Western civilization and orthodox Islamic teaching are incompatible with one another. For a Muslim to embrace our culture means they have to reject the literal interpretations of their most holy book and adopt a pick and choose attitude of what parts they believe to be true and what parts they do not. This person it can then be said is not very principled but instead embraces a kind of moral equivocation something that plagues this country as well. This “westernized Muslim” has a very progressive attitude and not at all common among the world wide billion faithful. Polls in Muslims countries prove this. The most devout Christian for example would never believe it was acceptable to kill, steal or lie to others. The most devout Muslim is taught in their Koran that it is acceptable to kill, steal, and to lie to your enemies. That simple comparison speaks volumes. Don’t believe me. Look it up.
Americans are guilty of this too with regard to picking and choosing what to believe in the Bible or the Torah but the difference is Christian and Jewish faithful are looking only to conquer the hearts and souls of the world, Islamic faithful want to subjugate the physical world by force and establish a worldwide Caliphate, forcing people to submit to God or die. Submission not freedom is their mantra. There is a big difference between the western world and the Islamic world in this regard. They represent a billion people on planet earth. The statements by the media types and PC police would have you believe that only a small group of radicals are causing the problems, but that is not the case. The most devout Muslim following their holy book’s teachings is going to be very very different and radical compared to a citizen growing up in Western society. Not all of them strap on bombs but polls conducted in the Middle East and where they live in the world strongly suggest they support Sharia law and it barbarity. This religious culture is stuck in the 7th century and rejects the 1300 years of human development since its founding. We tolerate all religions and beliefs. They do not and never will. We are at war with this religion, physically, economically and morally, whether our leaders and PC police will admit it or not. And even if we don’t admit it, they are in deed at war with us and our way of life and culture.
This problem is not going away with better diplomacy or isolationist attitudes. They are here in our country already establishing the footholds they need. Their madrassas and mosques that teach Wahhabism and other radical beliefs are already here. Our government blindly looks the other way. I believe in order for the freedom of religion to exist all the faiths must be willing to at least acknowledge the others right to exist. Traditional Islam does not and will never recognize other religions as having a right to co-exist.
We must reject them and their ideology and not allow them to flourish at the expense of other religions and belief systems in our country. We must be very very careful at who we let into our country especially people from the Middle East and other countries that fully embrace traditional Islam. We cannot make exceptions for them just because they are Muslims. Look at what Europe has become when they allowed this culture to exist in their countries. There are entire enclaves of Muslim communities in France right now for example where French law does not apply anymore and non-Muslims are not permitted to enter or enter at risk of physical harm. How did this happen you might ask? Because some in the French government thought it was the right thing to do, being “tolerant.” It is human nature to be suspcious of those that are different than us. That is normal and healthy and can be very prudent. In this case with regards to Islam it may mean the difference between our continued survival and destruction. Don’t be naive.
About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning cannot be applied to this great charter.
If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final.
No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no…
View original post 46 more words
We don’t need hyphenated Americans in this country. We are one nation, with one common language- English, with multiple races, ethnicities and traditions. We have many cultures represented here but one culture is predominant and should remain that way, and that’s the American culture. We speak the same language here so we can understand each other and that should remain so. We need to have values too that are similar, not necessarily the same but at least close, so there are no misunderstandings, and mutual respect for one another can exist. We need diversity of thought and ideas but not at the cost of cultural unity and national suicide. No nation has ever stood long after fully embracing multiculturalism.
We are first and foremost a great nation, unlike any other in the history of the planet despite repeated attempts by some to change that. Our founders recognized the right of the individual first, and wrote laws protecting the individual and his property. We are a nation run by its citizens not a king, or ruling class or elite. We the people are sovereign and supposed to be in charge. This is fundamentally different than most other nations on Earth. Our nation is not like the others. We are not all the same. We have a pedigree like no other and should not act like we have no singular identity or culture because we in fact do.
Our founding fathers were Englishmen that respected God and established law based upon their understanding of God. While we accept those of all faiths or none, our laws were not created specifically with Atheists in mind nor were they created for Muslims. This is a historical fact. The law allowed for those of all faiths to worship here freely without state sanction or interference or to not worship at all. The laws were not written to deny the existence of God or deny worship in public, nor were they written so that one faith or denomination was above all others and the law.
We have laws that everyone should learn to understand and respect and we need enforcement of those laws that should be enforced equally and justly. I would challenge anyone however to find a more fair and beneficent set of laws anywhere in the world. We are not perfect, but we don’t have equals.
No other nation has done more for the world in the history of mankind in a positive way. No other nation is more giving and generous of its time and resources. There should be no doubt as Americans, who we are or what we stand for. There is a reason why millions of people from all over the world still want to come here to live and become Americans even if some would have us believe there is nothing special about us at all.
We have lost our way in many areas but all is not lost. We should strive to be our best and preserve our heritage for our children. As in times past, others on Earth should look at as us as we walk by and say there goes an American- generous, God-fearing, independent, free like the wind; with a spirit of enthusiasm, determination, and tireless ingenuity that is as great and soaring as an eagle.
I sometimes hear those that support big government and the actions our government takes like the NSA’s electronic eavesdropping, which is in violation of the 4th amendment by the way, as being somehow justified. They argue that “We the People” elected them to do a job protecting this country and their actions are only those serving the best interests of the citizens.
I recall the recent Republican debate where Chris Christie and Rand Paul opposed each other vigorously regarding surveillance and warrants. Paul continually shouting over Christie saying “get a warrant”, “get a warrant!” It made for good theatrics at the debate if not also illustrating a rift within the Republican party. It became very obvious to me that Christie fully believed the ends justified the means and he would not have a problem with America acting a little more like a police state to keep us “safe.” Christie I am sure is not alone in that belief. I believe Trump, Bush, Fiorina, Rubio, and probably a few others on the stage that night would have agreed with him. If many of the leading Republican candidates for President are willing to look the other way when it comes to the law to protect us and we know the Democrats are openly willing to re-interpret and change policy in violations of the laws what hope is there for our form of government to survive?
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
It was only after the revelations by Edward Snowden, the NSA whistle-blower, and traitor to some, that the American citizens started to really wake up and realize what their government has been doing for a while now all in the name of keeping us “safe” and “secure.” At least that’s what they tell us anyway. My question however is who keeps us safe from them? We are led to believe that a small court of judges, the FISA court protects our 4th amendment rights from abuse. A secret court whose rulings are never questioned and seldom reversed and who are not directly accountable to the people. My conservative side wants to believe they will respect the law and not abuse the citizens however my libertarian side says why should we trust them when they have shown utter contempt for the law in the past and for the rights of the citizens of this country? We are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty but our government’s actions since 9/11 turn that notion on its head.
We must not destroy the fabric of freedom and democracy by taking overt un-constitutional and very un-democratic actions to protect it. We risk becoming that which we are supposed to be protecting against. These big government types want to prevent terrorism and violence against our people by routinely violating the individual rights of citizens. Does that make sense to anyone? I mean solitary confinement in a prison is about the safest place a person can be but I don’t know many who would want to live in solitary by choice just to be “safe.” There has to be a balance between safety and freedom. I firmly believe the Constitution gave us that balance and the more we stray from it the more we are at risk and “unsafe”.
“Freedom is not based upon fear, however fear is used to take freedom away.”
I am afraid as more time passes from Snowden’s revelations, the more the public will forget about them and ignore the facts. After all the man on the street says if you have nothing to hide what’s the big deal. That attitude however is completely wrong and ignorant of the relationship, or contract our government has with its citizens as defined in the Constitution. Just because I have nothing to hide does not mean I want my government listening to my phone calls or spying on me. We are all presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The burden is on the state to prove our guilt not the other way around.
Why bother obey the law at all, if our leaders can pick and choose what laws to obey and what laws to break. If they can do that why can’t we? What makes them more important or special? This country for a long time now has been moving away from the Constitutional ideas of our founders. There are those in this country in power right now that do not recognize natural rights or individual rights and therefore by default reject the Constitutions’s protections of those rights. They believe rights are granted by men and subject to change by men and not by God. If that is the case and the only authority is men in power willing to use force to back up their positions then we are in trouble. This is a rejection of the founding father’s core philosophy and a move back in the direction of despotism.
There is also this illusion that those in government try to maintain and sell to those not paying attention, that they the “elected” actually care what we think about, after the elections are over. Once elected these “public servants” act as if our opinions don’t matter anymore until the next election cycle. They act as if they only feedback the citizens have in this country is the election itself and once over we are just supposed to sit back in our safe and cozy stupor, and put our blind faith, trust and allegiance in the elected that they will do the job. We now know that this is not true and that they don’t trust the American people and spy on them regularly, or they use the power of the federal government to abuse political opponents. They also don’t put the public interest ahead of themselves but frequently act in self-interest like the Clintons. They are also influenced by wealthy people like Donald Trump for example or George Soros.
Lastly these representatives cannot do the job by themselves so they hire un-elected and largely unaccountable people to fill positions in government. These “bureaucratic minnions” are not answerable to the American people and only to those elected representatives who as we already mentioned are not very accountable to We the People after elections. A person once employed by the Federal Government is so protected by unions that they have to really screw up to get fired. Instead when they do screw up they are often transferred or promoted. I have spoken with many current and former federal employees who would confirm this.
I believe if we are to change the course of this country we need to re-visit the idea that our elected officials and “public servants” must reflect the will of the citizens and they should not be permitted to stay in office for a lifetime. I believe term limits for elected officials and un-elected bureaucrats is necessary and appropriate. We need citizen-representatives with the emphasis that they are citizens first and foremost and not career representatives. We need citizen civil servants and not career civil servants who sponge off the American taxpayer for a lifetime never producing anything in the private sector. The public interest is not best served by having the same people in charge for decades anyway. The White House, Congress, the Supreme Court, and the bureaucrats running the Administrative State must all be answerable to the people with consequences for breaches of faith.
Voting is not our only civic responsibility. We must be actively engaged in the politics of our nation and acquainted with our representatives and their actions. We cannot afford to blindly vote D or R ever election without looking at the man or women representing us and their track record of accomplishments and voting record. We must act as if every election is a matter of life and death because it is, so we must do our part.
“The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” -Justice Louis Brandeis
Our nation is being twisted and turned upside down by elements hell bent on its destruction and re-birth as a socialist, welfare dependent country. We have to take it back peacefully soon, or we just might not be able to do so without fighting and spilling blood to get back what we so willingly gave up to be “safe and secure.”
I believe as the founders of our nation did, that the 2nd Amendment is the recognition of a pre-existing, personal, God-granted right. To quote Dr Nelson Lund at Heritage.org “The right to self-defense and to the means of defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life. The Second Amendment therefore does not grant the people a new right; it merely recognizes the inalienable natural right to self-defense…”
The Bill of Rights provides its protections to the citizens, not Government, and of these, the ability to keep and bear arms provides the ultimate protection and assurance of freedom. The second amendment provides for an armed citizenry, able to provide for common defense against foreign invasion and domestic enemies for sure, but more importantly, it uniquely empowers the citizenry to forcibly keep in check government’s ability to oppress it citizens, however unlikely this may seem to some in the 21st century. The founders knew full well the potential for corruption that springs forth when men govern other men, as their recent history with England had proven and continental Europe’s history had demonstrated countless times over the years. America’s successful formula for liberty and peaceful transitions of power in government as set forth in the Constitution and Bill of Rights has stood the test of time for more than two centuries due in no small part to the second amendment. This amendment protects all of the others.
So do we still need the second amendment in the 21st century or has government become so benevolent and protecting that its an obsolete “right”? Have men become so enlightened in two hundred plus years that they have become free of corruption and greed? Has tyranny taken a rest in the 21st century?
I don’t think so. Just look at what has been down in the name of safety and security for the people just in the last two Presidencies. Since 9/11 the rights of individual citizens have been ignored to the extreme. Revelations about the NSA spying on us all have revealed repeated violations of the 4th amendment that continue to this day. Hurricane Katrina in 2005 demonstrated how in a natural disaster where people needed to protect their lives and property from looters and thugs, the local government in New Orleans took it upon themselves to order the police to disarm citizens, unconstitutionally seizing their firearms, thus preventing them from being able to protect themselves in their hour of need. Overseas in the War on Terror, US citizens (albeit vile and despicable citizens by all accounts) have been targeted and assassinated by our government because un-elected bureaucrats and military members identified them as “terrorists” completely ignoring the Constitution and due process or trial by a jury of their peers. Today we have a sitting President who believes its totally within his power to make and/or change laws with Executive orders ignoring Congress and the Constitution altogether.
Tyranny does not just show up one day and change everything overnight folks. With each session of Congress more laws are made that take away individual rights or money or both and give them or distribute them to someone else and lately someone who isn’t even an American citizen. With each election cycle our leaders are getting more brazen and willfully ignoring the rights of the citizens. It’s been a long slow process that has been going on for some time. Its slow, methodical and persistent. Is it hard to believe tyranny can exist in 21st century America? Real tyranny is here, its just many of us don’t recognize it yet or have just come to expect the treatment we have received from our leaders and government as being “normal”. Just ask my wife who has had to contact our state and local government no less than 23 different times waiting on hold on some occasions for over and hour, over the course of a year and half just to sign up for health insurance under the new Obamacare law and to fix mistakes made by its administrators. That my friends is what tyranny looks like.
And because it is here, shouldn’t we as citizens be armed to prevent it from getting worse someday. It can get much worse. We live in a post-Constitutional era as radio talk show commentator, and constitutional scholar Mark Levin likes to say. The lawlessness of our leaders is readily apparent. The citizens rights have been ignored and will continue to be ignored. It is not a stretch to conclude that at some point our government will attempt to forcefully change the law and disregard the Constitution altogether and try to do it without a fight. They will attempt to remove the ability to resist their efforts however before this happens. This is why big government progressives and socialists make banning guns and.or severely restricting them a top priority.
Many other nations chastised our founders and still criticize our current leaders because Americans are permitted to carry and own firearms. Are they concerned for the safety or security of our citizens when they make such criticism and pronouncements? No. What is it then? Could it be they fear the ultimate control by force they now have over their countrymen would be in jeopardy if force could be met with force?
It is not a coincidence that one of the 20th century’s greatest proponents of gun control was Adolph Hitler of Nazi Germany. To disarm the citizenry as some men and women of power in the US desire to do in the interest of overall security and or safety is to change the safeguards built into the very framework of the government envisioned by the founding fathers. It is one more step towards government control that threatens to change the people’s status from citizen countrymen to subjects of the government state. Do you want control over your government or do you want government to control you? That’s the decision it ultimately boils down to.
On May 20th 2000, president at the time of the NRA, Charlton Heston ended a speech by concluding:
“For the next six months, [Democratic presidential candidate and then-Vice President of the United States, Al Gore] is going to smear you as the enemy. He will slander you as gun-toting, knuckle-dragging, bloodthirsty maniacs who stand in the way of a safer America. Will you remain silent? I will not remain silent. If we are going to stop this, then it is vital to every law-abiding gun owner in America to register to vote and show up at the polls on Election Day. Heston then paused to pick up a replica of a flintlock Long rifle and continued: So, as we set out this year to defeat the divisive forces that would take freedom away, I want to say those fighting words for everyone within the sound of my voice to hear and to heed, and especially for you, Mr. Gore: ‘From my cold, dead hands!’
Just a thought but if Islam is truly a religion of peace and the majority do not support the barbarism that occurs daily in areas controlled by Islamic fascists then why aren’t there more of those peace loving people marching in the streets of their capitals of their respective countries right now and demanding their governments do something about the violence? Why isn’t every peace loving Islamic country vocally and physically opposing the monsters like ISIS right now instead of just a few nations, and most of them, Western democracies? I can understand why we don’t see that in the Middle East. In Islamic countries throughout the Middle East thousands will show up to chant “Death to America”, or to cry and tear their clothes in anguish, and trample and kill a few innocents, all over a cartoon representation of “Mo” but protest the beheading of a fellow Islamic or Christian in general, naah that’s okay, they deserve it according to the literal translation of Mo’s book.
I can understand why chanting give peace a chance in the streets of Mecca might not work but what about in Western democracies, why aren’t we seeing more protests and marches and denunciations of ISIS and the barbarity that’s covered in the news? Could it be that those peace-loving Muslims are afraid to speak up out of fear and retaliation by the true believers among the populations? Could it be that in the quiet privacy of their homes they secretly support the actions taken by their more zealot brothers and keepers of the faith? Actions speak louder than words and their actions and words of protest are silent by and large, which tells us much.
I truly believe any Muslim that says his religion is a religion of peace and vocally opposes the killing going on right now by ISIS is not a true believer of Islam or they are just being disingenuous. They are a progressive believer at best and they are not in the majority, for if they were they would not be afraid to speak up in the relative safety and comfort of the West let alone in Mecca. Go ahead and ask those peace loving Muslims what they think would happen to them if they went to Mecca or any Islamic nation’s capital and started a peace march in support of say.. Christians? What would they say would happen to them? They would probably say something that it’s not permitted or that those over there do not believe the way they believe, etc etc and in that case they would be correct. Most Muslims in Muslim countries are not peace loving and do not recognize an individual’s right to believe as he wants. That point of view is a western, democratic tradition and not a Middle Eastern or Islamic tradition.
Isn’t it more likely that every country that is controlled by Islam does not believe in freedom for its citizens and would crush anyone who dared express an opinion against the Mullahs true interpretation of the Koran? Islam itself if fractured between Sunni and Shia, which has resulted in the killing of millions in Allah’s name, so how much more intolerant must they be of Christians or atheists for that matter? Could it be those governments openly or at least tacitly advocate the kind of violence we see perpetrated by ISIS? Could it be those leaders in those Islamic countries hate our country and its people because of our openly flaunting “freedom” and “tolerance” of everything and everyone?
There is no such thing as separation of church and state in Islamic controlled nations. The citizens of these countries have supported this way of life for centuries either by relinquishing their freedom willingly or by subjugation. All those who opposed the will of Allah are put to death. There is no discussion and debate on the matter. As such there is no tradition of self-interest and independence you find in the western nations and democracies. So why should we expect someone coming here to America or to any western nation professing to still be an Islamic adherent and yet want to adopt our way of life. I would not believe it for a second and neither should you.
They do not change their point of view just because they are in our lands. Their faith guides them to not accept our way of life or belief systems. They instead insist we change ours for them. You can see this clearly happening in Europe right now. You don’t have Moroccan Islamic immigrants becoming Frenchman adopting French customs, beliefs and traditions; you have just Muslims who happen to live in France changing nothing but citizenship in name and a new address from where their welfare check comes from.
We have a President who is pandering to Islamic interests like no other President before him. It most likely is because of his own heritage. He does this however at the expense of one of our closest allies in the region, Israel. I think that is a mistake that will lead to more war in the region if not globally. This leads me to the point of my article.
I read yesterday that President Obama is going to allow ten thousand Syrian refugees into our country this next fiscal year. This is dangerous as Islamists have no tradition of freedom and tolerance. I do not think they would easily assimilate to our culture and way of life and this must be a concern for all of us and our government when we look at our immigration policy. Just like the thousands of Central and South Americans who stream across our borders illegally with no intention of adopting our values, language, culture or custom, so too would Islamists moving here legally or otherwise. They would not melt into the American pot so to speak but would instead stick out like a piece of sharp glass or deadly mix of gasoline and explosive.
The idea of living the American dream is a great one but our policy of letting anyone in at any time night or day and without legal authority has to stop and soon. We need to reexamine the purpose of immigration. We want to be a bastion of freedom and democracy to the oppressed but shouldn’t the rest of us who are already here get something out of the deal too? How does having millions of largely unskilled workers come here, workers who won’t assimilate into our country, help us the American citizens who either were born here or stood in line waiting to move here legally?
I believe it is the intention of this President and his supporters to forcefully change the demographic mix of this country. Not just the color of our citizens skins which I do believe is part of it, but also the type of person who comes here. I believe it is a carefully orchestrated attempt to make more and more government dependents, and dissatisfied socialists ,who will affect change by shear numbers and tax the system so terribly that the government will forcefully be overturned and the Constitution rendered obsolete and powerless. This is the hope and change Barrack Hussein Obama has promised. God help us all when he completely succeeds.
Micro-aggression.. U of Wisconsin Faculty Advised Not to Say ‘America is a Melting Pot’ Because That’s Racist
In a recent story in the National Review a glaring example exists of what I was talking about in my recent post regarding the de-constructing going on in our country today. It’s an example of the left controlling thought in the universities. This time they are attacking the very description of our country’s demographic nature the term ‘melting pot” used for probably a century at least. Now it’s being called by the left as “micro-aggressions”.. whatever the hell that means. This is just another way of saying it’s politically incorrect.
These people want to absolutely destroy the notion of one singular predominant race, culture, defining set of religious values, and national identity. The current way we define our country is to be changed. The old way does not fit with a socialist vision of one world government. This is why patriotism and national pride is undesirable to these people. To them we are the world and should embrace cultural, moral, language, and social diversity along with racial diversity at the very expense of our national identity.
By accepting all things to all people and destroying what is left of our national identity as Americans, what is left to keep the country together or united?
If all we are is a hodge podge of everything else and we reject anything that used to be uniquely American, what becomes of the country called America? What does it mean to be an American? Who the hell knows now a days?
Anyway its food for thought for this upcoming Fourth of July celebration. Who knows how many more 4th’s we will get to celebrate before the PC police deem it’s too micro aggressive towards peoples from Great Britain and must be changed to something else or eliminated altogether because it’s considered too much a symbol of aggression and disunity being disharmonious towards the British peoples.
In November 1994, Lady Margaret Thatcher delivered the concluding lecture in Hillsdale College’s Center for Constructive Alternatives seminar, “God and Man: Perspectives on Christianity in the 20th Century” before an audience of 2,500 students, faculty, and guests. In an edited version, she examines how the Judeo-Christian tradition has provided the moral foundations of America and other nations in the West and contrasts their experience with that of the former Soviet Union. Imprimis, the journal of Hillsdale College reprinted part of that lecture in its 3/1995 edition titling it “The Moral Foundations of Society”. I have included an excerpt from that reprinting where Thatcher specifically identifies the Moral Foundations of Capitalism.
…”It is important to understand that the moral foundations of a society do not extend only to its political system; they must extend to its economic system as well. America’s commitment to capitalism is unquestionably the best example of this principle. Capitalism is not, contrary to what those on the Left have tried to argue, an amoral system based on selfishness, greed, and exploitation. It is a moral system based on a Biblical ethic. There is no other comparable system that has raised the standard of living of millions of people, created vast new wealth and resources, or inspired so many beneficial innovations and technologies. The wonderful thing about capitalism is that it does not discriminate against the poor, as has been so often charged; indeed, it is the only economic system that raises the poor out of poverty. Capitalism also allows nations that are not rich in natural resources to prosper. If resources were the key to wealth, the richest country in the world would be Russia, because it has abundant supplies of everything from oil, gas, platinum, gold, silver, aluminum, and copper to timber, water, wildlife, and fertile soil. Why isn’t Russia the wealthiest country in the world? Why aren’t other resource-rich countries in the Third World at the top of the list? It is because their governments deny citizens the liberty to use their God-given talents. Man’s greatest resource is himself, but he must be free to use that resource. In his recent encyclical, Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II addressed this issue. He wrote that the collapse of communism is not merely to be considered as a “technical problem.” It is a consequence of the violation of human rights. He specifically referred to such human rights as the right to private initiative; to own property, and to act in the marketplace. Remember the “Parable of the Talents” in the New Testament? Christ exhorts us to be the best we can be by developing our skills and abilities, by succeeding in all our tasks and endeavors. What better description can there be of capitalism? In creating new products, new services, and new jobs, we create a vibrant community of work. And that community of work serves as the basis of peace and good will among all men. The Pope also acknowledged that capitalism encourages important virtues, like diligence, industriousness, prudence, reliability, fidelity, conscientiousness, and a tendency to save in order to invest in the future. It is not material goods but all of these great virtues, exhibited by individuals working together, that constitute what we call the “marketplace….” “Reprinted by permission from IMPRIMIS, the monthly journal of Hillsdale College.”
As we can see today nothing really has changed in the twenty plus years since Lady Thatcher described the Moral Foundations of Capitalism. We can still hear and read the Left’s assertions that Capitalism is evil and greedy, etc. etc.. and yet we can still see people rising up from poverty and terrible circumstances to overcome and succeed thanks in no large part to a system of government that has changed the face of the planet for the better. The rise of fall of civilizations has provided clear examples of what types of government work and what types do not. History is the best teacher however it is still the most expensive. We must learn from the past and recognize, and challenge, the Left’s assertions that Socialism or Communism is the answer. This must be done every single day, everywhere in America or we risk losing the freedom fought for so gallantly by the youth of today and past generations.