Islam is at War – Respond to IT!
John R. Houk
© March 13, 2016
The Knights of Columbus
and In
Defense of Christians (IDC) collaborated recently on a near 300-page report on Muslims committing
genocide against Christians. I first heard of this report on Fox News but I was reminded today of it
by an email update from ASSIST News
Service (ANS) entitled “NEW
REPORT SHOWS IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE OF GENOCIDE AGAINST CHRISTIANS BY ISLAMIC
STATE”.
The was compiled expressly for Secretary of State John Kerry
and the State Department. The Knights of Columbus and IDC used the report as a
pretext to call on America to step up to the plate and publicly declare
genocide is occurring against Christians in the Middle East with a particular focus
on ISIS as the perpetrator.
In early February 2016 Obama spokesman Josh Earnest said
this about calling the slaughter of Christians genocide:
White House Press Secretary Josh
Earnest admitted Thursday that the Obama administration's hesitation to label the Islamic State's persecution of
Christians and other religious minorities as "genocide" is because of
the legal ramifications behind such a designation. (White
House Details Why Obama Won't Call ISIS' Slaughtering of Christians 'Genocide';
By SAMUEL SMITH; Christian Post; 2/5/16 11:13 am)
He said WHAT?
“Legal Ramifications”!
Christians and
other non-Muslims (ISIS classifies Shias as non-Muslims also) are being
slaughtered en masse and Obama is looking at the legal ramifications of
labeling the slaughter as genocide.
The Christian
Post further reports Earnest’s representation of Obama:
… Earnest assured that "administration lawyers" were looking
into the possibility of a genocide designation.
"There are lawyers considering whether or not that term can be
properly applied in this scenario," Earnest said. "What is clear and
what is undeniable and what the president has now said twice in the last 24
hours is that we know that there are religious minorities in Iraq and in Syria,
including Christians, that are being targeted by ISIL terrorists because of
their religion and that attack on religious minorities is an attack on all
people of faith and it is important for all of us to stand up and speak out
about it." (Ibid.)
So it is important
for Obama to bring Muslims displaced by war in Syria-Iraq for their safety BUT
he has to think about it when it comes to Christians being slaughtered by
Muslims.
Obama wants to look
the other way while Christians are killed yet he made sure to assure American
voters he was a Christian prior to his 2008 election. Before his 2008 election
as President he was concerned enough of what Americans thought about his faith
that he went out of his way to let voters know he was a committed Christian:
"I've been to the same church _ the same Christian church _ for
almost 20 years," Obama said, stressing the word Christian and drawing
cheers from the faithful in reply. "I was sworn in with my hand on the
family Bible. Whenever I'm in the United States Senate, I pledge allegiance to
the flag of the United States of America. So if you get some silly e-mail ...
send it back to whoever sent it and tell them this is all crazy. Educate."
(Obama sets record straight on his
religion; By AP; NBCNews.com;
updated 1/21/2008 10:49:46 AM
ET)
Obama was the 20-year
member of a Church pastored by Jeremiah Wright who preached Black Liberation
Theology – Hate Whitey and G-d damn America – and was cozy with Father
Pfleger and racist anti-Semite
Black Muslim leader Louis
Farrakhan.
I think this gives
a bit more insight into Obama checking into the legal ramifications of naming
the extermination of Christians as genocide in the Middle East.
So what exactly is
wrong with stating the obvious about genocide in the Middle East? The obvious
is Islam promotes war with the West and these days against Israel and America
the land of the free and the home of the brave (unless Obama screws up
America more than any real American can fix). So let’s get over offending
Islam and perhaps really begin offending the haters of America with WWII-style
rules of engagement and smack these guys around even if civilians foolish
enough to support radical Muslim movements or governments get in the way.
But John, one might
say, that’s not politically correct when we should respect diverse peoples and
cultures in this new global age we live in.
Man that is some
horse-pucky that will end the American way of life before Obama
transformationists do.
Well John, another
might say, can you name anytime in America’s history when war or military
action was used because of the doctrines of Islam? Why should Obama be the
first American President to understand that Islamic doctrines are not only
harmful to American National Security but also to American Interests at home
and abroad?
Some trace the
lineage of the Democratic Party back to an earlier President. So it is a bit
insightful to understand the political climate that President lived in to make
a decision about Islam.
That early
President was Thomas Jefferson the third person to hold the Office of POTUS. He
was elected to two terms of Office serving between 1801 – 1809. As one of the
Founding Fathers Jefferson penned the text to the Declaration of Independence.
Jefferson wasn’t directly involved at the Constitutional Convention that
eventually formed the Constitution our nation has operated under since 1789.
Jefferson’s lack of involvement was largely due to his diplomatic status to France
first as a trade commissioner and eventually ambassadorial role replacing
Benjamin Franklin.
Although Jefferson
had no direct tie to the making of the Constitution he was still an influence
because the primary framer of the Constitution – James Madison – modeled the
framework a lot from Virginia’s State Constitution in which Jefferson was very
involved in.
This excerpt from Constitution
Daily sums up Jefferson’s thoughts from France on the new Constitution
while the then 13 States debated its ratification:
While in Paris before the Constitutional Convention, Jefferson closely
followed developments in the United States. He corresponded with individuals
who would eventually contribute to the formation of the Constitution, like
Madison and John Jay, an author of the Federalist Papers.
…
… On June 6th, Madison wrote a letter to
Jefferson with a list of the individuals attending the Convention, but
explained that he couldn’t reveal more about the substance of the ongoing
debates because the delegates agreed that the proceedings should be kept
secret.
Jefferson expressed his frustration with
the secrecy of the Convention, but he did share some ideas with Madison while
it was ongoing. For example, Jefferson wrote to Madison on June
20th explaining why the federal government should not be given the power to
veto laws passed by the states. This federal power was not included in the
final draft of the Constitution despite Madison’s support of the idea.
On September 6th, Madison wrote a letter to Jefferson
detailing some key provisions that were going to be included in the
Constitution, as he reasoned that by the time the letter would arrive in France
the details of the Constitution would be made public. Madison explained how
state and federal governments were to be organized, and noted that some of the
provisions may “surprise” Jefferson.
On December 20th, 1787, after the Constitutional Convention
was over and while the ratification of the Constitution was being debated in
state legislatures, Jefferson wrote a letter to Madison objecting to key parts of
the Constitution. Among other things, Jefferson was concerned that the document
lacked a Bill Of Rights and failed to establish term limits for federal
officials. In earlier correspondences to other acquaintances, in 1786
Jefferson extolled government
protection of civil liberties and wrote, for example, that “our liberty depends
on the freedom of the press”. Jefferson also was a proponent of protections for
religious liberty and wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom,
which passed the Virginia General Assembly in 1786.
By the fall of 1788, Madison was convinced that the inclusion of a Bill
Of Rights to the new Constitution would be prudent. While advocating for a bill
of rights, Madison relied upon an argument first articulated
by Jefferson – that a list of rights would help give the
judiciary the power to ensure that other branches of governments would not
infringe on citizens’ civil liberties. (A
quick look at Thomas Jefferson’s constitutional legacy; By NCC Staff; Constitution Daily;
11/24/15)
Supporters of the
Constitution were called Federalists and those that opposed a central
government stronger than the authority of State governments were labeled
Anti-Federalists. George Washington and John Adams were the first and only
Federalists elected to Office under the eventually ratified Constitution. After
Constitutional ratification the Federalists tended to favor the new nations
wealthy elites and a stronger central government. The Anti-Federalists became
the camp that favored States’ rights over Federal or national government
authority and lined up more with land owners that weren’t necessarily wealthy
but were self-supporting agrarians in some fashion or another. Federalists
gravitated around Alexander Hamilton and the Anti-Federalists gravitated around
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
After the
Constitution took effect the label “Anti-Federalist” gave way to the notion of
a Republic with democratically elected leaders. Hence without any real
political organization the group found the label or Democratic-Republican who
under the simplicity of colloquialism were simply called Republicans. Modern
historians will often write Democratic-Republican to differentiate from the
Republican Party which exists today and whose first POTUS holder was Abraham
Lincoln elected in 1860 and served from 1861 – 1865 with his second term cut
short by assassination.
My point is the new
nation was divided into political factions that were not organized politically
as they are today. Ironically factions were divided between those that favored
Britain or France who were still in hostility in which the American Revolution
was only a subset of the decades of hostilities that existed between Britain
and France. By the time of Jefferson’s Presidency, the French Revolution
dethroned the French King that aided American Revolution victory. The new
France devolved into violent retribution against France’s Nobility class in the
name of egalitarian fraternity and democracy which ended with the despotism of
Napoleon Bonaparte.
During these early
years of the American Republic the new Federal government concentrated on
domestic issues and a reduced military presence which meant no money to create
a navy fleet. Foreign trade protection was first done by the British navy and
after the American Revolution a short time of French protection. Definitely by
the time of Bonaparte’s reign American foreign trade received no protection
from either Britain or France.
When Americans
attempted trade efforts that brought them within the reach of North Africa,
particularly in the Mediterranean Sea pirates began boarding American
commercial vessels, stealing goods, kidnapping or killing Americans AND placing
captured Americans who couldn’t pay ransom into slavery.
Guess what kind of
culture these pirates came from? If you haven’t guessed yet how about a clue.
In the modern age which culture still kidnaps, kills and enslaves (particularly
sex-slaves today)?
There is only one
answer – ISLAM!
What was Thomas
Jefferson’s experience and/or knowledge of Islam? An excerpt from DownTrend.com
shows Jefferson’s first contact with a Muslim as while on a diplomatic mission
in Great Britain:
In 1786, Jefferson and John Adams met with Tripoli’s ambassador to
Great Britain. They asked this ‘diplomat’ by what right his nation attacked
American ships and enslaved her citizens and why the Muslims held such
hostility toward this new nation, with which neither Tripoli nor any of the
other Barbary Coast nations had any previous contact. The answer was quite
revealing. Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja (the
ambassador) replied that Islam:
“Was founded on the Laws of
their Prophet, that it was written in their Qur’an, that all nations who should
not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and
duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of
all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should
be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.” (Interesting
Look Back At First American War Against Islam; By JOSEPH
R. CARDUCCI; DownTrend.com;
10/11/14)
A Patheos
article penned by an atheist explains Jefferson’s outrage also before becoming
POTUS at having to pay ransoms and tribute to Islamic Barbary Pirates:
Jefferson attempted to create a coalition of tribute-paying European
countries who would each contribute one or more war ships and jointly patrol
the Mediterranean for Barbary pirates. Sometime before July 4, 1786, Jefferson
drafted the Proposed Convention against the Barbary States to arrange the
matter. … Jefferson’s proposal to spread the risk was met with a lack
of interest from both the American Congress and European nations. As a result,
America continued to lose ships to Barbary piracy for several more years.
It wasn’t until Jefferson became president that the U.S. ceased paying
tribute and quietly launched the newly formed American navy to combat,
particularly, the aggression from Tripoli. Thus began the first Barbary War in
1801, which ended in 1805 with a treaty that put a stop to the tributes and
cleared the Mediterranean for the safe passage of American merchant ships. (In
1807, Algiers started taking American ships again, and it took until 1815 for
America to address it militarily. This second Barbary War lasted two days and
finally put an end to piracy from North Africa.)
…
Jefferson was the only founding father to take an active interest in
Islam. He purchased his own copy of the Koran long before America’s encounters
with the Barbary. His copy of George Sale’s English translation of the Koran
was shipped from London in 1765 and can be viewed today at the Library of
Congress. There is some speculation that this is a second copy because
Jefferson possibly lost his first copy in the May 26, 1771, fire at his
mother’s home. The Koran in the Library of Congress contains no written notes
or comments by Jefferson (possibly because it’s a second copy), and his
initials are his only inscription, although they appear curiously close to some
verses regarding warfare. (Thomas
Jefferson’s Struggle with Islamic Brutality; By Hemant
Mehta; Patheos; 10/29/15)
Jefferson’s next
step was after he became President. He cancelled the tribute blackmail and went
after the Islamic Barbary Pirates for attacking, killing and enslaving
Americans. Monticello.org gives a decent
rundown of the Islamic Barbary Pirates in relation to Thomas
Jefferson through at least the First Barbary War. At Monticello.org you will
discover the USA bowed to paying extortion tribute to the Barbary
semi-autonomous states through the first two Presidents even while Jefferson
was Secretary of State.
Early in June, barely three months after the inauguration a small
squadron — three frigates and a schooner — sailed for the Mediterranean under
Commodore Richard Dale. If they found on arrival that war had been declared,
the squadron was to protect American shipping from the corsairs and to
“chastise their insolence … by sinking, burning, or destroying their ships and
vessels wherever you shall find them.” It was also to blockade the harbor of
any of the regencies that had declared war on America and, to the extent
possible, was to convoy merchantmen when asked. In addition, Commodore
Dale was to take to Algiers and Tunis letters, gifts for the rulers, tribute
payments in the case of Algiers and assurances to both rulers that overdue
tribute was soon to be forthcoming on other vessels. And, he was to go to
Tripoli. There he would deliver the President’s letter to the pasha and, if
still at peace, could give Cathcart money for a gift to the pasha.18
Jefferson’s letter to Pasha Qaramanli emphasized “our sincere desire to
cultivate peace & commerce with your subjects.” Also mentioned was our
dispatch to the Mediterranean of “a squadron of observation” whose appearance
[we hope] will give umbrage to no power.” The squadron’s purpose, the letter
explained, was to exercise our seamen and to “superintend the safety of our
commerce…[which] we mean to rest…on the resources of our own strength &
bravery in every sea.”19 Meanwhile, Secretary
Madison wrote American consuls in the Mediterranean that the President,
convinced “of the hostile purposes of the Bashaw of Tripoli” was sending a
naval squadron to protect our commerce in the Mediterranean and to respond
appropriately to any powers who declared war on the United States.20
Unfortunately, the pasha had not waited to hear from the new president.
Yusuf Qaramanli declared war on the United States on May 14, 1801 by chopping
down the flagpole at the American consulate in Tripoli.21
On arrival at Gibraltar July 1, Commodore Dale learned we were at war
with Tripoli. During the next few months, squadron vessels blocked two
Tripolitan corsairs in Gibraltar, delivered goods and messages in Algiers,
Tunis and Tripoli, escorted American merchant ships, and briefly blockaded
Tripoli harbor. In the only real action that year, the schooner Enterprize engaged
and soundly defeated the Tripolitan ship Tripoli off the coast
of Malta on August 1.22
… Two months later Congress passed an act authorizing him to instruct
naval commanders to seize Tripolitan goods and vessels, and to commission
privateers to aid in the effort.23
During the following three years the pasha maintained his demands and
the United States, rotating ships and crews, maintained its naval presence in
the Mediterranean as well as diplomatic efforts to make peace. In 1802
Jefferson was reportedly of the view “that the time is come when negociations
[sic] may advantageously take place.” He was to be disappointed.24 Tripolitan corsairs evaded
the blockade and American merchantmen were captured. Most escaped their
captors; only one was carried into port, the Franklin, in 1802, and
the five Americans on it were quickly ransomed. In Algiers, Richard
O’Brien sarcastically remarked without comment: “It is asserted that there are
at sea, at present, six sail of Tripoline corsairs & it is asserted that
the frigates of the United States & those of Sweden are blockading
Tripoli.”25 Nor did the blockade stop
Tripoli’s trade with other Barbary powers. It did, however, interfere with it,
and the other rulers sided with the pasha. The possibility of Tunis and/or
Morocco entering the war became a serious concern off and on throughout 1802.
… “They know they cannot meet us with force any more than they could
France, Spain or England,” he wrote from Monticello at the end of March. “Their
system is a war of little expense to them, which must put the great nations to
a greater expense than the presents which would buy it off.”26 He was still as much
against buying peace and paying tribute as he had been since first dealing with
Barbary in 1784; it was a matter of principle. But one had to be practical as
well as principled.27
…
The most important naval action in 1803 involved the frigate Philadelphia, which
ran aground near Tripoli in October. The pasha imprisoned the 307-man crew and
refloated and repaired the stricken vessel. Before they could make any use of
her, though, on February 16, 1804 a U.S. navy team under Lt. Stephen Decatur
slipped into Tripoli harbor after dark and set fires on board that totally
destroyed the Philadelphia. The loss of the frigate weakened the
American squadron, while captives from the Philadelphia gave
the pasha new leverage and prospects of substantial ransom.31
When news of the Philadelphia’s loss reached America,
Jefferson and his colleagues began looking for a way to send at least two more
frigates to the Mediterranean. Congress rallied behind the President and the
navy, approving a new tax and new expenditures for the war.32 After
initial political and public criticism of the president due to the devastating
loss, widespread public support was stimulated by Stephen Decatur’s successful
stealth mission under Tripoli’s guns.33
… in 1804, he decided the current squadron was not big enough to do the
job. Newly-appointed Commodore Samuel Barron would command eleven vessels, “a
force which would be able, beyond the possibility of a doubt, to coerce the
enemy to a peace on terms compatible with our honor and our interest.”35 The expanded squadron
would be more than twice the size of the original one three years earlier and
its mix of frigates, brigs and smaller vessels would be better suited to its
mission.
…
After arriving on the scene, if Barron judged it expedient he was
authorized to support an overland attack on Tripoli by forces supporting the
restoration to power of Hamet Qaramanli, an older brother ousted in a 1796 coup
by Pasha Yusuf Qaramanli. That idea had been proposed in 1801 by James Cathcart
and also by William Eaton who knew the exiled Hamet in Tunis when he was
American consul there. The proposal had received qualified approval from
Secretary of State Madison in 1802.37
…
Barron had doubts about involving Hamet, but Eaton and Captain Preble
persuaded him. November 16 Eaton sailed on the brig Argus to
find Hamet in Egypt. Barron may have expected Eaton to bring Hamet to Syracuse
for a consultation40—that is unclear—but having
eventually located him, Eaton helped the ex-pasha put together a collection of
a few hundred armed Arabs and Greeks, mostly mercenaries under a handful of
disparate leaders. Eaton, Hamet and several marines marched their “army’ nearly
500 miles through the desert along the southern shore of the Mediterranean and,
on April 27, 1805, they captured the town of Derne, some miles east of
Benghazi. The Argus and two sister ships supplied them with
provisions along their march and actively supported them in the taking of Derne
(where Hamet had been governor three years before under his brother Yusuf). In
the meantime, the American blockade of Tripoli had been maintained through the
winter and spring.
… Then, May 18, he wrote Tobias Lear that, from what he had learned of
Hamet Qaramanli, he could no longer support the plan involving the ex-pasha. He
noted that the condition of some of his vessels and periods of enlistment of
his personnel precluded another winter of blockade, was concerned about the
fate of the American prisoners held by the pasha, and thought it time to
respond to encouraging hints from Tripoli favoring negotiation. Not mentioned,
but no doubt also on his mind, his health would not permit him to lead an
attack on Tripoli that summer.42 Indeed, he handed command
of the squadron to Captain John Rodgers less than a week later.
Lear sailed from Syracuse for Tripoli May 24th. Negotiations began
shortly after his arrival, preliminary articles were agreed June 3 and the
American captives from the Philadelphia were embarked on US
vessels June 4. The final document was signed on the tenth. It involved neither
payment for peace nor annual tribute. Based on the difference between the
numbers of captives held on the two sides, ransom of $60,000 was agreed, well
below the limit given Lear. Far to the east, the Americans, Hamet and his close
associates left Derne on board American naval vessels June 12. The Senate
ratified the treaty April 12, 1806.43
There is MORE before and after
this excerpt (The First Barbary War; Original
article by Elizabeth Huff, August 2, 2011; revised and expanded by Priscilla
and Richard Roberts, September 26, 2011. Monticello.org)
The Battle of Derna circa April 27, 1805
is what sealed the deal of the First Barbary War. The details of which are
worth the read but I’ve already exceeded the purpose of writing about America’s
first encounter of military action against Muslim principles of humiliating and
dishonoring non-Muslims.
Apparently Obama
has much in common with President Thomas Jefferson in that Jefferson listened
to his advisors to use diplomatic efforts – including extortion payments – to negotiate
a peace deal with the Islamic Barbary Pirates. However, Jefferson did finally come
to the conclusion that the lack of military was costing the American National
Interests more than diplomacy and extortion money. Hence the Marines sailed to
the shores of Tripoli to kick some Muslim butt free Americans enslaved by
Muslims and at least force an agreement not to attack American commerce.
The Second Barbary
War (aka Algerine or Algerian War) had Congressional approval March 3,
2016. Two Commodores were given fleets to take action. Commodore Stephen Decatur
(same guy who as a Lieutenant led the assault on Derna and the Tripoli raid
that torched the captured the ship Philadelphia in the First Barbary War)
got their first and engaged the Algerian Dey’s fleet, defeated it and forced a
surrender by June 29, 1815. The Algerian Dey signed the terms of the Treaty
July 3, 1815. (See Wikipedia, U. of Michigan and USWars.net)
The thing Obama is missing about Islam is
you have to severely spank it to get its leaders – whether from a nation or
terrorists. If you want to stop the genocide of Christians and stop importing
American-hating Muslim from Syria-Iraq, a severe military response will be
REQUIRED.
JRH 3/13/16
*********************
THOMAS JEFFERSON
AND RADICAL ISLAM'S WAR ON THE WEST
America's historical entanglement with the
"religion of peace"
By David L.
Hunter
Nov-Dec 2015
Issue
Those that assume that radical Islam is a modern phenomenon that became
prominent during Bill Clinton's tenure as president in the 1990s merely scratch
the historical surface of America's complicated political entanglement with the
Middle East's supposed "religion of peace." In truth, the tentacles
of radical Islam go all the way back to Thomas Jefferson.
Historically, Thomas Jefferson was the first U.S. president to go to
war against belligerent Islam. The American Revolution from English imperialism
had left the fledgling republic deeply in debt. Trade of America's vast natural
resources of lumber, animal skins and crops with Europe was the economic
answer. However, European markets, a traditional mercantile system, were not
open to American commodities. Complicating matters was the fact that America
had no navy to protect American cargo ships from Barbary pirates who were known
to kidnap foreigners for ransom. Further, due to American independence, the
U.S. could no longer depend upon the British Royal Navy—the greatest in the
world at that time—nor the King of England, who customarily paid
"tribute" (protection money) to North African pashas and the Sultan
of Morocco.
In May of 1784 the Continental Congress dispatched Jefferson to Paris
first as trade commissioner and later as ambassador to France. Very early on in
the process he became aware of an unexpected reality: Christian-American
hostages were being enslaved by violent Muslims. Contrary to rumor and the
popular belief of the time, these North African predators were not the
stereotypical pirates out for booty: wine, women, adventure and song. These
"Barbary Pirates" were in fact just typical Middle Eastern Muslims known
then as Mahometans or Mussulmen who did not consume alcohol and prayed to Allah
several times a day. They crewed the ships of the Mediterranean Sea's Islamic
city-states and their efforts to capture cargo and passenger vessels were both
economic and religious. Like today's terrorists, these predecessors called
themselves Mujahidin or "soldiers in the Jihad" and engaged in holy
war against the West. Not much has changed in 200 years.
The Mujahidin knew the Union Jack, but they didn't know the Stars and
Stripes. Not that it mattered then or now: All foreigners and non-Muslims were
targets. Jefferson foresaw the danger and spent the fall of 1784 studying Islam
as well as fellow diplomats' treatment of the long-standing issue.
Specifically, in March of 1785, future presidents Thomas Jefferson and John
Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji
Abdrahaman. When they inquired into the Mujadhins' propensity "to make war
upon nations who had done them no injury," the ambassador replied:
It was written in their Koran, that all
nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the
right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every Mussulman
who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that
the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his
share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor
held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such
terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.
Jefferson argued correctly that paying "tribute" to Muslim
extremism would encourage further malfeasance: "infidel" enslavement,
hostage-taking and ship hijacking had already plagued Europe for a thousand
years. Although John Adams concurred, as America had no standing navy, the
circumstance forced the new, debt-ridden nation to pay a hefty 1 million dollar
tithe (approximately 10% of the U.S. government's annual revenues in 1800), a
government entitlement program for terrorists that went on for 15 years. Like
the monarchies of Europe, Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans were focused on
Western expansion and did not want those efforts stymied by useless armed
conflicts in the Old World. The money guaranteed safe passage of American ships
and/or the return of American hostages.
Like today in the West's continuing quest for crude oil instead of
developing comparable domestic resources, the price remains high to do business
with the barbarous Middle East. In Jefferson's time, British merchants, British
and French royalty and virtually every maritime trading country in Christian
Europe capitulated to the extortion rather than shift resources from burgeoning
global empire-building elsewhere. However, Jefferson realized that any peaceful
arrangement with the Mujahidin was a temporary fix, which would ultimately lead
to greater and greater demands.
Unlike the Obama doctrine of continued appeasement and hollow political
"victories" not worth the paper they are written on, Thomas Jefferson
wanted to fight. However, certain precincts of the U.S. government reacted
haphazardly to continued acts of terrorism. In late 1793, the mass hijacking of
U.S. ships by Muslims had a 9/11 effect on the U.S. economy. Four months later,
on March 27, 1794, Congress—after debating the subject periodically over a
decade—finally decided to build a fleet of warships: six extra-large frigates.
In essence, the United States Navy was born in response to unprovoked Muslim
aggression.
After 17 years of calling for war against Islamic extremism represented
by Barbary piracy, it was not until 1801 as America's third president that Mr.
Jefferson dispatched a naval squadron of four warships to the Mediterranean to
engage in a four-year war off the shores of Tripoli. Sporadically, a Western
power would bombard Muslim port cities in response to the ongoing threat, but
nothing ends the seemingly endless Christian-Islamic religious conflict. As
history demonstrates, Obama's political realities mirror Jefferson's. However,
Mr. Obama's cowardly head-in-the-sand reaction is in direct opposition to
Jefferson's Reaganesque show of strength.
Given the terrorist atrocities of September 11, 2001, the historic date
of September 11, 1683 also comes clearly into focus. That was a turning point
in human history: the defeat of the Islamic armies of the Ottoman Empire and
the Islamic caliphate by Christian forces at the gates of Vienna. From that
moment until the recent times, Christian or Western powers would dominate the
Muslim world. Radical Islam seeks to violently overturn that arrangement
through modern savagery and continuous warfare.
___________________
Christian-Americans Let Votes Be a Voice to
Leadership
John R. Houk
© March 13, 2016
Websites Examined for Source Info
___________________
THOMAS JEFFERSON AND
RADICAL ISLAM'S WAR ON THE WEST
David L. Hunter is a DC-based
freelance writer whose work has been published in The Washington Times, The
Washington Post and American Thinker. This article appeared May 19, 2015 in
Frontpage Magazine and is archived at
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/257151/thomas-jefferson-radical-islams-war-west-david-l-hunter.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/257151/thomas-jefferson-radical-islams-war-west-david-l-hunter.
The painting by Dennis Malone
Carter of American navy men led by Stephen Decatur boarding a Tripolitan
gunboat on August 3, 1804 is not part of the original article. The painting
depicts Decatur and the Muslim captain (the two men slightly right of center in
the painting) in mortal combat; Decatur (in sailor whites) is pulling out a
gun; the captain (white turban) holds a sword in his upraised arm. The episode
is vividly described in "Stephen Decatur and the Barbary Pirates" on
the Extraordinary Lives of Intrepid Gentlemen website and is archived at
http://www.intrepidgentlemen.com/2012/06/11/stephn-decatur-and-the-barbary-pirates/.
http://www.intrepidgentlemen.com/2012/06/11/stephn-decatur-and-the-barbary-pirates/.
No comments:
Post a Comment