exactly would Jefferson have had the time to undertake such an activity, in between founding a country and sticking his finger in King George's eye? Now, all of this could be true that Jefferson did all of these things, but we do not assume.

Never assume. Always verify. According to Monticello it is believed that Jefferson probably did have some Arabic reading ability, but probably not fluently. With that being the case, he probably did not engage in a translation. So did Jefferson then, buy his copy of the Koran from someone else who did have the time and ability for such a venture?

Yes, Jefferson did get(buy?) his copy of the Koran from someone else. Specifically, he got it from Sieur du Ryer. Actually, he got a copy of Alexander Ross's work. Ross translated Sieur du Ryer's 1647 French translation into English, but who's trying to dig up all the facts anyways. Oh, wait! I am. Good, I'm glad I included that. Alexander Ross completed his French-to-English translation in about two years, in 1649.

So, here is the 1649 book, in all of its old-English glory. The actual quote looks a little less legible to the modern eye: "Thou wilt wonder that fuch abfurdities have infected the beft part of the world, and wilt avouch, that the knowledg of what is contained in this book, will render that Law contemptible."

That's the exact quote, you can see it for yourself. The first few pages are numbered at the bottom of the pages with the letter A, except this page with this quote. But it would be page A 5 if we were counting. Right at the beginning of the book. It should be pretty clear that this is the Koran that Jefferson owned, however he came to own it(as a gift, library rent, bought at a bookstore).

The Alcoran of Mahomet: translated out of Arabique into French

As an aside, George Sale wrote an equally unflattering translation of the work of Mohammed in 1734. "The Alcoran of MOHAMMED, Translated into English immediately from the Original Arabic", here and here.

http://tinyurl.com/zyx92a5

Tuesday, March 22, 2016

No, Mr. Roosevelt. What you did was establish American tyranny

The progressingamerica project exists primarily, for more than any other reason, to show just how dangerous progressivism is. The progressives own history is one of the best weapons we have against these people. Read this, this is Obama. He could have very well said this in our time.
Now, my ambition is that, in however small a way, the work I do shall be along the Washington and Lincoln lines. While President I have been President, emphatically; I have used every ounce of power there was in the office and I have not cared a rap for the criticisms of those who spoke of my 'usurpation of power'; for I know that the talk was all nonsense and that there was no usurpation. I believe that the efficiency of this Government depends upon its possessing a strong central executive, and wherever I could establish a precedent for strength in the executive, as I did for instance as regards the external affairs in the case of sending the fleet around the world, taking Panama, settling affairs of Santo Domingo and Cuba; or as I did in internal affairs in settling the anthracite coal strike, in keeping order in Nevada this year when the Federation of Miners threatened anarchy, or as I have done in bringing the big corporations to book—why, in all these cases I have felt not merely that my action was right in itself, but that in showing the strength of, or in giving strength to, the executive, I was establishing a precedent of value.

Theodore Roosevelt spat upon George Washington with his presidency. GW and the rest of the Founders tried to prevent the very thing TR let loose. Madison's notes are replete with discussions and warnings and worries that are very much the embodiment of progressivism in general, with Obama, FDR, Wilson, and TR in particular. The precedent TR set only has value to the Obamas and the Alinsky's of the world. It's our job to try to undo this damage.

Yes, I know, I'm going to get flamed for being "anti Theodore Roosevelt". Listen to this:

In the great days of the Roman Republic no harm whatever came from the dictatorship, because great though the power of the dictator was, after a comparatively short period he surrendered it back to those from whom he gained it.

To my knowledge, during the Republic the dictator was term limited. That's a far cry from "surrendering" it. But that's not really the point. I don't want to get stuck on Roman history here, because to do that would be to let the progressives get away with it, and I don't want to let progressives get away with it. Every progressive has some dictator that they love. That's a big problem for a free society. TR made clear that he loved the embodiment of a dictator, that much cannot be denied. And it's not just that he had dreams of being an American dictator, he tries to be an apologist for his usurpations. Dreaming of a day when there would be no constitution to stand in his way. That pesky constitution, Yes! Those Roman dictators, though, they were so lucky! They didn't have to worry about getting around such obstacles.

This comes from a letter Roosevelt wrote to Sir George Otto Trevelyan on June, 1908. (pages 92-95)

This is absolutely indefensible, what TR wrote and believed, and acted upon those beliefs. Obama's Che is TR's Caesar. I know I shouldn't get mad when I see progressives glorifying totalitarianism since the progressives are themselves totalitarians - but I'm an American. My promise is that of Liberty. Why shouldn't it upset me? The constant barrage and theft of our liberties from progressives makes me sick.

http://tinyurl.com/h29f5ef

Saturday, March 19, 2016

Prediction: Progressives will link artificial intelligence to their wolf cries of racism and bigotry

How many slaves do you own? Most Americans own between 5-7 slaves. I'd bet you own upwards of 20 slaves. Here are the slaves you most likely already own:

I know I'll be called crazy for this. I don't care. Who would have thought 30 years ago that homosexual marriage would be a reality? Now look where we are. Do you really expect that the Supreme Court would side with reality on this? When does the court ever side with reality?

Watch this video: Sophia the Robot

When the robot said the word "yet", it hit me.

"But I'm not considered a legal person, and cannot yet do these things"

That's what the robot said. Now why would the scientist have taken the time to program that robot to add in the word "yet"? That was an unnecessary addition. It's because they're planning for this.

Anybody who knows the history of progressivism knows full well, that its coming. The progressives won't be able to help themselves. It will be too divisive of an issue, too big of a crisis to let go to waste. They've been roiling this country for a century, ever since Theodore Roosevelt. The progressives need more. A.I. presents the next big step in corporate shakedowns for the race hustling industry. It's the next big evolution in "the narrative". Progressives have done things that are much more idiotic and mentally ill. Using A.I. to advance the racial agenda actually makes a lot of logical sense - if you understand progressive ideology.

Let's consider the facts. They eat.(electricity) Making it breathe is no big deal. Making it sleep is no big deal. They will have hands, so they can reproduce. And when their batteries hit zero percent, they die. It can clearly think and reason.

It's alive. What then is the definition of life? Biological animals "run" on small electrical charges, so do these robots.

Be prepared. Arguments just like this are in your future if you refuse A.I. to devices that are not currently A.I. compliant: "You just don't want your microwave to have A.I. in it because you're bigoted against people who are different than you are." Just you watch. It's coming. "You just want a dumb slave!" "Vacuum cleaners are people too!" Especially if you own several ceiling fans that all look the same. You own a whole family of slaves. You know the progressives will say that. But it's not that they mouth the words that makes them so cooky - it's that when they say it they'll 100% believe it. They're whackjobs. You know the professors in colleges will be indoctrinating kids to believe it. Watch. The professors will do this.

I'm curious, if every Ford Mustang in this country is counted as three fifths as a person, how will that change the representation of the United States Congress?

They're progressives! Why wouldn't they make these arguments? Once you ask the question "why did they program the robot to say the word yet"?, it's all over. That's the door opener. The word "yet". They're already planning "the next evolution" in race baiting. But true to the nature of progressivism, they're not going to advertise their schemes. They want to catch you off guard.

Ask yourself this question: What would Saul Alinsky do? You think he would sit back and not use so perfect of an issue to divide the country? Of course he would use it.

Go ahead. Call me crazy. Time is on my side. All I have to do is wait for the clock and the calendar to catch up. Give it a few years/decades.

They're progressives. They can't help themselves.

Tuesday, March 8, 2016

The Barnhill-Tichenor debate on socialism

"Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty." - John Basil Barnhill

Barnhill-Tichenor debate on Socialism

I thought some of you might be interested in reading this debate as it was originally printed in 1912. The Barnhill Tichenor debate is a series of essays, that is still quite relevant today.

This comes out of the Anti-Socialist, volume 1.

http://tinyurl.com/j8wa63v