US Constitution Series 11: Liberty of the People vs. Government Force

US Constitution Series 11:

The Majority of the People may Alter or Abolish a Government Which has Become Tyrannical

key“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” ~Thomas Jefferson

It is important to note that our Constitutional republic does not need to be changed. Congress has 2 duties assigned to accomplish the restraint or removal of a tyrant: 1) impeachment 2) Using the power of the purse to withhold funding from tyrannical actions.

When Congress fails in its duties, the tenth amendment still gives power to the states and the people. We do not have a majority of Constitutionalists in Congress, and the majority of the voters lack the wisdom and understanding needed to fix this from Washington. Our best option is to keep our states sovereign, teach our families righteous principles so they can govern themselves, elect persons of character to all levels of government, and work in our communities at the grass roots level to rebuild our nation. ~C.A. Davidson

The Founders’ Basic Principles: 28 Great Ideas that changed the world

The practical application of this book review of Skousen’s educated wisdom is to leverage “We, The People’s” knowledge to easily expose ignorance, anarchy and tyranny, and hold the government accountable.

5000leapFrom The 5,000 Year Leap—A Miracle that Changed the World

By W. Cleon Skousen

The Founders were well acquainted with the vexations resulting from an abusive, autocratic government which had imposed injuries on the American colonists for thirteen years in violation of the English constitution. Thomas Jefferson’s word in the Declaration of Independence therefore emphasized the feelings of the American people when he wrote:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience has shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

 

John Locke

Whensoever, therefore, the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society, and either by ambition, fear, folly, or corruption, endeavor to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people, by this breach of trust they [the government officials] forfeit the power the people had put into their hands …and it devolves to the people, who have a reight to resume their original liberty, and provide for their own safety and security. (Second Essay Concerning Civil Government, pp. 75-76, emphasis added.)

Power Rests in the Majority

However, it is important to recognize that the “government” was established by the Majority of the people, and only a majority of the people can authorize an appeal to alter or abolish a particular establishment of government. (Skousen, 149)

No Right of Revolt in a Minority

When the Founders altered the British government, they got the consensus of the majority of the American people. The abuses of Americans were perpetrated by a minority—the British monarchy. Comparing this history to today, we have abuses heaped upon us again by a minority—Obama and his army of unelected bureaucrats. ~C.D.

. . .it [is] impossible for one or a few oppressed men to disturb the government where the body of the people do not think themselves concerned in it …

johnlockeBut if either these illegal acts have extended to the MAJORITY of the people, or if the mischief and oppression has light [struck] only on some few, but in such cases as the precedent and consequences seem to THREATEN ALL, and they are persuaded in their consciences that their laws, and with them, their estates, liberties, and lives are in danger, and perhaps their religion too, HOW THEY WILL BE HINDERED FROM RESISTING ILLEGAL FORCE USED AGAINST THEM, I cannot tell. (John Locke, Ibid., p. 73 208-9; emphasis added.)

Virginia Declaration of Rights

Our best option is to keep our states sovereign, teach our families righteous principles so they can govern themselves, elect persons of character to all levels of government, and work in our communities at the grass roots level to rebuild our nation.

That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people …And that, when any government shall be MAJORITY of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal. (Annals of America, 2:432; emphasis added.)

So, granted that the people are sovereign and the majority of them can take over whenever necessary to restructure the political machinery and restore liberty, what is likely to be the best form of government which will preserve liberty? The answer to this question was a favorite theme of the American nation-builders.

NEXT:

Principle 12: The United States of America Shall be a Republic

US Constitution Series 10: God and People vs. Government Control

 

Advertisements

School Shooting Facts: Mass Murderers shielded by Obama Liberal Racism Policy

School Shooting Facts:

Mass Murderers shielded by Obama Liberal Racism Policy

How Obama and Holder Changed Broward County Law Enforcement for Racial Reasons

Rush Limbaugh

December 4, 2013, issue of the American Prospect magazine. Headline: “Reversing Broward County’s School-to-Prison Pipeline.”

The article is about efforts undertaken to avoid arresting students. And the article speaks to the concern that Broward County might have turned a blind eye to the behavior of Nikolas Cruz because they wanted to lower the number of student suspensions, which is a big part of Obama-Holder prison reform. So this is five-year-old story. Well, four and a half years old. It’s December of 2013.

So you see the way this works if you’re a leftist, you don’t count the crime. You look at the percentage of arrests and imprisonment, and you compare that to the population at large, and you find racial bias. And the only way you can do that is if you assume that many of these crimes being committed by minorities are not really being committed, that they’re only being charged because there’s a racial bias in the police department or the sheriff’s department. And that racial bias is indicated by the exorbitant percentage of African-Americans and minorities in jail or in prison and your belief that it wouldn’t be there if it weren’t for racism.

So you start out by claiming that law enforcement is corrupt because they’re targeting minorities who aren’t committing crimes, they’re arresting them and imprisoning them, and you want to fix it. That’s the starting point for this. They say, “Look, the black population is, what, 15% of the country, but in the prisons it’s 70%, that proves bias.” It doesn’t, unless you’re a liberal.

It’s a fascinating piece, but the primary assertion here is that in order to obtain money from the federal government and programs that were instituted by Obama and Eric Holder, local governments were rewarded with these grants if they kept school arrests down. Let’s stop the pipeline from schools to prison. Right here in this 2013 story, “Reversing Broward County’s School-to-Prison Pipeline.”

American Prospect: Reversing Broward County’s School-to-Prison Pipeline – 12.04.13

Ann Coulter: The School to Mass Murder Pipeline

School and law enforcement officials knew Cruz was a ticking time bomb. They did nothing because of a deliberate, willful, bragged-about policy to end the “school-to-prison pipeline.”

He assaulted students, cursed out teachers, kicked in classroom doors, started fist fights, threw chairs, threatened to kill other students, mutilated small animals, pulled a rifle on his mother, drank gasoline and cut himself, among other “red flags.”

Over and over again, students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School reported Cruz’s terrifying behavior to school administrators, including Kelvin Greenleaf, “security specialist,” and Peter Mahmood, head of JROTC.

At least three students showed school administrators Cruz’s near-constant messages threatening to kill them — e.g., “I am going to enjoy seeing you down on the grass,” “Im going to watch ypu bleed,” “iam going to shoot you dead” — including one that came with a photo of Cruz’s guns. They warned school authorities that he was bringing weapons to school. They filed written reports.

Threatening to kill someone is a felony. In addition to locking Cruz away for a while, having a felony record would have prevented him from purchasing a gun.

But Cruz was never arrested. He wasn’t referred to law enforcement. He wasn’t even expelled.

Instead, Cruz was just moved around from school to school — six transfers in three years. But he was always sent back to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in order to mainstream him, so that he could get a good job someday!

The moronic idea behind the “school-to-prison pipeline” is that the only reason so many “black and brown bodies” are in prison is because they were disciplined in high school, diminishing their opportunities. End the discipline and … problem solved!

It’s like “The Wizard of Oz” in reverse. The Wizard told the Scarecrow: You don’t need an education, you just need a diploma! The school-to-prison pipeline idiocy tells students: You don’t need to behave in high school, you just need to leave with no criminal record!

Removing Consequences Encourages Bad Behavior

Of course, killjoys will say that removing the consequences of bad behavior only encourages more bad behavior.

But in this case, we have a paper trail. In the pursuit of a demented ideology, specific people agreed not to report, arrest or prosecute dangerous students like Nikolas Cruz.

These were the parties to the Nov. 5, 2013, agreement that ensured Cruz would be out on the street with full access to firearms:

Nikolas Cruz may be crazy, but the parties to that agreement are crazy, too. They decided to make high school students their guinea pigs for an experiment based on a noxious ideology.

The blood of 17 people is on their hands.

 

History Facts: ISIS and Nazi Germany

History Facts:

Hitler’s Nazi Germany and the ISIS Islamofascists

 

key“Hitler’s Mufti,” as many have called him, had a direct hand in some of the darkest moments of the Holocaust, the slaughter of tens of thousands of Christians, and the formation of some of the most hate-filled generations of modern history. Al-Husseini is a testament to the way that evil finds evil. ~Mathew E. Bunson

Rush Limbaugh

Caller: Why is it nobody seems to see the parallel between ISIS and Nazi Germany?  What were the Nazis doing?  Destroying books –that did not agree with their –

Rush:

but I, for years have been drawing the comparison of militant Islam to Nazi Germany. For years I have pointed out how a famous imam back during World War II actually met with Hitler, that their objectives, the extermination of the Jews, are identical.

We’ve now uncovered Jihad John.  Jihad John from a well-to-do London family by way of Kuwait.  We actually now have the first civilian adult picture of Jihad John with his face uncovered.  He’s wearing a Pittsburgh Pirates baseball cap.  I just saw the picture.

obama-stand-w-muslimsBut because he doesn’t fit the [Obama] Regime’s characterization of terrorists, it’s being undersold, it’s being under-reported.  He’s not poor.  He’s not unemployed. He’s not a militant extremist because he doesn’t have any economic opportunity, so who he is does not fit the profile that’s given us by Obama.  There are a lot of people that want ISIS taken out.  This is a major debate raging within the elites of our government.  You have certain elites testifying before Congress that they’re a serious threat, that their ultimate target is us.

John Kerry who says, no, no, no, no, no, no, the world is safer, Americans are safer today than at any time in history.  And then you have Clapper, who looks like a Clapper, by the way, James Clapper.  I mean, you know, people associate looks with names.  They just do.  And this guy looks like a Clapper.  He testified yesterday that ISIS is a huge threat, and it’s a major threat.  So two different people, high-ranking in the Regime, characterize ISIS as entirely different.

Catholic Answers Magazine

Hitler’s Mufti

By: Matthew E. Bunson

Haj_Amin_al-Husseini_mufti_SS_nazi_firing_rangePhotograph © U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum

Recent work by historians and apologists has revealed that an influential, international religious leader was also an ardent supporter of Adolf Hitler. His name was not Pope Pius XII but Hajj Amin al-Husseini. This Grand Mufti of Jerusalem recruited whole divisions of fanatics to fight and kill in the name of extremism.

Revered in some circles today as one of the fathers of modern radical Islam, al-Husseini has been the subject of a number of modern studies. Scholars such as David Dalin, John Rothmann, Chuck Morse, and others have courageously brought al-Husseini’s actions to light. “Hitler’s Mufti,” as many have called him, had a direct hand in some of the darkest moments of the Holocaust, the slaughter of tens of thousands of Christians, and the formation of some of the most hate-filled generations of modern history. Al-Husseini is a testament to the way that evil finds evil.

A Radical Shaped by War

Al-Husseini was born sometime in the late 1890s in Jerusalem when that city was in the hands of the dying Ottoman Empire. He belonged to an old family of nobles and was the son of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Tahir al-Husseini. Sent to Cairo for his education, he studied Islamic jurisprudence at Al-Azhar University and then at the Cairo school Dar al-Dawa wal-Ershad (The Institute for Propagation and Guidance) founded by a Syrian member of the Muslim Salafi sect (one of the most extreme in Islam). The school, a haven for radical thought, gave al-Husseini an early grounding in practical revolutionary planning. Al-Husseini went on to the College of Literature at Cairo University and then the Ottoman School for Administrators in Istanbul, which trained future leaders of the then far-flung Ottoman Empire.

After taking the mandatory pilgrimage to Mecca (the Hajj) in 1913, al-Husseini was drafted into the Ottoman Army. He was assigned to the College of Reserve Officers and subsequently named to an infantry regiment as a non-commissioned officer. With the onset of World War I in 1914, the Ottoman Empire entered into the bloody conflict as a member of the Central Powers with Germany and Austria. Al-Husseini found himself in an inefficient army that, compared to the highly mechanized forces of the West, was lacking in leadership and modern equipment. He soon heard of the genocide of the Armenian people—one of the most horrendous incidents in the terrible global conflict.

In 1916, al-Husseini departed the Ottoman Army on disability leave and spent the rest of the war in Jerusalem. Angered by the decision of the Allied victors to deny Arab participation in the discussions leading to the Treaty of Versailles, al-Husseini was even more infuriated by the sudden increase of Jewish immigrants into British-controlled Palestine. An ardent anti-Semite who hated Jews with a deep fervor, he first came to the attention of the British in 1920 when he organized riots against Jews. Charged with inciting violence that left five Jews dead and another 211 injured, he fled to Syria and was sentenced in absentia to 10 years’ imprisonment.

The Grand Mufti’s Ascent

In April 1921, however, British High Commissioner Sir Herbert Samuel, seeking to achieve some semblance of peace in the Holy Land, granted amnesty to Arab nationalists. Al-Husseini was allowed to return to Jerusalem, and the British officials—disregarding his long record of anti-Semitism—named him Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. This title was granted to a Sunni Muslim cleric, granting him oversight of the holy sites of Islam in Jerusalem, in particular the Al-Aqsa Mosque. For Sunni Muslims, the Grand Mufti is honored as the chief religious authority in Jerusalem. Notably, from the appointment of the first Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in the 1860s, the position was customarily filled by the governing power in charge of Jerusalem.

After the death of the first Grand Mufti, Mohammed Tahir al-Husseini, in 1908, the position stayed in the family when the Turks awarded the title to his son Kamil al-Husseini. Although the British assumed control of Jerusalem during World War I, Kamil al-Husseini remained in his post until his death in 1921, when the British decided that Kamil’s brother Hajj Amin would be an acceptable choice—despite his criminal past and known extremist ties. Al-Husseini remained as Grand Mufti under the British in spite of his activities and was removed only in 1948, when King Abdullah I of Jordan banned him from Jerusalem and named Hussam Al-din Jarallah as Grand Mufti.

Once in power in Jerusalem, al-Husseini was appointed by the British to head the newly established Supreme Muslim Council, created to prepare the way for Arab self-governance in Palestine. Al-Husseini took the chance given to him by the appeasement-minded British to call for the deaths of Jews and set out on a campaign of terror against the Jews in Palestine. In subsequent years, al-Husseini was involved in plots to massacre Jews, among them 60 Jewish immigrants in Hebron and 45 more in Safad in 1929. In 1936, he helped lead a rebellion in Palestine against the British. The following year the British condemned al-Husseini (though permitting him to retain the title of Grand Mufti), and he fled to Syria once more. From there he continued to plot against the British control over Palestine.

Fascist Bedfellows

Events outside the Middle East were presenting new opportunities for fanatics to find allies and possible patrons. The 1930s witnessed the rise of National Socialism in Italy under Benito Mussolini and in Germany under Adolf Hitler. Soon after the appointment of Hitler as German Chancellor in 1933, the German Consul-General in Palestine, Heinrich Wolff, expressed his belief that many Muslims in the Holy Land would be supportive of the new Nazi regime. This view was confirmed when Wolff met with al-Husseini and other radical local leaders. For al-Husseini, the anti-Jewish policies of the Nazis were appealing, and he hoped for German help in ousting the British from Palestine.

Al-Husseini deepened his outreach to the Nazis in 1937 when he met with two Nazi SS officers, including Adolf Eichmann, one of the architects of the Holocaust in Damascus, Syria. The SS representatives had been sent at the express order of Reinhard Heydrich, the deputy head of the SS under Heinrich Himmler and chief of SS Intelligence and the Nazi security services, including the Gestapo. Heydrich recognized immediately that al-Husseini was a potentially valuable asset for Nazi interests in the Middle East and worked to cultivate him.

Four years later, al-Husseini threw his support to a pro-Nazi revolt in Iraq against the British-backed prime minister, Nuri Said Pasha. Going to Baghdad, al-Husseini issued a fatwa for a jihad against the British. Barely a month later, British troops ended the coup and occupied the country, whereupon al-Husseini fled to Iran. Although given sanctuary in the embassies of Japan and Italy, al-Husseini was again forced to be on the move when Iran was itself occupied by the British and Soviet armies. Al-Husseini made his way out of Iran with Italian diplomats who provided him with an Italian passport. He shaved his beard and dyed his hair to avoid being recognized by British agents and Iranian police.

Al-Husseini reached Rome in October 1941 and began serious discussions with the Mussolini regime. The result was twofold. First, he secured a meeting with Mussolini himself and then completed a practical agreement with the Italians. In return for Axis recognition of an Arab state of a fascist nature that would encompass Iraq, Syria, Palestine, and the Transjordan, he agreed to support the war against Britain. The Italian foreign ministry also urged Mussolini to grant al-Husseini one million lire.

hitlermuftiThe Mufti Meets the Führer

Over the next few days, al-Husseini drafted a proposed statement of an Arab-Axis cooperative effort by which the Axis powers would recognize the right of the Arabs to deal with Jewish elements in Palestine and in the other Arab countries according to their own interests. The declaration was approved by Mussolini and sent to the German embassy in Rome. Pleased with the declaration, al-Husseini was invited to Berlin as an honored and useful guest of the Nazi regime. He arrived in Berlin on November 6 and met with Ernst von Weizsäcker, German secretary of state under Nazi Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop. Two weeks later, he met with von Ribbentrop himself, a prelude to his triumphant reception on November 28, 1941, with Adolf Hitler.

At their meeting, al-Husseini requested German assistance with the Arab independence movement and Nazi support in the extermination of any Jewish homeland. For his part, Hitler promised to aid that liberation movement, but went still further, promising that the aim of Nazi Germany would be the elimination of all Jews living under British protection once such territories had been conquered. This was described by al-Husseini in his own memoirs:

Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish people in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: “The Jews are yours.” (Ami Isseroff and Peter FitzGerald-Morris, “The Iraq Coup Attempt of 1941, the Mufti, and the Farhud”)

The Axis’ Kept Man

For the Nazis, al-Husseini was an ideal propaganda tool, a powerful spokesman among radical Arabs, and an excellent instrument for their anti-Jewish campaign in Europe and in the Holy Land. Portrayed by the Nazis as the spiritual leader of all Islam, al-Husseini was given a grand formal welcome in Berlin. The official Nazi newspaper, Volkischer Beobachter, proudly published a photo of Hitler and al-Husseini, and Radio Berlin proclaimed on January 8, 1942 that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem had consented to take part in the effort against the British, the Communists, and the Jews.

Satisfied with his newly concretized relations with the Nazis, al-Husseini chose to remain in the service of the Axis and settled in Berlin in a lavish mansion that had been confiscated from a Jewish family. The Nazis paid him a monthly stipend of 62,500 Reichsmarks (approximately 20,000 dollars), payments that continued until April 1945, when only the fall of Berlin to the Red Army ended Hitler’s financial support. From his post, al-Husseini headed the Nazi-Arab Cooperation Section and helped build a network of German spies across the Middle East through his followers. Scheming for a desired dark future of Nazi-Islamic leadership, the Mufti founded an Islamic Institute in Dresden to provide training for young radical Muslims who would serve as chaplains for his field units and also head out across the Middle East and the world to sow the seeds of jihadism and anti-Semitism.

The Mufti’s Final Solution

Scholars have long studied how actively engaged al-Husseini was in the implementation of the Holocaust. There is no question that he supported the aims of the Nazis in perpetrating genocide and believed perversely that all Arabs should join that cause. He declared on German radio on March 1, 1944: “Arabs, rise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you” (qtd. in Norman Stillman, “Jews of the Arab World between European Colonialism, Zionism, and Arab Nationalism” in Judaism and Islam: Boundaries, Communications, and Interaction: Essays in Honor of William M. Brinner).

According to the testimony of Adolf Eichmann’s chief deputy Dieter Wisliceny (who was hanged for war crimes) the Mufti played a role in encouraging the Final Solution and was a close friend and advisor to Eichmann in the Holocaust’s implementation across Europe. Wisliceny testified further that al-Husseini had a close association with Heinrich Himmler and visited the gas chambers at Auschwitz, where he exhorted the staff to be even more dedicated in its important work.

To assist the practical slaughter of Jews and Christians, al-Husseini built an army of Muslim volunteer units for the Waffen-SS (the combat units of the dread SS) to operate for the Nazi cause in the Balkans. While the appeal for volunteers from among Muslims always struggled to meet the demands for new recruits, al-Husseini was able to organize three divisions of Bosnian Muslims who were then trained as elements of the Waffen-SS. The largest radical Muslim unit was the 13th Waffen-SS Handzar (“Dagger”) division that boasted over 21,000 men. They were joined by the Bosnian 23rd Waffen-SS Kama Division and the Albanian Skanderbeg 21st Waffen-SS Division. The Muslim Waffen-SS forces fought across the Balkans against Communist partisans and then assisted in the genocide of Yugoslavian Jews and in the persecution and slaughter of Gypsies and Christian Serbs in 1944 and 1945. The brutality extended to Catholics as well, for the Muslim Waffen-SS cut a path of destruction across the Balkans that encompassed a large number of Catholic parishes, churches, and shrines and resulted in the deaths of thousands of Catholics. By the end of the war, al-Husseini’s fanatical soldiers had killed over 90 percent of the Jews in Bosnia.

Meanwhile, in Rome

While al-Husseini carried out his decimation of Jews in Eastern Europe, the situation facing Jews in Rome in late 1943 was also grave. Following the deposition of Mussolini by his own people, Hitler invaded the country and briefly re-installed Il Duce. Then followed the first mass arrests of Italian Jews and a planned deportation of all Italian Jews to the death camps. Pope Pius XII protested these arrests and used the Vatican’s newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, to speak out further against the Nazi campaign against the Jews of Italy. Among his many acts during this dangerous period, the holy pontiff sheltered 3,000 Jews at his summer residence, Castel Gandolfo, and hid thousands more in some 180 convents, monasteries, parish buildings, rectories, churches, and even in Vatican City itself. Through his leadership, Pius ultimately helped to save or rescue 80 percent of the Jews of Rome. In June 1944, the pontiff sent a telegram to Admiral Miklos Horthy, the leader of Hungary, and implored him not to proceed with the planned deportation of the country’s 800,000 Jews.

As Pius was risking his safety and that of the Church in Italy, al-Husseini continued to call for the extermination of all Jews. On November 2, 1943, as the Nazis tried to press forward with the roundup of Italian Jews, the Grand Mufti declared on German radio of the Jewish people, “They cannot mix with any other nation but live as parasites among the nations, suck out their blood, embezzle their property, corrupt their morals.”

The Untouchable Cleric

With the collapse of the Third Reich, al-Husseini fled from Germany to Switzerland and then to Paris. Incredibly, he was not a target of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. He was sentenced merely to house arrest in Paris on the basis of charges made by the Yugoslav Supreme Military Court, which sentenced him to three years of imprisonment and two years of deprivation of civil rights because of his involvement in the atrocities throughout the Balkans. As for Nuremberg, despite the testimony of Eichmann’s aide, there was scant interest in the mufti because of his assumed immense sway in the Middle East.

With little effort, al-Husseini escaped from his comfortable house arrest. From there he traveled to Cairo, where he considered himself safe thanks to the patronage of Egypt’s King Farouk. Even with the fall of Farouk and the rise of Gamal Abdel-Nasser as head of Egypt in 1952, al-Husseini remained safe. His influence was felt throughout the Arab world, most so in galvanizing opposition to Zionism and the birth of Israel. He supported the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, was involved in the assassination of King Abdullah I of Jordan in 1951, and served as president of the World Islamic Congress. His last public appearance came in 1962 when he delivered a speech to that conference. He used his final opportunity to speak to the world to call for the ethnic cleansing of the Jews. He died in Lebanon in 1974, a beloved and revered figure among radical Muslims all over the world.

Hajj Amin al-Husseini’s legacy was to inspire generations of terrorists, Islamic jihadists, and such dictators as Saddam Hussein of Iraq. The foremost exemplar of his influence was a young terrorist and distant relative who became one of his most ardent students: Yasser Arafat, the future leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Rabbi David Dalin—one of Pope Pius XII’s greatest defenders—offers a fitting final word:

The “most dangerous” cleric in modern history, to use John Cornwell’s phrase, was not Pope Pius XII but Hajj Amin al-Husseini, whose anti-Jewish Islamic fundamentalism was as dangerous in World War II as it is today . . . The grand mufti was the Nazi collaborator par excellence. “Hitler’s mufti” is truth. “Hitler’s pope” is myth. (The Myth of Hitler’s Pope, 137)

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/hitlers-mufti

SIDEBARS

Child Murderer

In late 1942, Heinrich Himmler gave his permission for 10,000 Jewish children to be transferred from Poland to Theresienstadt with the eventual aim of allowing them to go to Palestine in exchange for German civilian prisoners, through the International Red Cross. The plan was abandoned, however, because of the protests of the Grand Mufti.

The following year, al-Husseini blocked the emigration of 4,000 Jewish children and 500 accompanying adults to Palestine that was proposed by the governments of Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary. The children were sent instead to the gas chambers.

Further Reading

  • Dalin, David and John Rothmann, Icon of Evil: Hitler’s Mufti and the Rise of Radical Islam (Random House, 2008)
  • Elpeleg, Zvi, The Grand Mufti: Haj Amin Al-Hussaini, Founder of the Palestinian National Movement (Frank Cass, 1993)
  • Morse, Chuck, The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism: Adolf Hitler and Haj Amin al-Husseini (iUniverse, 2003)
  • Perlman, Moshe, Mufti of Jerusalem (Pavilion Press, 2006)
  • Dalin, David, The Myth of Hitler’s Pope (Regnery, 2005)

Matthew E. Bunson is a former contributing editor to This Rock and the author of more than 30 books. He is a consultant for USA Today on Catholic matters, a moderator of EWTN’s online Church history forum, and the editor of The Catholic Answer.

 

Science Facts: US exit avoids Big Problems in the Paris Climate Agreement that are Bad for America

Science Facts:

US exit avoids Big Problems in the Paris Climate Agreement that are Bad for America

Every Bad Thing We Will Avoid By Rejecting the Paris Climate Agreement

The biggest cause of “Global Warming” is from the Hot Air of politicians, not from hardworking Americans. ~C.D.

John Carney

The president formally announced this week that the U.S. will exit the Paris climate agreement, a move that will have negligible impact on the environment but will have major benefits for the U.S. economy.

The Paris climate agreement was deeply flawed from its start. It was legally and constitutionally suspect, based on politics rather than science, and contained unrealistic goals. It promised not only a dramatic expansion of the administrative state and a huge increase in the regulatory burden on American businesses, it threatened to put the brakes on U.S. economic output at a time when most economists think the U.S. will struggle to achieve even a meager two percent growth.

It’s likely that it was already acting as a drag on the U.S. economy. After President Barack Obama unofficially committed the U.S. to the Paris agreement, businesses began preparing for its impact. Knowing that it would diminish U.S. economic output, businesses invested less and directed more investment toward less-productive technology to meet the climate deal’s mandates. Banks and financiers withdrew capital from sectors expected to suffer under the climate deal and pushed it toward those expected to benefit. A classic example of regulation-driven malinvestment.

The Paris climate agreement was adopted on December 12, 2015 at the conclusion of the United Nation’s Climate Change Conference. Parties to the agreement are expected to begin taking measures to reduce emissions in 2020, mainly by enacting rules that sharply reduce carbon emissions. Countries are supposed to publicly announce “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” to combat climate change and periodically report on their progress.  The Obama administration announced the U.S. would commit to reduce emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, a quarter of which was supposedly achievable by the implementation of the previous administration’s legally-questionable Clean Power Plan.

To get the rest of the way, the U.S. would have to make major investments in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and cleaner motor vehicles. This likely explains why the Paris climate deal was so popular with many in Silicon Valley and many on Wall Street. It promised a bonanza of spending and investment, most likely subsidized by taxpayers, in technologies that wouldn’t otherwise be attractive. It was practically calling out for making self-driving, solar powered cars mandatory.

Dropping out of the agreement will let the U.S. avoid several deleterious effects of the agreement.

1.Goodbye to ‘American Last.’ The Paris agreement was basically an attempt to halt climate change on the honor system. Its only legal requirements were for signatories to announce goals and report progress, with no international enforcement mechanism. As a result, it was likely that the United States and wealthy European nations would have adopted and implemented severe climate change rules while many of the world’s governments would avoid doing anything that would slow their own economies. The agreement basically made the U.S. economy and Europe’s strongest economies sacrificial lambs to the cause of climate change.

2.Industrial Carnage. The regulations necessary to implement the Paris agreement would have cost the U.S. industrial sector 1.1 million jobs, according to a study commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. These job losses would center in cement, iron and steel, and petroleum refining. Industrial output would decline sharply.

Thanks to A.F. Branco at Legal Insurrection for his great cartoon

3.Hollowing Out Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. The industrial carnage would have been concentrated on four states, according to the Chamber of Commerce study. Michigan’s GDP would shrink by 0.8 percent and employment would contract by 74,000 jobs. Missouri’s GDP would shrink by 1 percent. Ohio’s GDP would contract 1.2 percent. Pennsylvania’s GDP would decline by 1.8 percent and the state would lose 140,000 jobs.

4.Smashing Small Businesses, Helping Big Business. Big businesses in America strongly backed the Paris climate deal. In fact, the backers of the climate deal reads like a “who’s who” of big American businesses: Apple, General Electric, Intel, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, General Mills, Walmart, DuPont, Unilever, and Johnson & Johnson. These business giants can more easily cope with costly regulations than their smaller competitors and many would, in fact, find business opportunities from the changes required. But smaller businesses and traditional start-ups would likely be hurt by the increased costs of compliance and rising energy costs.

5.Making America Poorer Again.  A Heritage Foundation study found that the Paris agreement would have increased the electricity costs of an American family of four by between 13 percent and 20 percent annually. It forecast a loss of income of $20,000 by 2035. In other words, American families would be paying more while making less. 

6.Much Poorer. The overall effect of the agreement would have been to reduce U.S. GDP by over $2.5 trillion and eliminate 400,000 jobs by 2035, according to Heritage’s study. This would exacerbate problems with government funding and deficits, make Social Security solvency more challenging, and increase reliance on government’s spending to support households.

The Paris deal was, in short, a disaster for America and a nothing-burger for climat

Critical Thinking: Defining Church and State

Critical Thinking:

Defining Church and State

C.A. Davidson

    TODAY IN OUR SOCIETY, WE HAVE PEOPLE LITERALLY GETTING AWAY WITH MURDER IN THE NAME OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION, because many of us do not understand the line of demarcation between church and state.

Let’s take a closer look at our topic in the First Amendment of the Constitution:

church-state3-first-amendmtCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …

I hope by the time we conclude here that you will understand more precisely what “establishment of religion” means. In 1963, the Supreme Court established the religion of atheism by banning the Bible. Congress didn’t even make that law—the Supreme Court did. How unconstitutional is that?

Today, Congress has not made laws establishing a religion, in this case Islam. Political Correctness, with the help of Barack Obama, has done that. How unconstitutional is that?

Only Congress can make laws. Congressman Trey Gowdy explains:

We make law and while you are free to stand and clap when any president comes into this hallowed chamber and promises to do it with or without you. I will never stand and clap when ANY president no matter whether it’s your president or mine, promises to make us a constitutional anomaly and an afterthought. WE MAKE LAW. 

Church Laws

Most Christian church laws deal with the moral standing of an individual. They can exile or excommunicate a member of their faith for moral transgression, which is violation of a moral law.

U.S. Laws

church-state2-madison-quote          U.S . laws are based on the biblical Ten Commandments. The Constitution guarantees protection of innocent life and property. Therefore, if a member of any religion in the United States steals or commits murder, that member must be tried and punishable by a civil court, because the person has infringed upon another’s liberties and is a threat to society. Most holy writ condemns murder. The religious books of some countries justify murder in the name of their religion. Murder is still against the law in the United States, and is not justified or protected by freedom of religion.

Jefferson and Madison were anxious that the individual states provide for equality among all religions, in order to encourage a moral fiber in society.

Before the Civil War, some states were persecuting certain religions and favoring others, even though the First Amendment of the Constitution spells out the right to freedom for all religions. After the Civil War, amendments were established so that the states could not overrule the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. Now, First Amendment rights are guaranteed on a national level to all American citizens, no matter what state they reside in.

Dallin H. Oaks, legal scholar and Christian leader, clarifies:

Jefferson’s “wall” was obviously intended only for the federal government, and the Supreme Court application of the metaphor to the states has come under severe criticism. (Dallin Oaks, 1963: The Wall Between Church and State, pp.2-3)

church-state1-reagan-quote          Under the United States Constitution,  we have freedom of religion, and anyone can worship whom, where, or what they choose, or not worship anything, if they so choose—as long as their religious opinions don’t cause them to infringe upon the liberties of others. The Constitution is the charter for a civil government, not a religious government, but it requires that the government protect our God-given rights of life, liberty, and property.

Sharia Law, on the other hand, is administered by the Islamic State, in which religion and state are inseparable. Sharia Law is diametrically opposed to the Constitutional rights of life, liberty, and property, and denies First Amendment freedoms of religion, speech, and press as well. Sharia Law allows killing, stealing, and enslavement in the name of their man-made religion.

Should Church Doctrine determine National Policy?

Christians believe in being kind to the wayfaring stranger. The motives are pure, Christ-like love. Does this mean that governments should apply this doctrine on a national scale, and dispense with the vetting process for immigrants?

ImmigrationInvasionOfAmericaThe motives of Islamists, on the other hand, are to use immigration as an invasion tactic, to conquer the target nation, with no intention of assimilating into our Judeo-Christian culture and respecting our values. Obviously, for national security reasons, America can’t assume that the motives of all immigrants are pure, especially when those immigrants hold to religious doctrines that are inimical to the Constitution and the Judeo-Christian ethics upon which our nation is founded.

(See Constitution OK with Immigration Tests on Religion

Ed Vitagliano, of the American Family Association, provides some important insights into this issue:

welfare-government-charity-madisonHere is the principle: Biblically speaking, the government is not the same as the individual Christian, and it is not the same as the church. Therefore, believers must be careful not to apply to government Scriptures intended for the church.

For example, Jesus said, “For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you” (Matthew 6:14).

So, we must conclude that individual Christians are to forgive their enemies. But must we also conclude that governments should forgive their enemies? Must we demand that criminals convicted of crimes be released and not sent to prison?

The application of this principle is that individual Christians should help refugees who are in our nation. But the issue of who we allow in – and how many – is not a biblical matter. It is a political matter. (Please see this related post for additional important information:

Culture Wars: Church and State Issues and Illegal Immigration

 

            You decide: The line of demarcation between Church and State     

Here are some other examples. Use critical thinking to determine whether these cases deserve the protection  of freedom of religion, or whether they violate unalienable rights of life, liberty, and property,  threatening public safety, thereby being subject to prosecution and punishment by civil law.

Child Sacrifice

moloch_the_god1) In ancient times, some people worshipped a god named Moloch. These worshippers practiced human sacrifice, throwing their babies into a fiery furnace in the belly of the statue of  Moloch.

  • Should those worshipers have been granted license to destroy innocent life because it was a religious ritual for them?

Slavery and Slave Trade

2) In a bizarre digression from their latest anti-Christian tirade, the Islamic State addressed the question of black slavery, claiming that if Muslims had been in charge of Western states, the slave trade would have continued.

If Muslims rather than Christians had been running things in countries like the U.S., the Islamic State argues in the most recent issue of its propaganda magazine Dabiq, “the lucrative African slave trade would have continued, supporting a strong economy.”

As usual, the Islamic State supports its position with theological arguments, suggesting that Allah is pleased with slavery, as long as the slaves are infidels.

slave-trade-ISIS“Trading in black African slaves, the [Islamic] magazine notes, would not be done for racial reasons but religious ones.

(Thomas D. Williams, PhD. ‘Lucrative African Slave Trade Would Have Continued’ Breitbart.com)

  • Should Islamists be allowed to traffic in slavery and protected by freedom of religion because they do it for “religious reasons?”

Murder

3) Jihad is not a product of extremist fringes; it is a core religious doctrine of Islam today found in their Koran. Jihad requires that Islamists kill or enslave innocent people—anyone who does not convert to their religion.

MuslimWarriorTrading in black African slaves, the magazine [Dabiq] notes, would not be done for racial reasons but religious ones.

“All of this would be done, not for racism, nationalism, or political lies, but to make the word of Allah supreme. Jihad is the ultimate show of one’s love for his Creator, facing the clashing of swords and buzzing of bullets on the battlefield, seeking to slaughter his enemies – whom he hates for Allah’s hatred of them.”[1]

  • Should Islamists be protected by freedom of religion so they can “slaughter [his] enemies”, or anyone who doesn’t agree with Islam?

Critical Thinking  

  • When is freedom of religion limited?
  • What actions, even if done in the name of religion, require the perpetrator to be subject to civil law?

Related Post:

 Islamic State approves Slave Trade

 

[1]  Thomas D. Williams, PhD. ‘Lucrative African Slave Trade Would Have Continued’ (Breitbart.com)

 

Moral Support: Republican Healthcare Plan and Obamacare Replacement

Moral Support:

Republican Healthcare Plan and Obamacare Replacement

Conservatives dispute Ryan’s ‘binary choice’ on Obamacare

Offer alternative they contend already has passed Senate muster

Ryan contends there are certain provisions of Obamacare that can’t be repealed in his bill because of the Senate’s “Byrd Rule,” which stipulates that if a measure doesn’t impact federal finances, it can’t be struck from the bill unless a waiver is passed with a 60-vote supermajority. Republicans have only a 52-48 majority in the Senate.
But members of the House Freedom Caucus, along with senators such as Rand Paul, R-Ky.; and Mike Lee, R-Utah; argue the bill that passed Congress in 2015 through the reconciliation process and was vetoed by President Obama already has proved it can do the job of repealing Obamacare.
Earlier Tuesday, Ryan used his weekly press briefing to make a case for the GOP leadership’s bill,
The Freedom Caucus and its allies, however, believe there is a third way. They contend the leadership’s bill creates a new entitlement program through tax credits, and they oppose its expansion of Medicaid and its 30 percent premium penalty for those who choose to drop their insurance coverage for at least two months and want it reinstated.

Ryan said the second prong of the leadership’s plan would be to repeal Obamacare regulations via executive order, followed by passing legislation that would accomplish aims such as allowing people to purchase insurance across state lines.

“There are folks,” he continued, “who would love to see us put in this reconciliation bill all these other ideas,” but the measures would be filibustered because of Senate rules.

Lee’s spokesman, Carroll, reacted.

“I think it’s pretty funny that Paul Ryan is trying to tell us what the Senate rules are,” he told WND.

“When they passed the 2015 bill, they said they couldn’t get rid of the Medicaid expansion because of the Senate rules, and they were wrong,” he pointed out.

Ryan and his leadership are “in the House,” Carroll said, “and they should stick to the House rules, and they should leave what is doable in the Senate to us.”

Carroll said Lee met with Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price Wednesday morning and had dinner with Vice President Pence that evening to discuss his differences with the leadership’s plan.

“Price seemed receptive to the changes that Senator Lee brought forward, but we’ll see if those are at all incorporated,” Carroll said.

Asked the senator’s response to the warning to House Republicans Tuesday from President Trump, who has endorsed the Ryan plan, that they would suffer an electoral “bloodbath” if they didn’t repeal and replace Obamacare, Carroll replied: “All the more reason we need to pass the 2015 repeal bill.”
http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/conservatives-dispute-ryans-binary-choice-on-obamacare/

History Facts and History Lessons: Saint Thomas Aquinas vs. Open Borders

History Facts and History Lessons:

Saint Thomas Aquinas vs. Open Borders

Why Saint Thomas Aquinas Opposed Open Borders

 

by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D.

keyEvery nation has the right to distinguish, by country of origin, who can migrate to it and apply appropriate immigration policies, according to the great medieval scholar and saint Thomas Aquinas.

thomas-aquinasIn a surprisingly contemporary passage of his Summa Theologica, Aquinas noted that the Jewish people of Old Testament times did not admit visitors from all nations equally, since those peoples closer to them were more quickly integrated into the population than those who were not as close.

Some antagonistic peoples were not admitted at all into Israel due to their hostility toward the Jewish people.

The Law “prescribed in respect of certain nations that had close relations with the Jews,” the scholar noted, such as the Egyptians and the Idumeans, “that they should be admitted to the fellowship of the people after the third generation.”

Citizens of other nations “with whom their relations had been hostile,” such as the Ammonites and Moabites, “were never to be admitted to citizenship.”

“The Amalekites, who were yet more hostile to them, and had no fellowship of kindred with them, were to be held as foes in perpetuity,” Aquinas observed.

For the scholar, it seemed sensible to treat nations differently, depending on the affinity of their cultures with that of Israel as well as their historic relations with the Jewish people.

History Lessons for Today

In his remarkably nuanced commentary, Aquinas also distinguished among three types of immigrants in the Israel of the Old Testament.

First were “the foreigners who passed through their land as travelers,” much like modern day visitors with a travel visa.

Second were those who “came to dwell in their land as newcomers,” seemingly corresponding to resident aliens, perhaps with a green card, living in the land but not with the full benefits of citizenship.

A third case involved those foreigners who wished “to be admitted entirely to their fellowship and mode of worship.” Even here, dealing with those who wished to integrate fully into the life and worship of Israel required a certain order, Aquinas observed. “For they were not at once admitted to citizenship: just as it was law with some nations that no one was deemed a citizen except after two or three generations.”

Total Integration necessary for Citizenship

illegal-immigration-difference“The reason for this was that if foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled down in its midst,” Aquinas logically reasoned, “many dangers might occur, since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people.”

In other words, Aquinas taught that total integration of immigrants into the life, language, customs and culture (including worship, in this case) was necessary for full citizenship.

It requires time for someone to learn which issues affect the nation and to make them their own, Aquinas argued. Those who know the history of their nation and have lived in it, working for the common good, are best suited to participate in decision-making about its future.

It would be dangerous and unjust to place the future of a nation in the hands of recent arrivals who do not fully understand the needs and concerns of their adoptive home.

When facing contemporary problems, modern policy makers can often benefit from the wisdom of the great saints and scholars who have dealt with versions of the same issues in ages past.

Aquinas’ reflections reveal that similar problems have existed for centuries—indeed, millennia—and that distinguishing prudently between nations and cultures doesn’t automatically imply prejudice or unfair discrimination.

Sometimes, it’s just the right thing to do.

Why Saint Thomas Aquinas Opposed Open Borders

Obama Stranded Cubans—Everyone Silent

Flashback: Obama Stranded Legal Cuban Travelers in Airports in Last Week

Daniel J. Flynn

Remember earlier this month when Lily Tomlin compared America to Nazi Germany, Senator Chuck Schumer cried, and mobs chanted “No hate, no fear/Everyone is welcome here” at airports because the president blocked Cuban refugees from entering the country?

No, you don’t recall that happening? Well, me neither.

The federal government’s crackdown on immigrants, at least ones from a single country, certainly happened. But the protests didn’t. That fact that President Obama rather than President Trump issued the order surely muted the response. So, too, in a no-enemies-to-the-left manner, did the fact that the order helped a Communist prison-state tighten its grip on the inmates.

The TRUTH is:

“More than 1,000 Cuban migrants who endured months long treks across as many as 10 countries to reach the United States are marooned in Mexico, halted by the Obama administration’s decision this month to end special immigration privileges for Cubans who make it to the American border,” Frances Robles reported last week of Obama’s executive order in the New York Times.

Related Links:

Poll: Public Overwhelmingly Supports Trump Push to Limit Migration

…Ahmed: ‘Many of Us’ Muslims Welcome Extreme Vetting

Seven Inconvenient Facts About Trump’s Refugee Actions

Populist Leaders Praise Trump’s Refugee Ban as Model for Europe

 

History Facts: Statue of Liberty not about Immigration

History Facts:

Statue of Liberty not about Immigration

The Statue of Liberty Has Nothing to Do with Immigration

Rush Limbaugh

statueofliberty-dec-of-independence2RUSH: It happens every time I reveal what to me is common information. I check the email, and there were a bunch of people that were shocked to learn the Statue of Liberty wasn’t about immigration. It shows you how successful left-wing-created narratives have been. The Statue of Liberty represents Libertas, Roman goddess of Liberty. She bears a torch liberty. She bears a torch and a tabula ansata. It’s a tabula that evokes the law on which is inscribed the date of the American Declaration of Independence.

That’s what words are on the Statue of Liberty, words that commemorate July 4th, 1776. A broken chain lies at the feet of the Statue of Liberty. The Statue of statueofliberty3Liberty had absolutely nothing to do with immigration. So why do people think that it does? Well, there was a socialist poet. (Are poets anything other than socialists and communists?) Her name was Emma Lazarus, and her poem was called The New Colossus, and it included the lines, “Give me your tired, give me your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

That was not part of the creation of the Statue of Liberty. It was not delivered with the Statue of Liberty. It came later. The poem written by Emma Lazarus was written to help raise money for the statue’s pedestal. We had to build the pedestal, which is also a room underneath the statue. A bronze tablet bearing the Emma Lazarus poem was only put inside the pedestal in 1903. And yet there’s Lester Holt out there on NBC holding out the Statue of Liberty as a beacon to immigrants as so that’s what it was intended to be, fighting against Trump’s executive order of the weekend. They have nothing to do with immigration. Zilch.

Liberals Rewriting History

obama-rewrite-historyRUSH: I don’t want to make too big a deal about this, but I’m a stickler for reality and detail, and I hate liberal rewrites of things because it’s lies and it’s designed to create emotions in people that cause actions which are not helpful to the country. And that’s essentially what liberalism has done is feed off of and promote emotions over thought and fact. Lester Holt last night on NBC Nightly News:

“Behind me, the Statue of Liberty, which for nearly 130 years has symbolized the welcome arms of a country of immigrants,” is how he opened the program. The NBC Nightly News. However, he said, “But tonight she also stands as a symbolic flash point in a country in the midst of soul-searching over the limits of its generosity in an statueofliberty3-pedestalage of international terrorism. It’s total BS, folks. The Statue of Liberty was given to America by the French. Even now, I run into people that didn’t know that. It was donated by the French as a tribute to liberty and freedom and independence in 1886.

It was originally intended to be delivered to celebrate the centennial of the Declaration, the American Revolution. It was supposed to arrive in 1876, but it didn’t make it. It was 10 years late, or eight years late, depending on how you look at it. It was not until 1903 that they decided they needed to build the pedestal. They needed money for it, and they commissioned that poet, Emma Lazarus, to write what she wrote, and that line, of course is, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” and that’s all it’s taken.

That was not part of the gift.

The statue was not intended to recognize immigration. It was intended to recognize liberty and freedom. If you think they’re intertwined, don’t be misled. Here’s Madeleine Albright, the former secretary of state during the Clinton years — who stood by Bill Clinton during all of his womanizing, during all of his misogyny, during all of his reprobate behavior. Here’s Madeleine Albright standing by the guy. She was on CNN this morning. Chris Cuomo, who probably doesn’t know anything I just told you about the Statue of Liberty, said, “You’ve got the Statue of Liberty on your lapel this morning. What is the concern about the ban that you have, Madam Albright?”

rewrite-erase-historyALBRIGHT: Every part of it, Chris, because what it is is… In many ways it’s anti-American and what this country stands for. It is we are a country that has been, uh, created and, uhh, populated by people from other countries, and so, uhh, the Statue of Liberty’s message is, in fact, one of which open arms and welcoming people. And, umm, I, uh, do think that there are tears in the eyes of the statue at the moment.

RUSH: No. The statue doesn’t cry. The statue is a statue. It’s made out of bronze. It doesn’t cry. There aren’t any tears coming from the eyes of the Statue of Liberty ’cause there aren’t any eyes, statueofliberty2and the Statue of Liberty is not welcoming immigrants. What it represents is the beacon of liberty and freedom! It doesn’t say, “If you’re from a war-torn area, come on in.” We have laws that deal with that! The Statue of Liberty does not grant anybody entry into the United States of America. The Statue of Liberty does not say, “You want in? This is the way! Come right over here to Ellis Island, and we’ll send you through there.”

It’s not what it means. Now, I imagine some of you are saying, “Rush, did you get a little overboard on this?” No, folks. It may sound like I’m going a little overboard, but I’m a stickler for truth and fact here, and this is all being used to work up what is already deranged lunacy on the left. It’s fanning the flames of this stuff by furthering the misinformation and the lies that people are getting to keep that emotional flame supposedly burning in the minds and the hearts of these leftists who, in truth, are miserably unhappy.

The Statue of Liberty Has Nothing to Do with Immigration