Goldwater 1964 speech Liberty

Republican Presidential Nomination
1964 Republican National Convention
Cow Palace, San Francisco

    From this moment, united and determined, we will go forward together, dedicated to the ultimate and undeniable greatness of the whole man. Together we will win.

    I accept your nomination with a deep sense of humility. I accept, too, the responsibility that goes with it, and I seek your continued help and your continued guidance. My fellow Republicans, our cause is too great for any man to feel worthy of it. Our task would be too great for any man, did he not have with him the heart and the hands of this great Republican party. And I promise you tonight that every fiber of my being is consecrated to our cause, that nothing shall be lacking from the struggle that can be brought to it by enthusiasm, by devotion, and plain hard work.

    In this world no person, no party can guarantee anything, but what we can do and what we shall do is to deserve victory, and victory will be ours. The good Lord raised this mighty Republic to be a home for the brave and to flourish as the land of the free-not to stagnate in the swampland of collectivism, not to cringe before the bully of communism.

    Now, my fellow Americans, the tide has been running against freedom. Our people have followed false prophets. We must, and we shall, return to proven ways-- not because they are old, but because they are true.

    We must, and we shall, set the tide running again in the cause of freedom. And this party, with its every action, every word, every breath, and every heartbeat, has but a single resolve, and that is freedom.

    Freedom made orderly for this nation by our constitutional government. Freedom under a government limited by laws of nature and of nature's God. Freedom balanced so that liberty lacking order will not become the slavery of the prison cell; balanced so that liberty lacking order will not become the license of the mob and of the jungle.

    Now, we Americans understand freedom; we have earned it, we have lived for it, and we have died for it. This nation and its people are freedom's models in a searching world. We can be freedom's missionaries in a doubting world.

    But, ladies and gentlemen, first we must renew freedom's mission in our own hearts and in our own homes.

 Goldwater 1964 U.S. Communism Left

"Your Children Will Be Communists" (1964) - Barry Goldwater Campaign Ad

 Mali Islam Mohammedans amputation barbarity

via Bare Naked Islam

Note: Apparently the video must be viewed on Youtube.

 Left Socialism violence war

R. J. Rummel May, 1988 ([1])

By the end of the eighteenth century a complete [classical] liberal theory of international relations, of war and peace, had ... developed... Peace was ... fundamentally a question of the establishment of democratic institutions throughout the world. [2]

SUMMARY

Are political systems related to collective violence and war? This is now fundamentally answered in one of three ways: yes, democracies are least violence prone; yes, socialist equalitarianism assures peace; and no, political systems and violence are unrelated.

Recent theoretical and empirical research confirms the first answer: those political systems that maximize and guarantee individual freedom (democracies) are least violence prone; those that maximize the subordination of all individual behavior to state control (totalitarian systems) the most, whether socialist or not; and wars do not occur between democracies.

Known for centuries, a tenet of classical liberalism, the pacific nature of democracy has became largely forgotten or ignored in the last half-century. That democracy is inherently peaceful is now probably believed by no more than a few prominent peace researchers. In part this has been due to the intellectual defection of Western intellectuals from classical liberalism to some variant of socialism, with its emphasis on the competitive violence and bellicosity of capitalist freedoms. Many intellectuals, and in particularly European and Third World peace researchers, have come to believe that socialist equalitarianism is the answer to violence; others, particularly American liberals, believe that if the socialist are wrong, then at least democracies are no better than other political systems in promoting peace.

Socialism aside, there also has been a rejection of Western values, of which individual freedom is prominent, and acceptance of some form of value-relativism (thus, no political system is better than any other). In some cases this rejection has turned to outright hostility and particularly anti-Americanism, and thus opposition to American values, such as freedom. To accept, therefore, that democratic freedom is inherently most peaceful, is to the value-relativist, to say the unacceptable_that it is better. For another, to accept that this freedom promotes non-violence seems to take sides in what is perceived as the global ideological struggle or power game between the United States and Soviet Union.

Independent of different ideological or philosophical perspectives, several interacting methodological errors have blinded intellectuals and peace researchers to the peacefulness of democracies. One of these is the strong, general tendency to see only national characteristics and overall behavior. Then a nation is rich or poor, powerful or weak, belligerent or pacific. But most important for identifying the relationship between freedom and violence is rather the similarities and differences between two states and their mutual behavior. Thus should be observed a lack of violence and war between democracies; and the most severe violence occurring between those nations with the least freedom.

Another error has been to selectively focus upon the major powers, which include among them not only several democracies having many wars, but also Great Britain having the most. However, a systematic comparison among all the belligerents and neutrals in wars, would uncover the greater peacefulness of democracies.

 Guns control racism Left

© 1993 Clayton E. Cramer

The historical record provides compelling evidence that racism underlies gun control laws -- and not in any subtle way. Throughout much of American history, gun control was openly stated as a method for keeping blacks and Hispanics "in their place," and to quiet the racial fears of whites. This paper is intended to provide a brief summary of this unholy alliance of gun control and racism, and to suggest that gun control laws should be regarded as "suspect ideas," analogous to the "suspect classifications" theory of discrimination already part of the American legal system.

Racist arms laws predate the establishment of the United States. Starting in 1751, the French Black Code required Louisiana colonists to stop any blacks, and if necessary, beat "any black carrying any potential weapon, such as a cane." If a black refused to stop on demand, and was on horseback, the colonist was authorized to "shoot to kill." [1] Slave possession of firearms was a necessity at times in a frontier society, yet laws continued to be passed in an attempt to prohibit slaves or free blacks from possessing firearms, except under very restrictively controlled conditions. [2] Similarly, in the sixteenth century the colony of New Spain, terrified of black slave revolts, prohibited all blacks, free and slave, from carrying arms. [3]

In the Haitian Revolution of the 1790s, the slave population successfully threw off their French masters, but the Revolution degenerated into a race war, aggravating existing fears in the French Louisiana colony, and among whites in the slave states of the United States. When the first U. S. official arrived in New Orleans in 1803 to take charge of this new American possession, the planters sought to have the existing free black militia disarmed, and otherwise exclude "free blacks from positions in which they were required to bear arms," including such non-military functions as slave-catching crews. The New Orleans city government also stopped whites from teaching fencing to free blacks, and then, when free blacks sought to teach fencing, similarly prohibited their efforts as well. [4]

It is not surprising that the first North American English colonies, then the states of the new republic, remained in dread fear of armed blacks, for slave revolts against slave owners often degenerated into less selective forms of racial warfare. The perception that free blacks were sympathetic to the plight of their enslaved brothers, and the dangerous example that "a Negro could be free" also caused the slave states to pass laws designed to disarm all blacks, both slave and free. Unlike the gun control laws passed after the Civil War, these antebellum statutes were for blacks alone. In Maryland, these prohibitions went so far as to prohibit free blacks from owning dogs without a license, and authorizing any white to kill an unlicensed dog owned by a free black, for fear that blacks would use dogs as weapons. Mississippi went further, and prohibited any ownership of a dog by a black person. [5]

Understandably, restrictions on slave possession of arms go back a very long way. While arms restrictions on free blacks predate it, these restrictions increased dramatically after Nat Turner's Rebellion in 1831, a revolt that caused the South to become increasingly irrational in its fears. [6] Virginia's response to Turner's Rebellion prohibited free blacks "to keep or carry any firelock of any kind, any military weapon, or any powder or lead..." The existing laws under which free blacks were occasionally licensed to possess or carry arms was also repealed, making arms possession completely illegal for free blacks. [7] But even before this action by the Virginia Legislature, in the aftermath of Turner's Rebellion, the discovery that a free black family possessed lead shot for use as scale weights, without powder or weapon in which to fire it, was considered sufficient reason for a frenzied mob to discuss summary execution of the owner. [8] The analogy to the current hysteria where mere possession of ammunition in some states without a firearms license may lead to jail time, should be obvious.

 Islam stealing permitted

The Ruling on Dispossessing the Disbelievers wealth in Dar al-Harb

Shaykh Anwar al-Awlaki

All praise is due to Allah and peace and blessings on his Messenger Muhammad (SAW).

Islam stipulates certain conditions for taking the wealth of the disbelievers. According to our classical scholars, it becomes permissible to take the disbelievers wealth for jihad-related purposes even if one is without an army or an Imam; and even within this there are restrictions. Due to the unfamiliarity of some on this subject, I felt the need to clarify this.

The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said, “I was sent before the hour with thesword, and my sustenance is under myspear, and humility and belittlementis the destiny of whoever defies mycommands.”[1]

This great ĥadīth reveals some important aspects about our religion:

    Muhammad (SAW) was sent with the sword: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) and the mujahidin after him carried the light of Islam to humanity by fighting in Allah's cause.

    The greatest form of income is that of the spoils of war and the greatest profession is being a soldier in the path of Allah. The income generated from booty taken by force from the enemies of Allah is purer and more virtuous than income generated from being a businessman, an engineer, a physician, or a farmer, simply because that was the source of income that Allah destined for his Messenger Muhammad (SAW). Working as a mujahid is sunnah.

    Eventually all the enemies of the Messenger of Allah (SAW) and his ummah would be shamed and humiliated.

It is narrated that some of the şaĥābah who moved to the land of al-Sham for jihad began acquiring farms and cultivating them. These were fertile lands with an abundance of water that they were not used to seeing in their native lands of Hijaz. When the khalīfah Umar heard that, he waited until harvest season and right before the şaĥābah started harvesting their land. He then ordered that they be burnt to the ground. He then assembled the şaĥābah and told them: "Farming is the role of the people of book. You should be fighting in the cause of Allah."[2]Umar did not want the şaĥābah to be tied down to this earth by professions that would hold them back from jihad in the path of Allah.

They wanted to be free from restrictions that would enslave them like the rest of humanity. The statement of Umar implies that the people who are attached to this life, the people of the book, should do this menial work. But you, the Muslims, should seek your provisions by the strength of your swords.
The Messenger of Allah (SAW) worked as a shepherd and then as a businessman before Islam. But after he received the revelation he gave that up and devoted his entire time to spreading the message of Islam. So contrary to what many people believe, Rasūlullāh (SAW)did not work after he became a prophet. When he made hijrah to Madinah his provisions were from the spoils of war.

Some Muslims today might feel uncomfortable consuming money that was seized by force from the disbelievers and would feel that income they receive as a salary or from business is a better form of income. That is not true. The best and purest form of income is booty. The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: "…and the spoils of warare made halal for me…"[3]