Since our Democrat visitors are gloating over their supposed success in tarring Donald Trump as this villain, that villain, and every other kind of villain, it only seems fair to give them an equal opportunity to sing the praises and accomplishments of their wonderful candidate.

Here we have a report on one of the more immediate results of that famed “Arab Spring” that Hillary Clinton and her then boss, President Barack Obama, promoted as a great harbinger of change in the Middle. And what a change it was!

I apologize. Some of the links don’t work anymore. As H. Clinton is wont to say, this is old news. It just part of her record, after all.

Fortunately, this post, https://citizentom.com/2012/09/22/the-liberal-democrat-partys-collapsing-middle-east/, still contains a link to “The Anti-Anti-Islam Film TV Ad By US in Pakistan Repudiating Film”.

Don’t you remember? Were you not thrilled when H. Clinton and our president blamed the attack on our embassy in Benghazi, Libya on an unknown video.

This is one for the history books folks. Make certain you see that short, tiny, one-minute video. When the first Tuesday in November 2016 comes, you will be in just the right mood to vote for H. Clinton.

Citizen Tom

newsBecause I see little reason to fund a newspaper not fit to wrap and bury fish waste, I don’t read The New York Times. Unfortunately, others do, and some of those others will believe something just because it is in a “prestigious” newspaper. Therefore, other news outlets often repeat or comment on the content of The New York Times.

So what is the The New York Times latest big story?

On Sunday, The New York Times printed a comprehensive, no-nonsense article beginning on the front page under the headline: “Deadly Mix in Benghazi: False Allies, Crude Video — Interviews Show Militia and Insults to Islam Fed Attack — No Qaeda Link Seen.” The author is David D. Kirkpatrick, one of the best journalists we have, and the article was the result of “months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi…

View original post 539 more words


freedomconscienceWhen John Locke wrote a A Letter Concerning Toleration, it is doubtful that he thought he was writing one of the formative documents of our republic. In the life of a man, 1689 is a long way from 1776. What concerned Locke was the strife between Christians, Jews, Muslims, and even Pagans.

Was Locke some kind of perfectly tolerant, saintly soul? Not exactly.

Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of a toleration. As for other practical opinions, though not absolutely free from all error, if they do not tend to establish domination over others, or civil impunity to the Church in which they are taught, there can be no reason why they should not be tolerated. (from here)

Locke drew the line at Atheists. Nevertheless, Locke’s letter helped to establish an important principle. Here is the meat of it.

It is the duty of the civil magistrate, by the impartial execution of equal laws, to secure unto all the people in general and to every one of his subjects in particular the just possession of these things belonging to this life. If anyone presume to violate the laws of public justice and equity, established for the preservation of those things, his presumption is to be checked by the fear of punishment, consisting of the deprivation or diminution of those civil interests, or goods, which otherwise he might and ought to enjoy. But seeing no man does willingly suffer himself to be punished by the deprivation of any part of his goods, and much less of his liberty or life, therefore, is the magistrate armed with the force and strength of all his subjects, in order to the punishment of those that violate any other man’s rights. (from here)

Locke believed that government does not exist to tell us what to believe. He argued that government doesn’t exist to force others to share our beliefs. Government just exists to protect us from each other. That’s because we constantly fight over everything. Instead of being satisfied with what we have, we covet what others have, and we insist that others affirm us by believing what we believe.

Consider how difficult it is for us even to define a religion. For example, one of the major complaints about Democratic Party’s leadership is that they refuse to properly define the terrorist threat. Thus in his editorial, Calling Islamist terrorism by its name, Bruce M. Lawlor makes this observation.

The fiction that terrorists are not Muslims is one reason why more Muslim leaders haven’t spoken out to condemn the violence, and to discredit the religious beliefs that motivated it. Turkey’s head of religious affairs recently used the president’s logic to counsel American Muslims against condemning terrorists violence because “We all know that all the crimes that are committed against humanity can never find any justification in Islam,” So despite the fact that terrorists call themselves Muslims, and Allahu Akbar is their war cry, many Muslim leaders remain silent, victims of the same political correctness that prevents people from reporting suspicious activities. The illogic of this is furthered by the chant that only Muslims can talk about reforming Islam. Apparently, if there is to be a discussion about whether Islam permits the killing of non-believers, non-believers shouldn’t be allowed to have a seat at the table. (from here)

What is ironic is that Lawlor goes on to make this statement.

Rather than deny their existence, it would be better to acknowledge that Islamist terrorists believe they are following true Islam, and then discredit their beliefs, and distinguish them from the religion’s peaceful adherents. In short, we should attack their ideological justification, isolate them from other Muslims, and then destroy them piecemeal. It is divide and conquer, a concept as old as conflict itself. (from here)

Our government officials are going to tell Muslims what their religion is and is not? Is that not our complaint against Obama? He refuses to admit that terrorists, who call themselves Muslims, are Muslims?

Deciding what is Islamic and what is not Islamic is not our president’s job. Whose job is it? Consider what Locke observed.

And, first, I hold that no church is bound, by the duty of toleration, to retain any such person in her bosom as, after admonition, continues obstinately to offend against the laws of the society. For, these being the condition of communion and the bond of the society, if the breach of them were permitted without any animadversion the society would immediately be thereby dissolved. But, nevertheless, in all such cases care is to be taken that the sentence of excommunication, and the execution thereof, carry with it no rough usage of word or action whereby the ejected person may any wise be damnified in body or estate. For all force (as has often been said) belongs only to the magistrate, nor ought any private persons at any time to use force, unless it be in self-defence against unjust violence. Excommunication neither does, nor can, deprive the excommunicated person of any of those civil goods that he formerly possessed. All those things belong to the civil government and are under the magistrate’s protection. The whole force of excommunication consists only in this: that, the resolution of the society in that respect being declared, the union that was between the body and some member comes thereby to be dissolved; and, that relation ceasing, the participation of some certain things which the society communicated to its members, and unto which no man has any civil right, comes also to cease. For there is no civil injury done unto the excommunicated person by the church minister’s refusing him that bread and wine, in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, which was not bought with his but other men’s money. (from here)

Our government has a complex task, protecting us from each other. We don’t need to complicate by involving it in our religious disputes. The terrorists call themselves Muslims. They claim to risk their lives and die in Allah’s cause. Rightly or wrongly, that is their proclaimed doctrine. Are they wrong? Then it is up to other Muslims to show that is true, not President Bush, President Obama, or any other American president. Our government’s job is just to identify the threat, organization and  doctrine, and destroy it.


The_covetous_and_avaricious_VillainHere is another post on bigotry for Tony (last comment here) and other big government Democrats.

What I want everyone to do is consider how he responded to a comment of mine. First he quoted me and then he responded.

“Consider yourself. You can easily and enthusiastically attack your own countrymen as the most horrible bigots. Why? It appears to be just because they do not belong to a particular political party (i.e., they don’t belong to the party of your choice).”

I thought we were over this. We are ALL bigots. It’s facing our bigotries that I was talking about. Pointing out that Trump’s appeal is to our worst bigotries is only dishonest if it is not true and I knew it were not true. I pointed to several Trumpisms that are blatantly bigoted. They are I fact the definition of bigotry. I can find you many more if you like. Tell me how what’s obvious is not true? (from here)

Think about the fact Tony said we are ALL bigots. As Democrat, Tony cannot deny that being a bigot is awful thing. If you read his comments, bigotry is in fact his biggest charge against Donald Trump. Is Trump a bigot? Sure he is. I just think Hillary Clinton is a worst bigot and that she belongs in jail. Just consider two examples.

Anyway, Hillary Clinton is an unsavory character. What about Trump? Is he is as wildly bigoted as Tony claims? I don’t think so. I have been to his web site. I don’t like everything I see, but I don’t see much evidence of blatant bigotry. However, since we are all bigoted, I guess Trump bigoted too.

Why the accusations of bigotry against Trump? Well, Trump is campaigning to be our president. So he has to talk a lot, and the partisan news media is bigoted too. Therefore, many in the news media would love Trump to suffer the death of a thousand sound bites reported out of context.

Here is a press conference that Trump gave yesterday.

Journalists like those to be found NPR picked up one remark 13 minutes and 15 seconds into the press conference.

Since the press conference was quite interesting, it is worth listening to the whole thing, but don’t count on the news media to tell you that.

So what about the title of this post? What kind of government should we have? Well, given our tendency to make and believe outrageous accusations and nasty things about each other, we need a limited government. If we are ALL bigoted, who can we trust to run the government? No one. Therefore, we should not have anymore government than absolutely necessary.

What is among the worst abuses of government power? That is the power our government exercises to redistribute other people’s wealth.  The abuse of such power begins in covetousness. That’s a sin.

Exodus 20:17 New King James Version (NKJV)

17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”

When we desire what rightfully belongs to another, we justify our taking with hatred.