Why I Love The United States.
- Posted by Larry on October 31st, 2006 filed in General, Islamofascism, Larry
The United States is the only nation on earth founded on principles. Other nations are the result of historical circumstances or have been founded on the basis of ethnicity. These nations have long plagued the world with their ethnic hatred that goes back so many centuries that some don’t even remember why they hate each other.
We invoke the principle of natural law and appeal to God as the author of natural law.
Essential features of natural law.
A. It is the law of God, who rewards good and punishes evil.
B. Absolute truths and absolute values based on those truths exist and are valid in all places and all times. Among those absolute values are truth, justice, good, and piety.
C. Natural law reflects the mind of God; therefore, it is reasonable. As God gave man the gift of reason, natural law accords with the common sense possessed by all reasonable men.
D. God punishes violations of natural law.
God and the natural law that he has established endow humans with unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Governments are instituted among men to secure these rights, and legitimate government must rest on the consent of the governed.
If you think that the left, or the Islamofascists, subscribe to these theories you are taking your freedom into your own hands. As for me I will defend them as best that I can. I yearn for the day that we can depend on both political parties to love and defend our way of life. I want them to govern our country fairly and justly, and not surrender to the whims of the European elites who have not had an original idea since the Roman Empire.
You will hear from our leftist brethren that we have to join the world citizenry and be part of it, but I ask, “what have they contributed to liberty?” We constantly hear about the evil United States and how it once practiced slavery. No mentions is ever made that it was that very same United States that abolished it and made the supreme sacrifice of 600,000 life’s to ensure its destruction. Certainly the Civil War was also about other issues, but without slavery it would never have been fought. Are you aware that the House of Burgess in Virginia attempted to pass a law before the revolution to abolish the slave trade? King George, as was his right, took no action on it, so it was never adopted.
We have those in this country who feel, although they may not say it too loudly, that we should surrender to a world government. We should be governed by those whose own citizens live in despicable conditions. People, who worry from day to day if they might be murdered by their own governments. Oh, yes, these are the people we want to surrender our sovereignty to.
John Locke once said that there were five criteria that demonstrate that a government is tyrannical and revolution is called for. They are:
1. It substitutes arbitrary will for law.
2. It hinders the legislative power from assembling in good time or from acting freely.
3. It alters the mode of electing the legislative body.
4. It delivers the people into the jurisdiction of a foreign power.
5. It abandons the trust to govern its people.
Pay close attention to number four. Would surrendering our sovereignty to the UN be such a delivery of jurisdiction into the hands of a foreign power?
I am sworn to obey and uphold the constitution of the United States of America, and I intend to do just that. We should make our voices heard and not allow our country to become an oligarchy as some would have it.
Let’s not forget the pledge of our forefathers.
“We mutually pledge to each other are lives, fortunes, and sacred honor.”
My loyalty to the United States is only subordinate to the love of my Lord and family.
Let us all renew the pledge of our fore fathers.
Melissa In Texas says:
WOW!
Well said!
Talmadge East says:
While I like the jist of your post, even equating “the left” with “Islamofascists,” got a little chuckle out of me, I do have a few criticisms. Now I don’t know if you read the The Leviathan (I wouldn’t have if I had not been a political science major), but you missed some thing in that whole Natural Law bit. If you do have the book, flip over to Chapter 14 in which you will find these tasty tidbits on Natural Law:
I stuck that one on there for the “to lay down his right to all things” quote. Now, I don’t think we should abdicate our sovereignty to an International body either, but I felt this was somewhat of a contradiction. By the way, it would be almost impossible for us to abdicate sovereignty to the UN. An abdication of sovereignty to the UN would require an entirely new charter (effectively creating a new body, which wouldn’t really be the UN then would it?) and it would have to be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate. Now regardless of how bad you think Democrats are this would never happen. I also don’t think America would ever try to change the UN. Why not? Simple, because we have so much power. As one for the 5 permanent members of the Security Council, only Russia, China, Britain, and France equal or power in a De jure since (although certainly not in a De facto since). No reasonable American politician would cede that type of power and if they did 2/3 of the Senate would never go along with it. Now for a lit more Hobbes:
Again I don’t necessarily subscribe to Hobbes, but if you want to beat the “Natural Law” drum you should follow all of it. Now I think I remember you blasting some guy name Senator Kerry in a previous post. You called him a “scumbag” among other vile things if I remember correctly. Sorry darling’, but I think you violated one of Hobbes’s laws there. I was planning on having a debate with you over the use of the term “Islamofacist”, but I reckon I have ranted enough. If you would be interested just reply to this message and tell me. You know I’ll be here. Ah, this actually makes me feel like I have used my brain today. That’s what I was going for.
Talmadge East says:
Sorry about the “darling” Larry, I thought this was Beth. I also guess that means you can throw out the whole “Scumbag” point in my argument. I always forget to look. My apologies.
Jim says:
Great post! One question, though: do you own a gun?
I believe in biblical prophecy, and revelation talks of a one world government where people must take the mark of the beast (probably some sort of cashless society via an implanted microchip) and those who refuse the mark will be killed. There is no way this could happen in the US, unless America falls to Islam. It’s the old “believe it or else” approach used by Islamofascists.
To Talmadge East,
What is your problem with the employment of the word “islamofascist?”
Vinnie says:
Yeah, we can trust the mind of the person who doesn’t even have a clue as to who is the author of the post.
Larry says:
Talmadge, I’m not offended by being compared to Beth. I think she has a keen insight into the current situation and puts it into words we can all understand. As far as natural law notice I used Locke. I realize it is easy to type in the address for wikipedia and use their site for a reference. Keep in mind that Hobbes was a small man deathly afraid of violent death and he was willing to sign EVERYTHING away for the hope of freedom from it (death). No, when I wrote, Hobbes wasn’t the guy I was thinking of.
The authors cited by Jefferson were Locke and Sidney: the legacy of English liberty, and Aristotle and Cicero: the legacy of Greece and Rome. In no way could I imagine Jefferson or any of the founders citing Hobbe’s Leviathan as a source for our new country. Remember Washington went as far as turning down a monarchy, with himself as king.
The point of the UN, while you may have a point about not getting 2/3 of the senate to ratify a charter change, is a little naive. Quite a bit of our sovereignty has been signed away without a whimper, or a 2/3 majority in the senate. One simple example comes to mind is whenever we want to take action in the world we always run to the UN. I understand we signed on to the organization, but we didn’t sign our birth right away with it.
Islamofascist is just the easiest way to describe those folks. Although they may not fit the Hitler/ Mussolini bill of fascist, we have developed a new term, Islamofascist, to mean something a little different. I am not a subscriber to relativism, especially when it comes to the application of natural law, so I don’t give them a cultural pass. I think the problem of the Middle East is one of ignorance on the part of the people who live there. I had a problem, after three tours in the Middle East. For the sake of honesty one was during Desert Shield/Storm, the others were OIF. I would see pictures of my daughter in Halloween costumes or on Christmas day and feel bad for the kids there in Iraq. I have given it quite a bit of thought and I love the fact my daughter is excited by Christmas and other holidays that kids love. She is a child and a child should be taught to be a child for a time. In the Middle East there are parents who are proud to see their children blow themselves up. Oh, I know I digress, but the leadership in the Arab world is despicable. They are nothing more than unemployed children with money. They want to keep their power and money so they find a scape goat. Let’s digress a little more. Ever notice how they want to protect their Islamic lands? Funny how Constantinople was the center of the Christian world long before Mohamed was born. Why, then, don’t the Christians have the right to take back THEIR land? See it cuts both ways.
I know I am rambling but without meeting Beth, Vinnie, John, Martin etc, I have a deep affection for them. I know what they are really trying to do and that is keep all of us free. God bless them. Thanks for the opportunity to respond, since this is all we have to do to keep our country on solid footing; debate.
BTW I agree with Beth on the Kerry issue. Sorry, like one of his fellow democrats said, and I paraphrase, “He wasn’t satisfied with blowing 2004, he now wants to blow 2006. So much for nuance.
Talmadge East says:
Good reply Larry. First I must offer a complaint and then I will get to the crux of what you said. I do actually have The Leviathan (I had to read part of it for Political Theory). That is bu a minor squabble though. I agree with you about the founders. I don’t really even like Hobbes that much. I think Locke and Jefferson were much better. I am not a realist like Hobbes, nor do I believe that people/governments can be trusted enough to give cede some of the things that Hobbes probably would be willing to cede. I am just not that idealistic. We did cede some of our sovereignty to create the UN, but mostly maintained control over the institution. We definitely have not ceded as much sovereignty as other states. I must stand by everything I said with regards to the UN. As long as we have the power we now possess in that body, we will support it (albeit some politicians not verbally) and fund it. Now before I go into Islamofascism let me clear something up, Vinnie why don’t you comment on what I said not the fact that I forgot who wrote the post. I obviously read the damn thing that’s what’s important, the content man. In other words I don’t trust the mind of someone who attacks me (or my “mind”) personally without offering any intelligent remarks of his own. As far as Islamofascism goes, I tend to think (and by the way Pat Buchanan agrees with me) that most of the reasons that Islamic terrorists hate us is because of American intervention, both militarily and economically, in their society. Now that doesn’t excuse what they do, but it certainly isn’t fascist from our point my view. They didn’t attack America because they hate freedom. They attacked America due to our policies. I will concede that they are somewhat fascist with regard to Israel, as evidenced by Hezbollah, but they aren’t a threat to the Enlightenment from our perspective as Americans. In general I tend to agree with Scott Morrison, Assisstant Professor at Columbia) in describing the difference between Islamic terrorists and fascists: