Gotthold Ephraim Lessing suggested there are two approaches to the study of man. Either one considers man in particular or in general. Of the first approach one can hardly say it is the noblest pur…
Source: Man in Particular |
These photos taken from the websites in question show the connection between the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs and the Muslim World League. Notice the names of Saleha S Mahmoud Abedin and Hassan Abedin, the mother and brother of Huma Abedin. Then look at the addresses of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs and the London office of the Muslim World League. The address is the same: 46 Goodge Street. Watch this video to see why this may matter: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SXG_h765ZBA Continue reading
And I’ve turned my back on the busy town,
And come once more to the welcome gate
Where the roses nod and the children wait,
I tell myself as I see them smile
That life is good and its tasks worth while.
When day is done and I’ve come once more
To my quiet street and the friendly door,
Where the Mother reigns and the children play
And the kettle sings in the old-time way,
I throw my coat on a near-by chair
And say farewell to my pack of care.
When day is done, all the hurt and strife
And the selfishness and the greed of life,
Are left behind in the busy town;
I’ve ceased to worry about renown
Or gold or fame, and I’m just a dad,
Content to be with his girl and lad.
Whatever the day has brought of care,
Here love and laughter are mine to share,
Here I can claim what the rich desire–
Rest and peace by a ruddy fire,
The welcome words which the loved ones speak
And the soft caress of a baby’s cheek.
When day is done and I reach my gate,
I come to a realm where there is no hate,
For here, whatever my worth may be,
Are those who cling to their faith in me;
And with love on guard at my humble door,
I have all that the world has struggled for.
Israel Zangwill, a Jewish writer and political activist well known at the beginning of the twentieth century, wrote a play called “The Melting Pot.” In it, the Russian-Jewish immigrant David Quixano says,
America is God’s Crucible, the great Melting-Pot where all the races of Europe are melting and re-forming! Here you stand, good folk, think I, when I see them at Ellis Island, here you stand in your fifty groups, with your fifty languages and histories, and your fifty blood hatreds and rivalries. But you won’t be long like that, brothers, for these are the fires of God you’ve come to—these are the fires of God. A fig for your feuds and vendettas! Germans and Frenchmen, Irishmen and Englishmen, Jews and Russians—into the Crucible with you all!
God is making the American.
That was then. Americans don’t melt anymore. Instead, we have chosen to hang onto our “blood hatreds and rivalries.” Now, we are polarized and offended.
I shared this idea with someone and they seemed surprised.
“You want that?” she asked.
“Do I want America to be a melting pot? Of course.”
She had confused the idea of people entering the nation illegally through porous borders with the concept of legal immigrants coming to America and becoming American. There would be no America without immigration. Illegal immigration has tarnished the vision of immigration as it ought to be.
It is understandable that the vision of America as a melting pot would be lost in the midst of daily examples of “Americans” who are offended. This present politically/socially correct disease, with its angst over things as foolish as cultural appropriation is really just the flowering of the failed philosophies of the Enlightenment.
There was a time when it was common to assume that, with all of the cultural diversity in the world, there were certain universal principles to which all humanity could be held to account. But the Enlightenment era did away with such belief and replaced it with a deep selfishness that was delayed in America by our fight for independence and, frankly, by the grace of God. But now, the seeds of selfishness have flowered. Much of this is taken up in the discussion of Cultural Coherence.
Anthony Pagden, in his book The Enlightenment, explains that, with the onset of the Reformation and a new era in which modern thinkers “had made the ‘I’ the center of all inquiries into the human condition,” the fading of Scholasticism in favor of a “mechanistic” view of the universe, religious wars which left millions dead, and even the discovery of diverse peoples in Africa, Asia, and particularly the American Indian, the idea that all humanity in some way cohered together, enjoying some universal set of values, beliefs, and a common human nature, collapsed.
Faced with such uncertainty, the only possible conclusion to which any reflective person could come was that there could be no certainty, no undisputed source of authority, in the world . . . Now everything that was known about the world, the rightness or wrongness of every act, had to be decided by the individual acting on his or her own.
The philosophical, theological coherence provided by the accepted authorities (the Church, the Bible) in the areas of life that mattered most (heaven, hell, the existence of God, the Cosmos, etc.) was gone. The so-called “turn to the subject” which began in the pre-Reformation, was evidenced in the Reformation, observed by Galileo’s telescope, and codified and canonized by Descartes cogito ergo sum and Kant’s call for humanity’s release from its “self-incurred tutelage,” all came together to midwife the birth of the modern self.
But the American experiment was to be different.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
America was different for a long stretch. She believed in God and decency. But Enlightenment era philosophy was always part of her DNA ,and when she decided that she no longer needed God, the seeds of that philosophy began to grow. In the past sixty years, America has invited God to leave her schools, supported abortion, crowned Evolution in place of a belief in a Creator, and embraced the abomination of homosexuality.
No, America doesn’t melt anymore. Her heart does not melt for God, it does not melt over her sins, and her people do not allow their petty differences to melt into unity.
 Anthony Pagden, The Enlightenment, (New York: Random House, 2013), 24-64.
 Ibid., 40.
 Immanuael Kant, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals and What is Enlightenment?, (New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1959), 85.
 Israel Zangwill, “The Melting Pot,” Act I.
Oddly enough, there are still some Conservatives who are mystified at the claim that a choice to vote for a third party candidate or not to vote at all is, in the end, a vote for Hillary. So here is one last attempt to paint a picture of the problem.
It is simple, really. In order to defeat Hillary Clinton, Conservatives must turn out on election day and they must cast their votes, in unity, for a candidate other than Clinton. Every one who understands the concept of elections and voting understands that whoever gets the most votes will win.
In the last Presidential Election some 126 million votes were cast. Let’s say this happens again and the voters are equally divided between Conservatives and Liberals. If all the Liberals turn out and vote for Clinton and all the Conservatives “turn out” but on principle
It is obvious that Hillary would win because (assuming the number of Conservatives and Liberals are equal) the unified Liberal vote cast all of its votes for Hillary while the split vote of the Conservative voting block decided to divide its support among Trump, no one, Hillary, and third party candidates.
Specifically addressing those who decide not to vote, it should be obvious that a “no” vote in this case (let’s call it a vote cast at home) leaves the Trump ballot box short a ballot while the Hillary box received its Hillary vote. In essence, a “home vote” leaves its corollary Hillary vote unmatched.
The Third Party Voters
Those who say that we should vote for a better third party candidate may be right but the problem with that logic is that there is no consensus on who that third party candidate should be. So, the third party vote movement helps to splinter the Conservative vote. Now, the unified Liberal vote that is cast for Hillary is essentially unmatched by the Conservative vote because votes have been spread across many candidates instead of just one.
The Conservatives-Turned-Hillary Voters
For those Conservatives (if they really are that) who have decided to vote for Hillary because they are offended by Trump, they will, on principle, cast there vote in a way that makes them feel more authentically Christian, and yet they will simply be helping put a different offensive candidate into office that will continue the policies of Obama yet adding her own sophisticated brand of Clinton corruption to the mix. Further, she will support abortion, homosexuality, religious intolerance, illegal immigration, etc.
Splintered Conservatives VS Unified Liberals = President Hillary Clinton
It should be obvious, then, that unless Conservatives remain unified and vote together for Donald Trump, (who at this point is the only candidate with enough support or name recognition to even come close to competing with Hillary), then Hillary Clinton will be elected. So, those voting for Trump are doing the only viable thing that can be done to avoid another Clinton presidency. Those who, on principle, decide to stay home or vote for a third party candidate are simply helping to put Hillary in office.
I was disappointed in several of the Fox News team last evening (Hume, Megyn Kelly, Dana Perrino) when they made a big deal about Trump’s unwillingness to accept the results if the election. Are they paying attention? With the Veritas videos, the State Department/FBI situation, the missing 33,000 emails, and a shamelessly biased media, why would anyone expect a fair election? As he said today, he will accept the outcome of a CLEAR (read: FAIR) election but he reserves the right to challenge an unfair one. Would Dems do any less? Would Republicans? No!
Hey for those of you who were turned away at SGT today (if that’s you you know what the situation was), FYI–It’s All Good Now! Come back! We are going to have a great day today!
“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”