My Replies to One Far-Leftist and a Religious Zealot Regarding the Issues of Marriage, What Government's Role Should or Should Not Be

(Below is a pair of dialogues between two individuals of diametrically opposite extremes with regards to their perspective on government role in marriage and America's tolerance towards those of other faith opposed to Christianity. My take is not strictly a conservative perspective, but also very heavily libertarian in context. If you know me well from the nearly seven or eight months I have periodically posted articles here, you will see that my positions are almost obsessively-compulsive in their extreme consistencies. That being said, enjoy reading the two very entertaining dialogues akin to the era of Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister of Great Britain when she schooled Neil Kinnock so completely and on a regular basis during the Prime Minister's Question Time.

(The one, the only "El Rushbo"!)

Rush Limbaugh's Post: I don't care what somebody's sexual orientation is. I don't care what their race is. I do not group people that way, nor do I want to take advantage of people by making them groups or victims. I want everybody to be as self-reliant as they can be, be as educated as they can be, 'cause that's how we're gonna have a great country.

#1.  Darwin Gutierrez: Wow. Can't believe this actually came out of a republican's mouth!

My Reply: Believe it, Darwin, because a poll fairly recently administered recorded that 52% of Republicans favor some form of same-sex union. I myself believe the government should completely renounce itself from all authority over the issue of marriage, which is what Oklahoma is doing, and rightfully so. If a set sectarian religion wishes to abstain from recognizing same-sex marriage due to its religious beliefs amid its interpretations, that is their right as part of the First Amendment portion pertaining to "the free exercise of one's religion." There are religious sectarians however who do and will recognize same-sex marriage, so if said couples truly wish to be recognized in holy matrimony under God, they may find any church they so wish to perform the ceremony.

However, for the Left, this really is a completely foreign concept! They don't like it when the people enjoy liberty! It might mean that by cutting government out of marriage entirely that the Marriage Tax would therefore be forcibly dissolved! What would Obama and the Democrats do without squeezing every last penny they may from the people's wallets? Oh the marvels of political upside one may derive when a real solution involving human freedom and liberty is posited as a solution!

______________________________________________________________________________________

#2 Melissa Jones Callis: NO, Rush. Absolutely NOT. The way this country became great was that GOD was the LEADER of the country. People prayed to, and worshiped, HIM. Not Allah, not Mohammed, not Buddha. Jehovah, the one true God, is the One who can make this country flourish.

My Reply: Melissa, America was indeed founded upon the principles God set forth. In fact, the nation was founded for the reasons of God, glory, and gold, or what a high school history teacher will teach to the class upon the first day of instruction. Along with this concept was the manner in which you choose to worship, and that is guaranteed within the First Amendment's clause for "right to the free exercise of religion." As such, every person is beautiful under the Judeo-Christian God, even those sinners. God flooded the world due to the gross presence of sin in the world, and the world had already fallen to its Death upon Eve opting to fall into temptation by eating the forbidden fruit. At that point, according to which denomination or sectarian you adhere, all humanity was sentenced to die due to all being born of Sin. Adam and Eve manifested Sin because of the serpent, and it would take a messianic figure to save humanity for future generations.

What I want to know with regards to Christian dogma from you, Melissa, is who gets to decide which people are to be forgiven for Sin if he or she has given his or her life to Christ? Is it you? It is true that The Bible stated that is "an abomination" for one man to lay with another, presumably having sexual intercourse, and I believe having researched this issue thoroughly, there is no true consensus with regards to this issue biblically. For your benefit and to convince you that I am not lying, I will place before you the link to 25 references with regards to the issue of homosexuality. There are numerous interpretations::

OpenBible.info: 25 Bible Verses About Homosexuality

(Edit from February 4, 2014: Below will be each verse from The Bible commenting on the subject of homosexuality.)

Leviticus 18:22 ESV / 294 helpful votes

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ESV / 274 helpful votes

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Romans 1:26-28 ESV / 242 helpful votes

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

Romans 13:8-10 ESV / 223 helpful votes

Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Isaiah 56:3-5 ESV / 202 helpful votes

Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say, “The Lord will surely separate me from his people”; and let not the eunuch say, “Behold, I am a dry tree.” For thus says the Lord: “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off.

Matthew 19:11-12 ESV / 189 helpful votes

But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”

1 Timothy 1:10 ESV / 125 helpful votes

The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, 
perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,

Leviticus 20:13 ESV / 103 helpful votes

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Mark 10:6-9 ESV / 88 helpful votes

But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

1 Corinthians 7:2 ESV / 87 helpful votes

But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

James 4:12 ESV / 71 helpful votes

There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?

1 Corinthians 7:7-9 ESV / 63 helpful votes

I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Romans 1:32 ESV / 62 helpful votes

Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

Hebrews 13:1-25 ESV / 61 helpful votes

Let brotherly love continue. Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. Remember those who are in prison, as though in prison with them, and those who are mistreated, since you also are in the body. Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous. Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.”

John 8:7-11 ESV / 56 helpful votes

And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

1 Timothy 5:8 ESV / 52 helpful votes

But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

1 Timothy 1:10-11 ESV / 51 helpful votes

The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

Galatians 5:14 ESV / 50 helpful votes

For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Galatians 3:28 ESV / 50 helpful votes

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Matthew 22:39 ESV / 48 helpful votes

And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Genesis 19:1-38 ESV / 47 helpful votes

The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed himself with his face to the earth and said, “My lords, please turn aside to your servant's house and spend the night and wash your feet. Then you may rise up early and go on your way.” They said, “No; we will spend the night in the town square.” But he pressed them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house. And he made them a feast and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”

Matthew 7:12 ESV / 46 helpful votes

“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

1 Kings 14:24 ESV / 46 helpful votes

And there were also male cult prostitutes in the land. They did according to all the abominations of the nations that the Lord drove out before the people of Israel.

Jude 1:7 ESV / 43 helpful votes

Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Judges 19:22 ESV / 22 helpful votes

As they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, worthless fellows, surrounded the house, beating on the door. And they 
said to the old man, the master of the house, “Bring out the man who came into your house, that we may know him.”

************************************************************************

My favorite verse to one and all is John 8:7-11, which is perhaps the important line of the entire with regards to how one treats his or her fellow man if that individual is found to be in violation of a codified law, or in this case, Sin:

"Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone at her."

- Jesus Christ, The One True Savior and Lawgiver of Mankind

Sin is sin; God considers the murder of another to be akin to murderous thoughts in the mind. If you have never sinned, Melissa, or if anyone else is perfect, please behoove one and all by letting others know of your perfection. If all sin is the same in the eyes of God, does that not make homosexuality the same? And furthermore, as homosexuality is a sin and Jesus stated that one should not judge others as each individual is his or herself a sinner, what right does the layperson, you, have to socially ostracize and castigate individuals when that is true? The Bible is filled with those 25 verses which in some manner regarding the biblical laws regarding homosexuality, which indeed suggests it to be punishable by death, and what Jesus said about sin in general, which essentially states to not judge those who are in every relevant manner equal to you.

If you cannot accept what Jesus stated to be true and you assume all other figures to be correct instead, would that not entail that you are listening to false prophets since the majority of these verses imply some form of severe, draconian punishment as these other mouthpieces of The Word of God are only finite and fallible? I suppose if this is true, you really are not a good Christian. Jesus forgives and will save everyone who accepts Him into their lives. And, as a person who would deny others the legal right to not be judged based upon one's lifestyle in the bedroom and amid the amorous activities, but also because they do not worship as do the majority of Americans, you are judging them based again upon what Jesus stated for followers to not do. All people have prejudices, and that is natural. To act upon them is something else entirely. Government has no place in any form of regulating religion, how one worships, and furthermore, the rite of marriage.

Bill O'Reilly: True Liberty-Loving Conservative? Or a Socialist in Disguise?

Bill O'Reilly: True Liberty-Loving Conservative? Or a Socialist in Disguise?

Written by Jonathan Henderson

Monday, February 3, 2014 @ 4:04 AM

Introduction: Announcing My Segue Back to Blogging on This Site

First of all, this is a bit of a segue into returning to my political blog titled Conservatively Speaking: A Conservative-Libertarian Blog on Today's Issues. The blog was launched on May 3, 2013 in response to the seemingly-daily revelations of a new scandal emanating from the Obama Executive Branch, as each have been proven to have occurred, and yet President Obama continues to deny his superiors, the American people, their right to know. I wrote nigh feverishly on the blog until I posted an article on July 25 regarding the birth of Prince George and Hillary Clinton's response. I had started writing a humorous but very newsworthy piece on Anthony Weiner titled "The Weiner Flops Again," which was filled with nearly every copy of the text messages between Weiner and the 23 year old Democratic Party intern who now is a porn star possibly exposed to the HIV virus while shooting her first film: a parody about Weiner. For whatever reason, I never completed the article, and still to this day it remains lying in state as it resides in the Land of Misfit Toys.

From July until nigh Thanksgiving, I began writing and posting articles for about a week, though far softer in my tone of rhetoric. One was about the issue of people working and shopping on Thanksgiving and Christmas. Another two old Facebook clippings of updates were from where I debated liberals. (And, might I add, I angered one so much by what I said to him without slipping even one four-letter word that he blocked me!) Lastly, I wrote the first part to what I believe will become two posts examining the life and legacy of the late Nelson Mandela from every possible angle, as well as Apartheid as its variant usage in Israel, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights. I define based upon the parameters of Apartheid's precedent set in South Africa beginning in 1948 as existing when a white minority political party (National Party) implemented that law. Again, Mandela's life will soon be examined and comparisons to other historical figures of the global liberation movements -- Henry David Thoreau, Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., etc., -- with regards to tactics and philosophy. After that, I will fly as the wind blows.

If upon your receiving this you find it to be an undesirable article (this was originally an E-mail, and since it was written prior to the butt-crack of dawn and I had slept, I just proofread the thing to my great horror), write to me again to inform me not to send more fliers.

Have a wonderful Monday! (JPH)

Who is Bill O' Reilly? Whose Side Exactly Butters His Bread?

Bill O'Reilly is not quite so diametrically President Obama's polar opposite with regards to economic policy. He is calling upon Washington to pass legislation and forward it to Obama to sign into law a minimum wage hike to $10 per hour. I am sure once the RINO establishment within the GOP, to whom O'Reilly shows undying affection and loyalty, decides to step into a single file line behind the 55 Democrats in the U.S. Senate under Sen. Harry Reid's rank and file, that a $10 or more minimum wage hike is just what the American people will receive. And, just as those sheep love to do -- the ones who were so foolish to vote those lawmakers championing socialist policies or have leanings in this direction -- they are indeed blithe enough to seriously believe that they will be paid more in subsides and at the cost of no other set of individuals than the American taxpayer.

Upon this occurring, the costs for goods and services due to the artificially-inflated prices which Obama and his Democratic "ditto heads" would have passed and then his signing the legislation into law will initiate the end of America's 238 year dance with opportunity and prosperity. The old practice of artificial price-fixation to cut the costs of products for sale, which might lower the prices of goods and services for people to buy with respect to the minimum wage workers, but those Americans who previously had worked in middle manager or some other portion of the private sector within the middle class will largely lose their capacities to pay for these crucial, vital necessities should the Democrats and Obama not engage in a new standard in middle income-fixing afterwards. The real disaster to the economy, however, ensues once the costs of production are far more expensive than the demand for those products, at which point the most fundamental free market principle posited to all by Adam Smith from his pamphlet The Wealth of Nations (1776) stating "supply must meet demand" will, in fact, not coincide as they should. Upon that, the natural price for goods and services available to consumers will rise exponentially, and the implementation of the higher minimum wage law while those in the middle class earn no such raise in rate of pay will lead the economy into financial ruin, stores barren of products, people living in slums and low-rent motels, and both the poverty threshold and misery index made so popular under the LBJ and Carter presidencies will then extend to the majority of the middle class, which will return the Democrats and others on the very Far Left to the times when they each sing "Happy Day are Here Again." This, in a nutshell, is how President Obama has determined to narrow the gap between the richest 2% and the lowest 98%. A nation of the poor -- what was once sub-poverty line and the the middle class -- will essentially be peasants, while the wealthiest Americans, most of whom are Obama's and the Democratic Party's biggest supporters and campaign donors, will be the individuals who through blind ideological euphoria appointed among the president's Cabinet or other government-based positions based upon nepotism, and thus will be among the oligarchy, the ruling party. All of this, of course, will be hypothetically possible as now that the Obamacare mandate is in place, most still have no access to the service, and several have already died due to government determining it was not financially-prudent to save a person's life, or what is popularly termed as "the death panel" policies. A depression, recession, and stagflation all in one will commence, and a new Dark Age will as well. That is the "Change" Obama wanted you "to be in" during his 2008 campaign. 

Conclusion: “The Devil's out of fashion.” - Dodie Smith, I Capture the Castle

And, in case you still have not determined "which team Mr. O'Reilly plays for," check out the interview with him as given by the intelligent and beautiful Megyn Kelly:

(Video courtesy of YouTube. The Kelly interview with O'Reilly can be accessed at Megyn Kelly previews Bill O'Reilly's Obama interview)

This is a rush transcript from "The Kelly File," January 2, 2014. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MEGYN KELLY, HOST: Well, tonight, a preview of Bill O'Reilly's upcoming Super Bowl interview with President Obama this Sunday. Earlier I spoke with Mr. Bill, host of "The Factor."

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KELLY: O'Reilly.

BILL O'REILLY, HOST, "THE O'REILLY FACTOR": Yes, you were just on my program.

KELLY: This is so weird.

O'REILLY: This is strange.

KELLY: I'm still sitting on your set, but now I'm interviewer and you're the interviewee.

O'REILLY: Be gentle.

KELLY: I may or may not give you the last word.

O'REILLY: All right.

KELLY: This is actually a big deal, even for you, even for Mr. Bill O'Reilly it's a big deal. Are you a little nervous?

O'REILLY: No.

KELLY: Come on.

O'REILLY: I'm not.

KELLY: I don't believe you. You know why? Sometimes I see you going out on Letterman. I know you, I see just a hint of nerves. So I can't even imagine interviewing the president of the United States there isn't a little.

O'REILLY: You're probably seeing indigestion, but not nerves. I can't even remember the last time I got nervous, ever. I'm just not a nervous guy.

KELLY: It's like a 100 million people are going to be watching the Super Bowl.

O'REILLY: I don't care, that is why I am not nervous. I don't care. I know what I want to do and I know the questions I'm going to ask. Not all of them. Still formulating, OK? But I know where I want to go. The difficulty is time.

KELLY: How many minutes you get?

O'REILLY: I don't know exactly, but I have to deal with Fox Sports, I got to deal with the White House and I got to deal with a lot of things I can't control. This program that I do, "The Factor" I can control, you know, time and everything like that. I can't.

KELLY: He doesn't want to come in here.

O'REILLY: Who?

KELLY: President Obama. He is not going to come here in "The Factor" studios.

O'REILLY: No, no, he is not a bad guy, I think people misread him. However, my interview this time is going to be very precise. Not philosophical, alright?

KELLY: You did a little philosophy, you know --

O'REILLY: He has a five-year record, and I want to clear up a lot of things that are confusing. I will probably be able to clear up three in the time I have. But remember, there's going to be a taped interview afterward that we'll show on Monday's "Factor." But no. Nervous impedes my ability. I don't want to even think about that.

KELLY: Well, it impedes everybody's ability. But sometimes we can't help it. Like before I come on "The O'Reilly Factor" on Thursday nights, I sit in the green room... no, I don't.

O'REILLY: But you're an emotional mess, I'm a rock.

KELLY: Let me ask you this. I want to talk about the dynamics of the interview. Where does it take place, exactly?

O'REILLY: You know whatever room he wants, the red room, the green room, whatever the White House wants.

KELLY: You walk in first or he walks in first?

O'REILLY: Oh, yes.

KELLY: After you, you're all settled.

O'REILLY: Always the lesser being walks in first, and that's me. That's me.

KELLY: Interesting, because on your show, you walk in first, I walk in second. I'm just stating it for the record.

O'REILLY: The lesser being always walks in first.

KELLY: So put down your pen, there is a power brokerage thing that happens in the hand shake.

O'REILLY: An eye contact handshake.

Dated February 3, 2014: My Response to a Post on the Facebook Page "Draft Judge Andrew Napolitano for President"

The Question: Many folks in the GOP (Including the Establishment) are calling Obama Lawless...

The definition of lawless is not regulated by or based on law; not restrained or controlled by law : unruly; illegal.

If the President is indeed LAWLESS, doesn't Congress have a sworn duty to IMPEACH?

(Above: Judge Andrew Napolitano)

My Answered Reply:

Government is inherently lawless and will consistently conceive of its own code of ethical mores immune from its electorate. It begets corruption, and there is no good that can come of government except that without it, anarchy would be birthed and greater chaos ensued. President Obama and the entire Executive Branch are lawless. Congress is lawless. The U.S. Supreme Court is lawless. All governors of states, mayors and executives of city and county governments, and police chiefs and sheriffs are lawless. There are no such things as just and incorruptible civic leaders at any level. The systems of checks and balances, so sacred they are, are all citizens have to maintain control over those whom they have elected to serve to protect their property and security, and they are being discarded while we, the people, sit by idly and watch. There is no such thing as social welfare out of necessity which begets liberty; it only begets dependency and slavery. Liberty is only begat by self-reliance, questioning authority, and government not forcibly deposing the people's divine natural rights to sovereignty and of that liberty.

When the first civilized humans formed a society, the lone purpose was to agree upon a mutual collective fraternal pact to secure and to protect each and everyone's property. These societies were very small tribal councils, often nomadic, and advanced in sophistication upon the innovation of agriculture followed by the slow death of the original culture. Yet recall that these communal societies were very small, with everyone bartering for food, caring for his or her fellow man, and all the while, the lone source of violent conflicts were settled whether over the competing for the affections of a female by duels, or by the enforcement of a series of tribal laws. The latter of which became a major factor in the develop of mass civilizations upon the reign of King Hammurabi of Babylon with his "Code of Hammurabi," one of the world's first known series of codified laws seeking justice for one against his violator. 

Government is just because the people, whether wittingly or no, cede to it its legitimacy to govern and to rule. When Barack Obama was elected president of the United States in 2008 and our congressmen and senators to their offices, we the people as a collective and by a plurality coronated them their mandate for power. The scenario with regards to the original archetypes of small nomadic, semi-nomadic, and agrarian societies was largely one in which it was an understood covenant between the occupants. Upon the rise of the phenomena of larger polis', cities, and nations (or what foreigners refer to as "states"), there could no longer be a simple legal system based upon gentlemen's agreements and handshakes. Codified laws of great variety became the norm over the millennia to now involving the bantering between multiple factions, or what we refer to as "political parties," spar over public policy, or if a nation still is a government under the hegemony of the old divine right of monarchs, a supernatural force lending legitimacy to the implementer and enforcer of polity. 

(Above: John Locke, English philosopher and author of Two Treatises on Civil Government, 1689.)

Personally, I classify myself as a conservative-libertarian, not a member of the GOP nor Libertarian Party. I believe all life is sacred and am vehemently opposed to legalized abortions as well as the death penalty, for as John Locke stated within his landmark philosophical work of classical liberalism titled Second Treatise on Civil Government (1689): 

"If man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? Why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and control of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property." (2nd Tr., §123)

With regards to the death penalty, I equate the varied methods of application to the term coined legally as "cruel and unusual punishment." As with the concept of legalized abortions, mankind has no moral high ground nor mandate under God to determine who will live and die, and as an issue of human rights, both abortions and executions violate its very spirit. This is a very left-wing policy that has become a common theme for decades, and yet is an acceptable norm by the majority.

The war on drugs must end and for cities across the nation to be permitted to establish zones for Americanized "red light districts" so long as there can be a vice tax placed upon the once-illegal substances. Government should have no vested interests in regulating what occurs in the bedroom, should extricate itself permanently from the institution of marriage, and should strike from the legal codes any laws prohibiting what and how one may be employed for a living - including legalized prostitution if it can be relegated to controlled environs where the business of sex is paid for and, again, a vice tax levied on this service. No firearms are to ever be forcibly removed from the possession of their owners, nor should there ever be either a list -- national or state -- of registered firearm owners. Furthermore, all people should have the right to carry firearms in public, concealed or non-concealed carry. The borders to Mexico should be completely closed, with a massive military presence along the entire border with the authority to shoot upon sight any Mexican citizen(s) attempting to illegally cross over due to concerns over national security, and for more stringent regulations passed by Congress and signed into law by the president to ensure that those citizens of Mexico who wish to emigrate to the U.S. will be required to do so through the historic proper channels and to learn English as a second language. 

U.S. foreign policy is too convoluted with entanglements and alliances for its welfare. The U.S.'s lone purpose behind a State Department with regards to diplomacy should be to only send its diplomats overseas to foreign nations in order to negotiate trade agreements and better mitigate these scenarios between the U.S. and the said-nation(s). Furthermore, in order to buoy jobs by deregulating the current-ban on opening land for the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline for oil, the U.S. should cut diplomatic relations entirely with all Middle East nations other than Israel. By cutting ties with all Arab League nations, the U.S. will be able to greatly reduce terrorist attacks both on our foreign military bases as well as our embassies, and this includes preventing a future scenario akin to September 11, 2001. Following this, the U.S., in order to further cut ties with foreign nations with regards to military alliances, must withdraw from NATO, for it is our involvement in NATO which leads the nation into feeling the wrath of the European Union's citizens who consider our nation one of imperialists. NATO can and will survive and thrive based upon the combined strengths of the British and French militaries alone; it is also time to lift the ban on German militarization, plus the Cold War has been over for more nearly 25 years. Lastly, the U.S. should issue an ultimatum to the then-current United Nations (U.N.) Secretary General that in order for the U.S. to remain within the worldwide organization, it must agree unconditionally to implement a massive international economic overhaul in foreign nations mired in abject poverty in order to initiate the processes of first industrialization followed by a service-based sector which coincides with the former, while also working to achieve the means to provide for the impoverished youth a quality education, beginning by toppling the dictators in those regimes which perpetuate such tragedies with more than simply the entire U.S. military forces, but rather a truly multinational coalition where no nation's troops comprise of a majority. The U.S. should make it abundantly clear that it no longer intends to pay a penny more towards feeding Global South nations whose food rations often are confiscated by dictators and warlords, and that if these demands are not met, the U.S. will leave the U.N.

With the growing threat from the People's Republic of China and North Korea in the Asia Pacific Rim, the U.S. must reinstate Japan's right to militarize in order to defend herself against the aggressive Chinese and North Korean forces. Trade with Japan is imperative and must be accelerated further; the scenario with the U.S.'s enormous trade deficit with China must be reconciled by the gradual weaning away of the U.S. economy's dependency completely upon all Chinese goods and access to U.S. markets. In this manner, the U.S. economic and foreign policies may indeed kill two birds with one stone. For one, if China decides to invade Taiwan or to engage in military conflict with Japan, their national GDP will decrease significantly to where the world's most populous nation will not be capable of funding a war without facing bankruptcy; and two, this allows the U.S. to begin the long, painstaking processes of rebuilding its long-debilitated industrial base as was once so prevalent many decades ago. 

The economy is of paramount importance, as it ought to be. In order to rebuild the nearly-defunct industrial sector of the economy following the Chinese issues, government must through legislation severely regulate and cripple the power of the labor unions who control the automotive and trade industries, even if it entails revising or the outright abolishing of the Wagner Act of 1938. Due to the enormous power these unions have acquired via coercive negotiations dictated by corrupt power brokers, the rates of pay for workers of particularly American-owned and domestically-located automotive factories are exorbitantly high while the price of production materials is incompatible, which forces American corporations owning these factories to close shop and to engage in corporate flight, thereby laying off thousands of workers and creating economic depressions in towns so dependent upon factory labor for employment. Meanwhile, many departments within the Cabinet of the Executive Branch badly need to be abolished. Among those are as follows: Dept. of Education, Dept. of Highway and Transportation, Dept. of Homeland Security, Dept. of Health and Human Services, Dept. of the Interior, Dept. of Labor, and Dept. of Energy. All that are necessary are Dept. of State, Dept. of Defense, Dept. Treasury, and Dept. of Justice. The U.S. very badly needs to deregulate government to its bare essentials in order to promote economic growth rather than inhibit, and to allow for the freest flow of economic liberty possible. The IRS must be abolished and no progressive income tax either implemented nor enforced in the future. The Federal Reserve must be abolished and most of its duties transferred to the Dept. of the Treasury to reconcile the bureaucratic epicenter of tax dollars spent. The EPA must be abolished and all publicly-owned land bought for and paid by private citizens wishing to preserve via conservation measures the natural beauty of our nation, though they do have the right to sell to the government in the case of such industrial opportunities as the Keystone Pipeline XL project being proposed to provide jobs and precious natural resources to operate machine and heat homes and businesses if the price is match by the government at fair market value. The lone area of the federal government which should unconditionally receive increases in funding is the Dept. of Defense due to the necessity for protecting our borders and maintaining our highway systems as they were originally built in order for the military to more easily cross through the nation rather than rugged terrain. 

Taxation should remain low, and artificially so, in order to prevent government from overspending on wasted endeavors and usurping the role of the sovereignty from the electorate. With regards to this, only indirect taxation by means of national sales and excise taxes should be legal so as to afford the people the proper means to spend and to contribute to the government's acquisition of tax revenue as the economy dictates via the law of averages. No additional paper monies nor coinage should be reproduced artificially without a standard in place. The minimum wage law should be abolished and a market-based driven wages of scale implemented to determine the natural rates of pay. In doing so, the capacity for the people to pay for food, clothing, shelter, and medical care will be greatly mitigated, and the means to acquire health care will deflate in price as is direly needed due to government's past regulations and the currently-detrimental policies emanating from the Affordable Care Act (aka. "Obamacare") rendering the acquisition of medical even with private or public insurance unaffordable. The goal is to reestablish the concepts first advocated by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations (1776) and with Milton Friedman: allow the chain of supply correlate with the demand of product. The Gold Standard should be reinstated.  

Finally, as with all areas of the U.S. economy, there should also be a great and intense renewed interest placed upon the revitalization of small businesses. Corporate conglomerations such as Walmart and Sam's Club, CostCo, et. al., must be forced to reduce their grapple hold on the U.S. economy, to end the sale of mass-produced products from China per the previously-stated policy. In essence, Walmart and Sam's Club, along with its major competitor CostCo, must be forced to dispand. Those corporate conglomerates, upon opening stores in small towns across America, have forced the closures of untold numbers of businesses domestically, increasing the rate of unemployment, and for those who manage to find a new employer, often lower pay wages. By focusing on revitalizing small businesses in general, entrepreneurship will be greatly emphasized and encouraged, and the greatest focuses on encouraging such growth will be in both the inner cities where socialism currently reigns supreme by imprisoning good but indigent people capable and desirous for work from finding jobs, and for the small rural areas, rebuilding what are for many of these individuals residing in once-tranquil communities and are now ghost towns, return to them their culture and to the heart of our nation where the enterprising American spirit belongs: in Middle America.

In implementing such policies, the existence of socialism in the U.S. will largely cease to exist. There will be no need for class warfare since all levels of income will be well-adjusted to the low rate of inflation so long as during economic recessions, government does not opt to resort to price fixtures nor artificial means to adjust wages such as the continually flawed and failed policy of increasing minimum wage which manufactures inflation and devalues the salaries of those in the middle class who will have lesser means to pay for goods and services. The Affirmative Action laws should be abolished since racism stems from such a policy rather than the promotion of fair access to all of those who are of the highest qualifications to attain employment. By the present tax codes being completely dissolved and a new one implemented to where the amount of government tax revenues are regulated by the people so as to mitigate in staving off the abusive usurpation which emanates from it, the people have far more disposable income and, as is the trend currently in those states which are less taxed, greater capacities for charitable contributions, Good Samaritan acts, and altruism will greatly increase. With the dissolution of the national public school system, the adults with children will have more disposable income to send their children to any private school -- academies, parochial or church-based schools, Montessori schools -- as they so choose. For those families whose students are financially-disadvantaged and live below the poverty line, it is hoped that with these new policies, future charitable contributions via altruistic funds will be established to pay the tuitions and fees for these children who are just as deserving of a quality education as any other individual; locally, such an endeavor as the privately-funded via donations Joy of Music School is such an example of the ideal situation for the economically-disadvantaged. Colleges, community colleges, and public universities should each merge into a public-corporate cooperative venture at every school, with tax breaks coming to the corporations who choose to endeavor in this project.  

By endeavoring in these policies, all Americans -- not simply white Caucasian citizens -- will once and for all be free to experience the greatest possible liberty that in theory was sought, but never granted to all.

The Legacy of Nelson Mandela and the South African Revolution: Who was the Man Behind the Enigma of the Charismatic Madiba?

Introduction: Describing Nelson Mandela, the Conundrum- A Riddle Intricately Intertwined Within an Enigma

On December 5, 2013, the world lost what the African National Congress (ANC) of South Africa declared to be a "colossus." Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela, born on July 18, 1918, became one with the ages at the ripe old age of 95. The world is engrossed in a state of mourning over the passing of a revolutionary figure universally considered a hero and perhaps worthy of beatification, and the vast majority of the world's literate people are easily provided access to reading of his triumphs, his martyrdom, and the liberation of a most multifarious nation with nearly three-quarters of its citizens. His victory over the evil institution of Apartheid in South Africa is more than considerable because it lifted the oppressed peoples comprised of the black ethnicities in the nation into the realm of being recognized with equal rights under the protections of the law. There can be no mistaken that what Mandela achieve, the figure whom many deify him when the general population of the nation refers to him by first his commonly-known tribal name "Madiba," but also as "Tata," which means "Father." In all, Mandela, through ending the scourge of Apartheid in his beloved South Africa, will forever be remembered as "the father of the nation."

Mandela is often spoken of for his achievements in the same spirit as those of Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi of India and Martin Luther King, Jr., the American civil rights figurehead who more than any other figure during the struggles for India's independence from the British Empire by Gandhai and for racial equity and the recognition that all American regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, or creed are loved the same by the one and only God whom all were borne of His Grace. These two revolutionaries in their respective nations represented a form of civil disobedience one would associate with the Transcendentalist principles behind Henry David Thoreau's literary works such as Resistance to Government (also known simply as Civil Disobedience) that was first published in 1849. For Gandhi, he is believed by some scholars to have interpreted Thoreau's definition of civil disobedience to be an argument for pacifism or for exclusively nonviolent resistance to suggest an equivalence between Thoreau's civil disobedience and his own satyagraha, which he defined in his words:

"Truth (satya) implies love, and firmness (agraha) engenders and therefore serves as a synonym for force. I thus began to call the Indian movement Satyagraha, that is to say, the Force which is born of Truth and Love or non-violence, and gave up the use of the phrase “passive resistance”, in connection with it, so much so that even in English writing we often avoided it and used instead the word “satyagraha” itself or some other equivalent English phrase." (Courtesy of Wikipedia)

In September 1935, a letter to P.K. Rao, Servants of India Society, Gandhi disputed the proposition that his idea of Civil Disobedience was adapted from the writings of Thoreau:

"The statement that I had derived my idea of civil disobedience from the writings of Thoreau is wrong. The resistance to authority in South Africa was well advanced before I got the essay of Thoreau on civil disobedience. But the movement was then known as passive resistance. As it was incomplete, I had coined the word satyagraha for the Gujarati readers. When I saw the title of Thoreau’s great essay, I began the use of his phrase to explain our struggle to the English readers. But I found that even civil disobedience failed to convey the full meaning of the struggle. I therefore adopted the phrase civil resistance. Non-violence was always an integral part of our struggle." (Courtesy of Wikipedia)

He described it further as the following:

"I have also called it love-force or soul-force. In the application of satyagraha, I discovered in the earliest stages that pursuit of truth did not admit of violence being inflicted on one’s opponent but that he must be weaned from error by patience and compassion. For what appears to be truth to the one may appear to be error to the other. And patience means self-suffering. So the doctrine came to mean vindication of truth, not by infliction of suffering on the opponent, but on oneself." (Courtesy of Wikipedia)

For Thoreau, however, his position towards unjust laws proving to be injurious to the public such as the peculiar institution of slavery he so detested was that they deserve no respect and should therefore be broken. Thoreau would have consider Gandhi's satyagraha principles to be cowering before the unjust sovereignty of the government, and therefore, emblematic of the "prison" metaphor he described below as the state in which mankind exists under intolerable laws:

"Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.… where the State places those who are not with her, but against her,– the only house in a slave State in which a free man can abide with honor.… Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight. If the alternative is to keep all just men in prison, or give up war and slavery, the State will not hesitate which to choose. If a thousand men were not to pay their tax bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood. This is, in fact, the definition of a peaceable revolution, if any such is possible." (Courtesy of Wikipedia)

 

The Legacy of Nelson Mandela and the South African Revolution: Is America About to Fall Prey to Apartheid-Style Subjugation at the Hands of Islamic-Fascism?

Is America About to Fall Prey to Apartheid-Style Subjugation at the Hands of Islamic-Fascism?

On Thursday, December 5, 2013, Nelson Mandela, the popularly-acknowledged father of modern South Africa, passed onto the annals of Eternity from the cold, harsh realm so brutally characterized of the flesh. His greatest legacy is his decades-long struggle to subvert the minority sovereignty of the Afrikaners who through their formation of the National Party, implemented into law in 1948 the scourge of that nation where three-quarters of the population held no claim to a natural right insured by the government in accordance to the law of nature in the policy known as Apartheid. As the world mourns the passing of the charismatic enigma who was the universally-beloved Madiba in post-Apartheid South Africa, one wonders what his lasting legacy will beget to those who are to comprise of the future generations of the world's population. In attempting to correlate the struggles wrought upon South Africa by the governing minority Afrikaner white elitists with those of other areas of the civilized world, I will begin this multi-part series of commentaries by discussing how the situation in the Middle East is perceived from one perspective of the Jewish state of Israel to the other in the Islamic confederation of nation-states comprised of the Arab League and Iran; and furthermore, the reality of the rapid rise of the worldwide Nation of Islam and the prospect behind the rise of a new caliphate, and ultimate how the rest of the world will react to such a change from the status quo ante.

The Conflict Between the Islamic Confederation of the Arab League and Iran vs. the Jewish State of Israel

(Can political scientists irrefutably describe the situation amid the tensions between the Jewish majority within Israel and those of the Palestinian minority comprised primary of Muslims as being tantamount to the classical characteristics of the conditions normally descriptive of Apartheid?)

The population of Israel as of September 2013 on Rosh Hashanah stood at approximately 8,081,000. The Arab League of 22 nation-states and territories advocating the nationalist culture and policies encompassing Islamic law (Sharia) in many cases is populated by approximately 422 million people, with over half under 25 years of age. There is a gross inequity in terms of the manpower of one nationality (Arab League) over that of the other (Israel) when you consider that based upon its awesome size in both land area and population, it is essentially a confederation of nations which lean upon the legitimacy of Islam to position itself favorably against the Israeli government whom the Arab League considers to be an apparatus of infidels subverting the will of Allah and His Prophet Muhammad. The greatest mistake ever made in this scenario might have been in its initial manifestation: the forced endeavor by the United Nations, spearheaded by President Harry S. Truman in 1948, to establish a Jewish state out of deference to the massacre of millions during the Holocaust under Hitler's regime. When one considers that within 11 minutes of the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel on May 14, 1948 that Truman authorized the U.S. to be the first nation to recognize its sovereignty without making overtures to consulting members of the Arab states within the region who considered this act a breach upon its pan-religious sovereignty as it is to them in violation of Koranic law (again, Sharia), it was a matter of "when" and not "if" there would be the manifestation of a constant state of war between the smaller Jewish state of Israel and a Pan-Arabic alliance committed to wiping Israel off the face of the earth. For the Jews who first settled in the old Holy Land of Judaism, it traded one form of Fascism (Nazism) for another more dangerous version based upon a religious dogma in the name of jihad (Islam). When a far larger population of an ethnicity seeks to commit genocide of a whole religious ethnicity of people as the Jews of Israel based upon its own religious doctrine lending it not simply its own legitimacy for its actions, but the commandment of its supreme deity (Allah), there can be no other end than one of catastrophic implications. However, the ultimate ubiquitous threat resides within the small segment of the Israeli population of Muslims which seek to kill all who are found in violation of Allah and His Prophet Muhammad as well as the artificially demarcated territories in a constant state of flux since the boundaries are always altered between conflicts.

Depending upon your perspective, "freedom fighters" can be ideological demagogues who wage war to liberate its people in order to spread peace across its legions of supporters; in the case of the United States government's definition of such individuals as are descriptive of our Founding Fathers and the patriots who fought the war against Britain, they are classified by the Department of Defense as "terrorists" and "extremists." To Islamic fundamentalists, however, peace can only be achieved by the application of the sword if one does not pledge a vow to Allah's sovereignty; and yet, if this is true, does this not imply that logically-speaking, the militant organizations such as al-Qaeda, Hamas, and the de facto governing army Hezbollah of Lebanon are all "terrorists" and "extremists" as well based upon a religion grounded in fascist characteristics seeking to annihilate an entire religion based upon the prejudices within Koranic doctrine? When these Islamic fundamentalists who comprise of a minority of the Israeli population seek to voice their dissent against the legitimacy of a Jewish government by conducting covert operations by the use of suicide bombers and political assassinations, what do you expect the Israeli government officials to do? Would you simply have them to sit by idly while these subversives of the general will slaughter a nation of millions of Jews all because it is being conducted under the guise of social justice in the name of religious dogma? That is tantamount to what I see when I read of the lurid history of the Afrikaners, who comprise(d) of less than a quarter of the population of South Africa, did when the National Party instituted Apartheid in 1948. The rule of law should always lean in favor of those comprised of the majority of the population in both sentiment and in terms of culture and yet take care in acknowledging the rights of those in the minority, and that was not the case during Apartheid-era South Africa, nor is it the case today in Israel today when the minority sect of the population comprised of Islamic fundamentalists is slaughtering as many Jews and other ethnic and religious peoples declared by them to be infidels in violation of Sharia law as they possibly can. The Israeli citizens of 2013 are not the same social refugees who emigrated to the Holy Land in the mid-1940's upon the U.N. granting it territory; and you therefore cannot accuse them of being guilty of subverting the general will of the Pan-Arabic state as a result. The bottom line is this: What is good for the goose is most certainly good for the gander; and if you wish as a minority sect of "freedom fighters" or "terrorists" -- the choice in nomenclature is yours alone -- to commit genocide by slaughtering scores of Israeli citizens who lend their consent to the legitimacy of the common law system of the Basic Laws of Israel which are heavily-laden with religious Talmudic principles and yet it takes care in legally recognizing the Muslim sect as a religious community, it therefore is indicative of nothing more than these fundamentalists seeking to wipe out all infidels and to coalesce the nations comprising the Arab League into forming at least a region-wide hegemony governed by Sharia, known as the caliphate. The last caliphate died with the Ottoman Empire's collapse in 1924; I suspect that there may be one day another uprising to establish a new one now that the Arab Spring has been in place since December 10, 2010, since every nation which has been toppled ultimately has reverted to a government of elected officials who then stake sovereignty not on the general will of the electorate, but based of Sharia. It is interesting to me that President Obama has completely alienated the Israeli government in favor of championing the Islamic world of the Arab League and Iran. My suspicions are quickly transforming into fears.

No individual or copious demographics of diverse peoples should ever be discriminated against. But then again, just who are we stating is most guilty of the perceived discrimination with the politically-defined borders of the Jewish state of Israel? Can you blame the Jewish population of Israel for feeling paranoid when the main source of the mass attacks on the religious and ethnic majority of the population, again Jewish, are Islamic fundamentalists who comprise predominantly of ethnic Arabs? There is no confusion as to whom or what the Jewish peoples of Israel fear when it comes to the daily question of their very survival since this is, indeed, the case. Our society through the screams of civil rights activists and left-wing demagogues speaks ill of those who perpetuate stereotypes, but I have learned throughout my life that with every stereotype, there is usually a grain or more of truth behind the details; ergo, there are always two sides to every story. Furthermore, how does one embark upon discerning one Muslim from another who each reside within the confederation of the Arab League, which as you asserted is separate from the large representation of Muslims residing in the Balkan Peninsula where the secular authoritarian government under Slobodan Milošević engaged in the ethnic cleansing of the ethnic Albanian Muslims? In the Middle East, there are very close physical resemblances with slight variations from one nationality to another within the Arab League of nations of those comprised within the Arabic ethnic demographic, and nearly all of those nationalities -- Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Syria, Lebanon, etc., -- which are experiencing some extreme of the Arab Spring phenomena are falling prey to the trend that so many revolutions have followed that led from one lesser form of tyranny to another that is worse. If your assertion that most Muslims adhere to the concept that Islam is a religion of peace, why then do they turn a deferential eye to the atrocities committed by those who are declared to be part of a violent fundamentalist minority who are literally following the verses within the Koran to the very letter in accordance to Sharia law? The only known form of peace through the manifestation of a society of equity for Islamic fundamentalists is through the coercion of the citizens of a nation of infidels to either convert or be forced to live in a permanent state of subjugation under Islamic domination, and therefore all are equal under the rule of Sharia, including the brutal consequences those found guilty of violating Allah's teachings will be forced to suffer. (An interesting series of Koranic verses to read can be found here, though I am sure some who read this will simply state that I am using a source with an agenda against the Islamic faith when in fact, these are actual verses from within The Koran's texts courtesy of the article on Islam and Forced Conversion article on the webpage titled The Religion of Peace.) Perhaps those who truly adhere to the peaceful principles of Islam sincerely believe it to be a religion of peace, but the jihadists who have carried out these attacks against those considered to be infidels have killed approximately 270 million over the history of the religion, and those among the declared infidel ranks in a nation have every right to fear Muslims if the peaceful ones are complicit in ignoring atrocities committed by the perceived minority which ultimately are becoming the sovereign leaders in the Islamic state of the Middle East during the Arab Spring. (See Tears of Jihad, courtesy of the webpage "Political Islam.")

Conclusion: A Dire Warning for Future Generations of Desperate Citizens Seeking to Subvert the Legitimacy their Current Tyrants in Order to Replace It with One Not Guaranteed to Not Be Worse than the Predecessors

If a national identity of peoples are to fight a revolution on the grounds of liberty, equality, and fraternity, what does one predicate the premises behind what that equality is to entail? Does it mean that all people are equal under the rule of law as pertaining to what the Islamic fundamentalists believe to be achieved not through the voluntary consent of the governed, but rather through the deceptive art of murana or forcible coercion? In Revolutionary France (1789-99), the mantra used to rally the masses to subvert the Bourbon monarchy was one of "liberté, égalité, fraternité" for all the French people, and the movement was initiated by a relatively benign method in comparison to what would come later of a mob of sans culottes storming the Bastille prison where debtors and political prisoners were jailed. The revolution evolved into a virtual collective anarchy upon one coup d'tat in Maxmillien Robespierre's Committee of Public Safety who initiated the infamous Reign of Terror (1793-95) which led to the deaths of tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of French citizens and partisan revolutionaries alike yet another, which also derived its legitimacy from the mythical power of a finite entity sans the essential supernatural or metaphysical qualities to unite the people under a set of moral standards by which the population could generally agree as its uniformity amid a cultural norm. It happened again in 1795 with the rise of the Directory, which executed the previous despotic governing body (again, the Committee of Public Safety and Robespierre) when it condemned those oligarchs to the guillotine just as deposed victims had done so with the Bourbon family in 1793. In the end, a feudalistic system which begat inequities between the three Estates under the divine right of kings transferred into two subsequent ones which were predicated upon atheist principles, only to conclude in 1799 when the obscure Corsican general Napoleon Bonaparte seized power by throwing his own coup d'tat and establishing his hegemony over most of continental Europe by spreading the ideals of the French Revolution, while consolidating an imperial monarchy which restored aspects of the deposed Ancien Régime. In summation, the French Revolution was a ten year roller coaster ride from one form of imperial monarchy to another one founded upon the coup of 18 Brumaire which installed the Consulate and, in essence, manifested a French society governed by a military dictator (again, Napoleon Bonaparte) under the new Constitution of the Year VIII that was approved in a plebiscite held the following January, with 99.94 percent officially listed as voting "yes" -- which no doubt was fraudulently manipulated. Napoleon was bent upon dominating the peoples of the European continent and spread his self-manifestation of legitimacy by a conquest for empire. To make it appear as if his power was derived in accordance to divine right, the irony is that there was no democracy of a to truly lend nor deny him consent other than the coercion to cede their sovereignty to Napoleon I, the new Emperor of the French Empire, whose legitimacy was acquired by political intrigue as he summoned Pope Pius VII to his coronation in 1804 in what became a rather bizarre ceremony where Napoleon seized the crown from the pontiff and placed it upon his own head. Power is intoxicating, no matter the source of the hegemons' claim(s) legitimacy. 

What do all of these tumultuous conflicts have in common? Well, nearly every revolution which has ever been fought for and won throughout the past 238 years has been spearheaded most aggressively by a loud minority whose bellicose cries and saber-rattling led to the conquest of the old order and the implementation of a new one which was nearly always more brutal and totalitarian or authoritarian in nature. The leftist revolutions in Russia, China, and others under the concept the U.S. termed to be the "Domino Theory" of Communism's global spread were conducted by a small faction of political ideologues classified as members of an intellectual elite who believed that they were so enlightened as to know what was best for the general welfare of the public better than did the actual citizens, and their ideas of absolute equity under the rule of law -- and it was always absolute equity they promised -- appealed to the uneducated, unenlightened masses. When the people would finally rally behind these enigmatic, charismatic demagogues upon their movement gaining strength, the tide of populist sentiment crushed the opposition of the old imperialist guard, and in its wake would transfer its consent over to a new government promising to create a Utopian society of peace achieved through all being equal under the rule of the new oligarchy, this one being the intellectual elitist/ideologues who issued the guarantees for liberation. Unfortunately, Lord Acton was all too correct when he stated that "absolute power corrupts absolute," and no matter what the source of legitimacy is in how a politician stakes claim to its legitimacy, the truth, however inconvenient when an educated elitist attempts to intellectualize how to solve a social conundrum, can always be manipulated in order to serve the best interests of the rulers in power at the detriment nearly always of the people. Rousseau stated that might does not always make right, but if that is the case, what is right to those who have shanghaied the general will of the people into lending popular consent to the new ruling apparatus in power is ultimately always right in its absolutism over all regardless of what is truly just since in the world of politics, the ends will always be justified by the means per Machiavellian principles of wielding power in terms of what for them is politically expedient since the people who fought the revolution to accord them their consent to the rulers' legitimacy to govern will have tacitly agreed to these measures through their social contract; ergo, they are contractually bound to adhere to the terms of their acquired freedom from the previous masters, according to Rousseau. And as Islam is currently the fastest growing religion in followers in the world, the dilemma then becomes as to how the world will reconcile this emerging colossus of faith should the popularly-acknowledged minority of the religion, the fundamentalist-jihadists, continue to serve as the face of an entire religion in which the fear of its violent history is to be both legitimate and justifiable in terms of the threats posed to the peace and stability of the status quo ante.

In the case of a desperate people seeking liberation from a despotic governing apparatus, the prevailing wisdom should always be the following: a people should always take great care amid caution in considering to whom it chooses to lend its consent, for if the subjugated peoples are too desperate, the figure who offers to liberate them if they should choose to support it in return for the abdication of their sovereignty as a collective of individuals living according to one of a long- established standard of universal mores will do so at the cost of their own dignity, salvation, but ultimately, the stilling of the heartbeat of a once harmonious social conscience since their old core beliefs will no longer be legally acceptable and the liberty for which they fought to attain will have been a mirage amid the blood on their hands and the deception will have begat their self-inflicted doom due to their naïveté.