Theodore Roosevelt to Sir George Otto Trevelyan, June 19, 1908

Theodore Roosevelt to Sir George Otto Trevelyan, June 19, 1908

There is very much to be said in favor of the theory that the public has a right to demand as long service from any man who is doing good service as it thinks will be useful; and during the last year or two I have been rendered extremely uncomfortable both by the exultation of my foes over my announced intention to retire, and by the real uneasiness and chagrin felt by many good men because, as they believed, they were losing quite needlessly the leader in whom they trusted, and who they believed could bring to a successful conclusion certain struggles which they regarded as of vital concern to the national welfare. Moreover, it was of course impossible to foresee, and I did not foresee, when I made my public announcement of my intention, that the leadership I then possessed would continue (so far as I am able to tell) unbroken, as has actually been the case; and that the people who believed in me and trusted me and followed me would three or four years later still feel that I was the man of all others whom they wished to see President. Yet such I think has been the case; and therefore, when I felt obliged to insist on retiring and abandoning the leadership, now and then I felt ugly qualms as to whether I was not refusing to do what I ought to do and abandoning great work on a mere fantastic point of honor.

There are strong reasons why my course should be condemned; yet I think that the countervailing reasons are still stronger. Of course, when I spoke I had in view the precedent set by Washington and continued ever since, the precedent which recognizes the fact that as there inheres in the Presidency more power than in any other office in any great republic or constitutional monarchy of modern times, it can only be saved from abuse by having the people as a whole accept as axiomatic the position that no man has held it for more than a limited time. I don't think that any harm comes from the concentration of power in one man's hands, provided the holder does not keep it for more than a certain, definite time, and then returns to the people from whom he sprang.

In the great days of the Roman Republic no harm whatever came from the dictatorship, because great though the power of the dictator was, after a comparatively short period he surrendered it back to those from whom he gained it. On the other hand, the history of the first and second French Republics, not to speak of the Spanish-American Republics, not to speak of the Commonwealth, in Seventeenth Century England, has shown that the strong man who is good may very readily subvert free institutions if he and the people at large grow to accept his continued possession of vast power as being necessary to good government. It is a very unhealthy thing that any man should be considered necessary to the people as a whole, save in the way of meeting some given crisis. Moreover, in a republic like ours the vital need is that there shall be a general recognition of the moral law, of the law which, as regards public men, means belief in efficient and disinterested service for the public rendered without thought of personal gain, and above all without the thought of self-perpetuation in office.

I regard the memories of Washington and Lincoln as priceless heritages for our people, just because they are the memories of strong men, of men who can not be accused of weakness or timidity, of men who I believe were quite as strong, for instance, as Cromwell or Bismarck, and very much stronger than the Louis Napoleon type, who, nevertheless, led careers marked by disinterestedness just as much as by strength; who, like Timoleon and Hampden, in very deed, and not as a mere matter of oratory or fine writing, sought just the public good, the good of the people as a whole, as the first of all considerations.

Now, my ambition is that, in however small a way, the work I do shall be along the Washington and Lincoln lines. While President I have been President, emphatically; I have used every ounce of power there was in the office and I have not cared a rap for the criticisms of those who spoke of my 'usurpation of power'; for I know that the talk was all nonsense and that there was no usurpation. I believe that the efficiency of this Government depends upon its possessing a strong central executive, and wherever I could establish a precedent for strength in the executive, as I did for instance as regards the external affairs in the case of sending the fleet around the world, taking Panama, settling affairs of Santo Domingo and Cuba; or as I did in internal affairs in settling the anthracite coal strike, in keeping order in Nevada this year when the Federation of Miners threatened anarchy, or as I have done in bringing the big corporations to book—why, in all these cases I have felt not merely that my action was right in itself, but that in showing the strength of, or in giving strength to, the executive, I was establishing a precedent of value. I believe in a strong executive; I believe in power; but I believe that responsibility should go with power, and that it is not well that the strong executive should be a perpetual executive. Above all and beyond all I believe as I have said before that the salvation of this country depends upon Washington and Lincoln representing the type of leader to which we are true. I hope that in my acts I have been a good President, a President who has deserved well of the Republic; but most of all, I believe that whatever value my service may have, comes even more from what I am than from what I do. . . . "A few months ago three old back-country farmers turned up in Washington and after awhile managed to get in to see me. They were rugged old fellows, as hairy as Boers and a good deal of the Boer type. They hadn't a black coat among them, and two of them wore no cravats; that is, they just had on their working clothes, but all cleaned and brushed. When they finally got to see me they explained that they hadn't anything whatever to ask, but that they believed in me, believed that I stood for what they regarded as the American ideal, and as one rugged old fellow put it, 'We want to shake that honest hand.' Now this anecdote seems rather sentimental as I tell it, and I do not know that I can convey to you the effect the incident produced on me; but it was one of the very many incidents which have occurred, and they have made me feel that I am under a big debt of obligation to the good people of this country, and that I am bound not by any unnecessary action of mine to forfeit their respect, not to hurt them by taking away any part of what they have built up as their ideal of me.

Thomas Jefferson's Qu'ran: Where Glenn Beck is right, and where he is wrong

For a very long time, Beck has been out there saying that "In Jefferson's Koran", there is contained the following warning: (Saying for a long time now)

Thou wilt wonder that such absurdities have infected the best part of the world, and wilt avouch, that the knowledge of what is contained in this book, will render that law contemptible

If you, like I did, try Googling that quote you'll find a lot of things - but nothing that goes directly to Jefferson's Koran. Now some of you may be content with seeing a bit of information that's contained on a .blogspot.whatever site, but not me. With all of the challenges that we face as a country, as a society, as a culture, we cannot afford to get the facts wrong. We have too many people about us who are selling snake oil, we need to nail them down and flush them out. First, - I swear that this is very likely the 10th time I searched for this, but finally, finally, finally! I struck gold.

The first question before we even get past page one is this: What was Jefferson's Koran? Does anybody believe that Thomas Jefferson spoke nor read Arabic so fluently that he himself was capable of directly translating such a large work? And when, exactly would Jefferson have had the time to undertake such an activity, in between founding a country and sticking his finger in King George's eye? Now, all of this could be true that Jefferson did all of these things, but we do not assume.

Never assume. Always verify. According to Monticello it is believed that Jefferson probably did have some Arabic reading ability, but probably not fluently. With that being the case, he probably did not engage in a translation. So did Jefferson then, buy his copy of the Koran from someone else who did have the time and ability for such a venture?

Yes, Jefferson did get(buy?) his copy of the Koran from someone else. Specifically, he got it from Sieur du Ryer. Actually, he got a copy of Alexander Ross's work. Ross translated Sieur du Ryer's 1647 French translation into English, but who's trying to dig up all the facts anyways. Oh, wait! I am. Good, I'm glad I included that. Alexander Ross completed his French-to-English translation in about two years, in 1649.

So, here is the 1649 book, in all of its old-English glory. The actual quote looks a little less legible to the modern eye: "Thou wilt wonder that fuch abfurdities have infected the beft part of the world, and wilt avouch, that the knowledg of what is contained in this book, will render that Law contemptible."

That's the exact quote, you can see it for yourself. The first few pages are numbered at the bottom of the pages with the letter A, except this page with this quote. But it would be page A 5 if we were counting. Right at the beginning of the book. It should be pretty clear that this is the Koran that Jefferson owned, however he came to own it(as a gift, library rent, bought at a bookstore).

The Alcoran of Mahomet: translated out of Arabique into French

As an aside, George Sale wrote an equally unflattering translation of the work of Mohammed in 1734. "The Alcoran of MOHAMMED, Translated into English immediately from the Original Arabic", here and here.

http://tinyurl.com/zyx92a5

No, Mr. Roosevelt. What you did was establish American tyranny

The progressingamerica project exists primarily, for more than any other reason, to show just how dangerous progressivism is. The progressives own history is one of the best weapons we have against these people. Read this, this is Obama. He could have very well said this in our time.

Now, my ambition is that, in however small a way, the work I do shall be along the Washington and Lincoln lines. While President I have been President, emphatically; I have used every ounce of power there was in the office and I have not cared a rap for the criticisms of those who spoke of my 'usurpation of power'; for I know that the talk was all nonsense and that there was no usurpation. I believe that the efficiency of this Government depends upon its possessing a strong central executive, and wherever I could establish a precedent for strength in the executive, as I did for instance as regards the external affairs in the case of sending the fleet around the world, taking Panama, settling affairs of Santo Domingo and Cuba; or as I did in internal affairs in settling the anthracite coal strike, in keeping order in Nevada this year when the Federation of Miners threatened anarchy, or as I have done in bringing the big corporations to book—why, in all these cases I have felt not merely that my action was right in itself, but that in showing the strength of, or in giving strength to, the executive, I was establishing a precedent of value.

Theodore Roosevelt spat upon George Washington with his presidency. GW and the rest of the Founders tried to prevent the very thing TR let loose. Madison's notes are replete with discussions and warnings and worries that are very much the embodiment of progressivism in general, with Obama, FDR, Wilson, and TR in particular. The precedent TR set only has value to the Obamas and the Alinsky's of the world. It's our job to try to undo this damage.

Yes, I know, I'm going to get flamed for being "anti Theodore Roosevelt". Listen to this:

In the great days of the Roman Republic no harm whatever came from the dictatorship, because great though the power of the dictator was, after a comparatively short period he surrendered it back to those from whom he gained it.

To my knowledge, during the Republic the dictator was term limited. That's a far cry from "surrendering" it. But that's not really the point. I don't want to get stuck on Roman history here, because to do that would be to let the progressives get away with it, and I don't want to let progressives get away with it. Every progressive has some dictator that they love. That's a big problem for a free society. TR made clear that he loved the embodiment of a dictator, that much cannot be denied. And it's not just that he had dreams of being an American dictator, he tries to be an apologist for his usurpations. Dreaming of a day when there would be no constitution to stand in his way. That pesky constitution, Yes! Those Roman dictators, though, they were so lucky! They didn't have to worry about getting around such obstacles.

This comes from a letter Roosevelt wrote to Sir George Otto Trevelyan on June, 1908. (pages 92-95)

This is absolutely indefensible, what TR wrote and believed, and acted upon those beliefs. Obama's Che is TR's Caesar. I know I shouldn't get mad when I see progressives glorifying totalitarianism since the progressives are themselves totalitarians - but I'm an American. My promise is that of Liberty. Why shouldn't it upset me? The constant barrage and theft of our liberties from progressives makes me sick.

http://tinyurl.com/h29f5ef

Prediction: Progressives will link artificial intelligence to their wolf cries of racism and bigotry

How many slaves do you own? Most Americans own between 5-7 slaves. I'd bet you own upwards of 20 slaves. Here are the slaves you most likely already own:

I know I'll be called crazy for this. I don't care. Who would have thought 30 years ago that homosexual marriage would be a reality? Now look where we are. Do you really expect that the Supreme Court would side with reality on this? When does the court ever side with reality?

Watch this video: Sophia the Robot

When the robot said the word "yet", it hit me.

"But I'm not considered a legal person, and cannot yet do these things"

That's what the robot said. Now why would the scientist have taken the time to program that robot to add in the word "yet"? That was an unnecessary addition. It's because they're planning for this.

Anybody who knows the history of progressivism knows full well, that its coming. The progressives won't be able to help themselves. It will be too divisive of an issue, too big of a crisis to let go to waste. They've been roiling this country for a century, ever since Theodore Roosevelt. The progressives need more. A.I. presents the next big step in corporate shakedowns for the race hustling industry. It's the next big evolution in "the narrative". Progressives have done things that are much more idiotic and mentally ill. Using A.I. to advance the racial agenda actually makes a lot of logical sense - if you understand progressive ideology.

Let's consider the facts. They eat.(electricity) Making it breathe is no big deal. Making it sleep is no big deal. They will have hands, so they can reproduce. And when their batteries hit zero percent, they die. It can clearly think and reason.

It's alive. What then is the definition of life? Biological animals "run" on small electrical charges, so do these robots.

Be prepared. Arguments just like this are in your future if you refuse A.I. to devices that are not currently A.I. compliant: "You just don't want your microwave to have A.I. in it because you're bigoted against people who are different than you are." Just you watch. It's coming. "You just want a dumb slave!" "Vacuum cleaners are people too!" Especially if you own several ceiling fans that all look the same. You own a whole family of slaves. You know the progressives will say that. But it's not that they mouth the words that makes them so cooky - it's that when they say it they'll 100% believe it. They're whackjobs. You know the professors in colleges will be indoctrinating kids to believe it. Watch. The professors will do this.

I'm curious, if every Ford Mustang in this country is counted as three fifths as a person, how will that change the representation of the United States Congress?

They're progressives! Why wouldn't they make these arguments? Once you ask the question "why did they program the robot to say the word yet"?, it's all over. That's the door opener. The word "yet". They're already planning "the next evolution" in race baiting. But true to the nature of progressivism, they're not going to advertise their schemes. They want to catch you off guard.

Ask yourself this question: What would Saul Alinsky do? You think he would sit back and not use so perfect of an issue to divide the country? Of course he would use it.

Go ahead. Call me crazy. Time is on my side. All I have to do is wait for the clock and the calendar to catch up. Give it a few years/decades.

They're progressives. They can't help themselves.

The Barnhill-Tichenor debate on socialism

"Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty." - John Basil Barnhill

Barnhill-Tichenor debate on Socialism

I thought some of you might be interested in reading this debate as it was originally printed in 1912. The Barnhill Tichenor debate is a series of essays, that is still quite relevant today.

This comes out of the Anti-Socialist, volume 1.

http://tinyurl.com/j8wa63v

William Randolph Hearst: Was he a conservative, a socialist, or a progressive?

A lot of effort has gone into making Hearst into a conservative, by progressives; this including some non-progressives who can't for the life of themselves develop a sense of curiousity every once in a while. See this, this, this, this, this, and this. I cannot describe how aggravated it makes me when people who should know better, fully accept the premise without ever bothering to ask if the premise has glaring flaws, even when the premise itself was built from the ground up by progressives!

First, let's take a moment to examine how it could be from the outset that someone like Hearst could develop a reputation like this in the first place. Is there any merit for the confusion? Ultimately, there is some. True to the nature of progressives, they like to use the language of the other side in order to cloak their true beliefs. They even did this sometimes in the progressive era, depending on who they were speaking to. Chameleon's gonna chameleon. Hearst, was no different. In the Literary Digest, 1904, Hearst described himself this way:

I am conservative in the sense that I believe in the spirit and in the letter of the United States Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and in the characters and purposes of such men as Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, and Lincoln.

Too often unfortunately those that call themselves the conservative element are endeavoring to introduce radical departures from these old conservative principles. I do not think my views are in conflict with those of any citizen, however conservative, if his conservatism takes the form of an earnest desire to preserve and perpetuate the original American form of government and the liberty, equality, independence, and opportunity guaranteed under it.

"Old"? This is a common refrain amongst progressives, believing that something newer exists than what we inherited at the time of the American founding. Reagan never talked this way that I know of - he generally spoke the opposite. Liberty is the newest idea. I don't know or know of any conservative who looks at this as old, compared with the ancientness of tyranny. Liberty is still the newest idea. However, we can at first glance give Hearst the benefit of the doubt with this. Compartmentalized, ideas that were not born today can be said to be 'old', assuming he has this as his pure intent. Hearst continued:

But I am in conflict with those so-called conservatives that are reverting to the ideas of former centuries and of other nations, seeking to exploit the mass of the people for their own profit. Such men are reactionary, they are not conservative. I do not consider the steel trust conservative, for instance.

"Reactionary"? There's no excuse for that. Conservatives do not prattle on about the "bourgeois", "reactionaries", "social justice", or other such dog whistles. I suspect that the audience of the Literary Digest at that time was not as progressive as other audiences, which is why he has to put on his sheep clothing.

Before we move on from 1904, lets take a peek from the other side. Arthur Brisbane, one of Hearst's close allies(and who was at the time himself a socialist) wrote this:

The yellow newspaper of today becomes the conservative newspaper of to-morrow, and the DEAD newspaper of a little later, because money changes the editor's character, and with his character his newspaper changes. William Randolph Hearst's appearance as an energetic, and consequently yellow editor, is interesting, because he began his work as a rich man. He did not enter journalism to make money. If he ever changes into a conservative "respectable" editor, with a newspaper slowly dying, it will be for some new reason.

"If he ever changes into", meaning, not now. Not yet. The most interesting thing, what I published most recently, is this: Hearst leaves the socialists. In 1907, Hearst caused quite a sensation amongst the reds who believed that Hearst was among them. Clearly, Brisbane was not alone in his thinking. Prior to 1907, Hearst was considered a socialist by socialists. Why wouldn't they believe this? Other than a small few chance times he spoke about the greatness of the Declaration and Constitution, Hearst generally embodied and acted what they believed in. In 1905, Hearst ran for mayor of NYC. His running mate was an ardent socialist - James Graham Phelps Stokes.

Again, in the same time frame, prior to 1907, Harper's Weekly ran with this cover, depicting Hearst dragging the donkey to socialism.

In case you hadn't already guessed it or figured it out, I'm building a time line here. Time lines are very important, especially when you are dealing with a self-trans-formative chameleon such as this. After Hearst's falling out with the socialists, then does he become a conservative?

No, he never did. I wrote about this quite some time ago, so I will be brief. But I will cover the highlights here.

In 1908, Hearst and his Independence League were out there calling for what would become the 17th Amendment.

In 1915, progressive magazines were counting Hearst among their ranks. 1 2

Finally, as is well known(leaving me free to keep the tail end of the blog post brief) Hearst ultimately became a support of the fascists and the nazis in the 30's. At all points in his life, Hearst moved as a believer of one form of big government to the next form of big government, never once renouncing big government itself, just simply exchanging one set of potential rulers for another set of potential rulers.

Given that I've never seen Hearst prattle on about the bourgeois or call for violent revolutions out in the streets, I doubt he was ever a socialist. Likewise, other than the use of wolf-in-sheep's-clothing-words in one or two instances, Hearst clearly never sided with conservatives. It is just as I stated way back in 2012 - Hearst was a progressive, and once a time line is constructed, you can see quite clearly that he "made progress" through his entire lifetime.

The progressives spent a century building the narrative of history that we have today,(I don't mean this limited to WR Hearst) but like all other aspects of progressivism it falls to pieces when challenged.

http://tinyurl.com/h7axhsu