The Disney Channel Is No Longer Safe For Our Kids

Yes, children are always programmed to an extent in early childhood before the age of Reason, but it should be in the Natural family so they don’t have warped, irrational perceptions of reality, of male and female like in today’s irrational warped anti-science world where boys can be girls.

Children need both a loving mother and father so that all the Natural Duties can be performed as God designed the mind to grow in wisdom and knowledge and experiences. Children need NATURAL experiences where they learn to control their OWN emotions and what it is to be male and female which is true diversity-—not having programmers telling them what they have to “feel” and “think” which destroys the ability to think for self (like the snowflakes who are total ideologues-—totally programmed)..

Only Christianity created the idea of innocence in children so that free will could actually occur in their minds They need free play and free association and someone to read to them to give them the words for concepts —without language it is impossible to learn and “think” in abstract ways..

They embed cues about male/female, intrinsic nature of mankind in early childhood—the natural emotions (not fake ones created by forcing children into these artificially controlled environments which control all their actifitivities and what they can ‘think” about......which destroys free will and the mapping of the mind the way God intended. There could be no Daniel Boone or Lincoln or Jefferson in a programmed controlled tribal culture which is group-indoctrination only. Lincoln had in a loving household with extended family members and even a stepmother where they learn TRUE skills in self-sufficiency in REAL LIFE along with their myths of their past and ancestors so they understand who they are and have true self esteem. The Bible was the main if only book in the house. Without the stories/myths of the family and past culture, there is elimination of individualism (free will), creativity and wisdom of the ages. You grow from learning ideas of the past.

Tribal indians with a shaman and chief (rulers over a commune) are group-think factories where there is no concept of private property or individual minds-—group think is just a programmed mind incapable of thinking outside the programed box (ideology). There is no inventions, no creativity, no modern science in such controlled programmed cultures.

BTW, I have a book titled “The Life and Selected Writings of Jefferson” by Koch and Peden. I am a book collector and what you say about Jefferson and his “one” letter is an outrage and mischaracterization of him-—much like what was done his entire life. He admits that he can’t even say certain things in public because they are ALWAYS mischaracterized by the “press” or others, constantly trying to demonize him.

You are impugning his worldview which is incompatible with the radical “egalitarianism” of the godless: Proto-Marxists, Jacobins, postmodernists, Monarchists, etc. His equality was ONLY for under the law-—a TRUE “justice” system-—not one which forces unjust laws (unconstitutional ones, btw-—like sodomy rights or baby-killing rights which we have now-—an unconstitutional Vice System (like France adopted). All based on emotions—never the intellect and Objective Truth (God).

In his letter to Tench Coxe in 1794, he stated “...I cannot but hope that that triumph, and the consequent disgrace of the invading tyrants, is destined, in order of events, to kindle the wrath of the people of Europe against those who have dared to embroil them in such wickedness, and to bring at length, kings, nobles and priests to the scaffolds which they have been so long deluging with human blood. I am still warm when I think of those scoundrels, though I do it as seldom as I can, preferring indefinitely to contemplate the tranquil growth of my lucerne and potatoes. I have so completely withdrawn from these spectacles of usurpation and misrule, that I do not take a single newspaper, nor read one a month; and I feel myself infinitely the happier for it.”

"Your SO deluded and SO judgmental (which is SO unchristian)."

Well, I guess Jesus is "unchristian", then, considering he judged people by their sins, as did his father. He hated the Pharisees, for example. And he also made it very clear that anyone who doesn't seek redemption and seek him out will be cast into Hell. These were all in the New Testament, the Gospels even.

"You have NO idea what was in the Mind of Jefferson since YOU can’t even understand simple philosophy and psychology and that the word, Liberty, did not mean the same in France and America. Liberty to Jefferson meant ONE thing——individual freedom which encompasses all the Bill of Rights because of the Nature of man made in God’s image. Freedom (Natural Rights) predate ANY king or government. That is the basis of Jefferson’s mind and to deny that is a lie."

No, freedom did NOT predate kings or governments. Actually, as a matter of fact, freedom is what got us EXILED from the Garden of Eden in the first place. We with our "individualism" and seeking to determine things for ourselves ate from the Tree of Knowledge, that destroyed our relationship with God the father, and he threw us out in outrage over our actions. And also, Jefferson described, in great detail, what occurred within Bastille Day, even described his beheading. That alone should have given him pause regarding what the French Revolution actually entailed. I mean, for goodness sakes, even Morris Short, a disciple of Jefferson, almost similar to a son to him, saw what the French Revolution was like, and Jefferson disowned him for disagreeing with him.

"Words matter-—and evil people have been trying to control and destroy individualism for CENTURIES-—they LOVE collective, serf ideologies in which make the elites into gods/masters. That Jefferson KNEW what the difference was, is because he was a Lockean and Classical Thinker-—look at Monticello. He read all the Classical literature and unlike Rousseau and Voltaire understood it. He understood the basis of Christianity where there is ONLY one God and Objective Truth-—where contadiction never exists with Natural Laws or God’s Laws."

Locke actually wanted that kind of Serf ideology. Just read Liberty: The God that Failed, that made it clear. Or, better yet, just read this passage from the Distributivist Review:

"The social theory of Locke provided the framework for Rousseau’s The Social Contract, which in turn, also influenced Thomas Jefferson. Locke’s social theories flowed from their denial of substance and with his Unitarian “clockmaker god”, rubs out natural law just as it does metaphysics and the soul. As Ferrara notes,

"For Hobbes, natural law in the state of nature is not God’s law written on man’s heart, but merely “a precept, or general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving the same, and omit that by which he thinketh it may be best reserved.

"According to Hobbes, while God has decreed the laws of nature, man has no innate understanding of them, as is shown by varying human opinions over what the natural law requires. Hence, man must be guided solely by the decisions of the civil authorities… Hobbes then, is a legal positivist and a voluntarist: right and wrong are determined solely by the will of the legislator upon emergence from the state of nature, for ‘Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice.’ The doctrine seems shocking until we realize that it represents the juridical status quo of political modernity: the will of the majority trumps the objective moral order.1

"This would find its way into Locke’s thought, but slightly changed.

"A few decades later, the “cautious Locke, standing in Hobbe’s shadow, announces the same new doctrine but with far more prudent language, adding a fundamental development regarding private property…Locke’s doctrine is essentially the Hobbesian state of nature with an emphasis on private property as the primary means of defending the right to self-preservation. His description of the state of nature pleasingly presents it as one of “Peace, Good Will, Mutual Assistance, and Preservation”, with ‘Men living together according to reason, without a common Superior on Earth, with authority to judge between them’ only to concede – literally one page and one section later – that it inevitably devolves into Hobbe’s “State of War” on account of the “want of positive Laws and judge with Authority to appeal to…’ Man is born, says Lock with “a title to perfect Freedom, and an uncontrolled enjoyment of all the Rights and Privileges of uncertain and constantly exposed to the Invasion of others.’ The inevitable State of War ‘once begun, continues, with a right to the innocent party to destroy the other whenever he can, until the aggressor offers peace’. No matter what Locke’s apologists in academia labor to find by way of distinctions, Hobbes and Locke are essentially at one in their teaching on a state of nature that is really a state of war, giving rise to a “natural law” that is really a natural right to self-preservation by any means necessary. Like Hobbes, Locke declares in the state of nature ‘every man hath a right to punish the Offender, and be Executioner of the Law of nature’ which is none other than the right to self-preservation.2

"The false concept that the individual precedes society should sound familiar to followers of Lew Rockwell or Glenn Beck. For Hobbes and Locke, whose philosophy Ferrara dubs “Hobbe-Lockean”, man is essentially a brute, free from natural law in the Aristotelian tradition, and does what he wants, with his rights and morality originating from the state (which presupposes they can be taken away). Why is this important? Because this underpins the legal positivism that guided the formation, body and interpretation of the American Constitution."

And for the record, the citations provided are the following:

2.Christopher A. Ferra, Liberty, the God That Failed (Angelico Press, 2012), 57.
2.Ibid., 58-59.

"Jefferson is NOT a fool and knows the power of mob psychology-—as the Athenians knew that ignorant brainwashed masses will tear down everything and kill you. You act like he LED the French Revolutions which is FOLLY, since he was so involved with America and never ever lived in France until at that time. He did not understand the situation set up by the godless elites who wanted complete destruction of the Catholic Church (which was corrupted) but they didn’t have anything to replace it with except the hedonism of de Sade-—as the erection of the Temple of (not) Reason (just base instincts) where sodomy and orgies with children were the norm on the altar."

Who said Jefferson DIDN'T know the power of the mob? Of COURSE he knew the power of the mob. If anything, his knowing the power of the mob is EXACTLY the reason why he should be held in complete contempt for not stopping the Jacobins at the time. If he spoke out against their actions, cited their mob ways were NOT the American ways back then, I'd be a bit more respectful of him. But he wasn't, he hadn't, and if anything cheered them on. And I gave you PLENTY of sources, such as Catholicism.org, Distributivist Review, Boston Pamphlet, The American Catholic, and other places as well. Oh, and BTW, his view of liberty would have amounted to "The Papist God is a tyrant and must be destroyed", he didn't believe in the triune God, if anything he compared it to Cerberus.

"They mocked God and mocked Reason with mobocracy and satanism (hedonism) which was spurned by the Greek Masters and Classical Thought which created the Age of Reason and Modern Science and the minds of Newton and Pascal and Locke and Jefferson. You throw out philosophy-—which is delineated by Jefferson’s letters-—that yes, innocent people will ALWAYS die in ANY revolution—it is necessary for Freedom, for Freedom is NEVER Free. Never. And people give up their life for Freedom as Jefferson did in American and was almost caught and hanged-—but he WASN”T going to risk his life for France—why should he?"

Of course freedom is never free. We aren't in disagreement there. But we also aren't allowed to kill innocent civilians. Remember Crispus Attucks? When he died during the Revolutionary War due to throwing a snowball with rocks at the British? That would have been the perfect time for us to become like the Jacobins and just kill the British without a trial, engage in mob mentality and certainly spill innocent blood in other words. But instead, John Adams decided to try them in a court of law, used law and order instead of the mobs. We NEVER tried to kill innocent civilians, PERIOD, unlike the French Revolutionaries, who got OFF on killing innocent people. The only one TRULY against mob rule was John Adams. And besides, what makes you think that Locke WOULDN'T have supported it? And for the record, I would have risked my life if it meant correcting errors regarding liberty that I unintentionally peddled.

"The elites had total control and Jefferson had NO inkling of their EVIL ends because they lied to him and their warped view of liberty was inconceivable to a thinker like Jefferson."

John Adams accurately predicted what would occur in France with their actions, as that video showed. In fact, that's what led to the breaking of their friendship and becoming bitter rivals. Heck, Jefferson when recalling the events, as I provided in an earlier post, even specifically referred to the group that attacked Bastille as a mob. You'd have to be VERY naïve to think he didn't know what was going on.

"BTW, show me ANY culture that isn’t “ruled” by a few evil elites who think they are gods—like in America today. This was anathema to Jefferson and he agreed with the separation of power because power ALWAYS corrupts absolutely-—he also knew that truth as all Classical thinkers do."

Actually, that WASN'T an anathma to Jefferson. Heck, he actually LIVED like that when he became President. Some of his actions included, and I quote from The Distributivist Review:

"1. His call for the shooting of Tory counter-revolutionaries who should have been treated as prisoners of war, pursuant to a bill of attainder he himself drafted and pushed through the Virginia legislature.

"2. Jefferson’s support for the early Jacobin massacres as expressed in the “Adam and Eve” letter.

"3. His lifelong ownership of slaves, some of whom he had flogged for attempting to escape, and his continued slave trading while President.

"4. Endorsement of state law prosecutions for “seditious libel” against the President and Congress.

"5. His approval of an expedient and quite illegal “amendment” of the Constitution by the Republican-controlled House to expand the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” in order to facilitate the impeachment of his Federalist opponent, Judge Pickering, for drunkenness.

"6. Jefferson’s declaration that “where the laws become inadequate even to their own preservation… the universal resource is a dictator, or martial law.”

"7. His embargo of American shipping, including the federal seizure of ships and cargoes, without due process.

"8. His instigation of “treason” trials and his demand for the death penalty for American citizens who had merely attempted to recover their own property from federal agents.6"

And the citation is:

6. Ibid., 237-239.

Replace Jefferson with Obama, and you've pretty much got big government. Yes, Jefferson was a big government ogre, who pretty much viewed liberty as synonymous with basically running things like a god over your own reason.

“Conservative Sites are controlled by the dialectic as much as the leftist Marxist sites.

Your “faith” in it is also a problem, btw.

Like I say-—Jefferson was only human just like everyone else except he was brilliant and a genius as his architecture and writings prove. He made mistakes and misjudged some events, he admitted so himself and came to condemn the French Revolution when he understood what the elites were trying to do.
You are trying to “judge” as if you could read his mind and that is impossible and irrational—and very postmodernist and Marxist of you.”

I’m not trying to judge anything, the words of John Adams, Morris Short, heck, even Thomas Jefferson himself are MORE than enough to prove EXACTLY what he thought at that time.

And as far as Conservative sites, you DO realize that Conservatives are against Marx, right? We don’t support Marx’s views at all, and if anything we condemn him and all he stands for. And Conservapedia also stands for Christian principles which, again, is also antithetical to Marx, who if anything wanted it destroyed.

If I didn’t have faith in it, I’d have faith in absolutely nothing, especially when I have ZERO intention of siding with the Left.

Sorry, but that’s as much of a mistake as Bill Clinton’s adultery of Monica Lewinsky was an admission of him making a mistake. He just started avoiding the discussion like any politician did. And either way, him supporting the Jacobins even when most of his fellow founding fathers knew they were scum by the September Massacres shows it wasn’t a mistake. If I were in his position, I’d stop supporting them the very second I learned that the Jacobins beheaded the Bastille and paraded his head around precisely because I never recalled THAT happening in America, and if anything, I’d remember that, even with our revolting against England, we STILL did a court of law. Not even Morris Short informing Jefferson of what it’s like stopped him from supporting it, and that guy was like a son to him.

“Yes, children are always programmed to an extent in early childhood before the age of Reason, but it should be in the Natural family so they don’t have warped, irrational perceptions of reality, of male and female like in today’s irrational warped anti-science world where boys can be girls.”

I agree that the whole thing about gender confusion needs to be squelched, needs to be destroyed, that boys need to realize they are indeed boys and not girls.

“Children need both a loving mother and father so that all the Natural Duties can be performed as God designed the mind to grow in wisdom and knowledge and experiences. Children need NATURAL experiences where they learn to control their OWN emotions and what it is to be male and female which is true diversity-—not having programmers telling them what they have to “feel” and “think” which destroys the ability to think for self (like the snowflakes who are total ideologues-—totally programmed)..”

I also agree that parents need to teach the children stuff. However, God NEVER intended for us to grow in knowledge, experiences, and wisdom. That came about when we sinned against him and ate from the Tree of Knowledge, which, BTW, God FORBADE us from doing.

“Only Christianity created the idea of innocence in children so that free will could actually occur in their minds They need free play and free association and someone to read to them to give them the words for concepts —without language it is impossible to learn and “think” in abstract ways..”

Again, I agree largely with that.

“They embed cues about male/female, intrinsic nature of mankind in early childhood—the natural emotions (not fake ones created by forcing children into these artificially controlled environments which control all their actifitivities and what they can ‘think” about......which destroys free will and the mapping of the mind the way God intended. There could be no Daniel Boone or Lincoln or Jefferson in a programmed controlled tribal culture which is group-indoctrination only. Lincoln had in a loving household with extended family members and even a stepmother where they learn TRUE skills in self-sufficiency in REAL LIFE along with their myths of their past and ancestors so they understand who they are and have true self esteem. The Bible was the main if only book in the house. Without the stories/myths of the family and past culture, there is elimination of individualism (free will), creativity and wisdom of the ages. You grow from learning ideas of the past.”

Apparently, you’re forgetting that God himself WANTED collectivism, for humanity to be under HIS thumb, under HIS control, and anyone who even WANTS independence or to do their own thing would end up in a lake of fire as God is laughing at them failing to stop him. That’s also ultimately the reason why God had Jesus die on the Cross, so we’d be right back under HIS control.

“Tribal indians with a shaman and chief (rulers over a commune) are group-think factories where there is no concept of private property or individual minds-—group think is just a programmed mind incapable of thinking outside the programed box (ideology). There is no inventions, no creativity, no modern science in such controlled programmed cultures.”

When you have laws, you have collectivization, it’s that simple (since when you have laws, everyone is BOUND to obey them, hence collectivization). You want to know what TRUE individualism is? It would be you, or me, deciding that I’m or you’re the most important person in the universe, I or you don’t like having any rivals, so I’ll or you’ll kill everyone until there’s literally no one else besides me or you. Like that duel between Alexander Hamilton or Aaron Burr.

Yeah, well, Boston Pamphlet, American Catholic, Catholicism.org, the Distributivist Review, and AllThingsLiberty would disagree with you (and all of those are NOT Marxist, or proto-Marxist, for that matter). Let me remind you of Morris Short, the one man who definitely was so loyal to Jefferson that he considered him almost like a son. When even HE tried to expose what the Jacobins were like, Jefferson didn’t listen, and that was in 1793, the height of the Terror. That was in The Journal of the American Revolution, aka allthingsliberty. Someone who was dead-set on supporting them during the Reign of Terror does not deserve to be called “mistaken.” Washington? Sure, he may have supported Bastille due to lack of communication, but by the time of the September Massacres, he at least got enough information of what the French Revolution was truly like that he not only did not support the Jacobins, but even made a statement condemning the Freemasons that instigated the French Revolution.

And for the record, if God didn’t want a monarchy, he would have killed anyone who even DARED suggest that they give a monarchy, and then, in a tone clearly intended to intimidate any remaining supporters of creating a monarchy, demand to know if anyone else wanted a human king over himself. Yes, I see God ultimately as megalomaniacal and desiring total control over humanity even WITH his giving them free will.

Sorry, that was meant to be William Short, not Morris Short. But my point still stands.

And just in case you still don't believe me, here's the link, the letters, quotes from related sources, as well as the related footnotes:

https://allthingsliberty.com/2017/05/understanding-thomas-jeffersons-reactions-rise-jacobins/

With respect to their Government, we are under no call to express opinions, which might please or offend any party; and therefore it will be best to avoid them on all occasions, public or private. Could any circumstances require unavoidably such expressions, they would naturally be in conformity with the sentiments of the great mass of our countrymen, who having first, in modern times, taken the ground of Government founded on the will of the people, cannot but be delighted on seeing so distinguished and so esteemed a Nation arrive on the same ground, and plant their standard by our side.[5]

It accords with our principles to acknolege [sic] any government to be rightful which is formed by the will of the nation substantially declared. The late government was of this kind, and was accordingly acknoleged by all the branches of ours. So any alteration of it which shall be made by the will of the nation substantially declared, will doubtless be acknoleged in like manner. With such a government every kind of business may be done.[15]

If the mainspring of popular government in peacetime is virtue, amid revolution it is at the same time [both] virtue and terror: virtue, without which terror is fatal; terror, without which virtue is impotent. Terror is nothing but prompt, severe, inflexible justice; it is therefore an emanation of virtue … a consequence of the general principle of democracy … subdue liberty’s enemies by terror and you will be right, as founders of the Republic.[26]

In the struggle which was necessary, many guilty persons fell without the forms of trial, and with them some innocent. These I deplore as much as any body, and shall deplore some of them to the day of my death. But I deplore them as I should have done had they fallen in battle … The liberty of the whole earth was depending on the issue of the contest, and was ever such a prize won with so little innocent blood? My own affections have been deeply wounded by some of the martyrs to this cause, but rather than it should have failed, I would have seen half the earth desolated. Were there but an Adam and an Eve left in every country, and left free, it would be better than as it now is. I have expressed to you my sentiments because they are really those of 99 in an hundred of our citizens.[27]

[1] Thomas Jefferson, “To James Madison, March 15, 1789,” in Thomas Jefferson: Writings: Autobiography, Notes on the State of Virginia, Public and Private Papers, Addresses, Letters, ed. Merrill D. Peterson (New York: Library of America, 1984), 945.

[2] Thomas Jefferson, “To Le Comte Diodati, March 29, 1807,” in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson: Being His Autobiography, Correspondence, Reports, Messages, Addresses, and Other Writings, Official and Private, ed. H.A. Washington (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 62.

[3] Melanie Randolph Miller, Envoy to Terror: Gouverneur Morris and the French Revolution (Washington D.C.: Potomac Books, 2005), 26.

[4] Thomas Jefferson, “To Maria Cosway, July 25, 1789,” in The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 15, 27 March 1789 – 30 November 1789, ed. Julian P. Boyd (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958), 305–306.

*[5] Thomas Jefferson, “To Gouverneur Morris, January 23, 1792,” in The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 23, 1 January–31 May 1792, ed. Charles T. Cullen (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), 56.*

[6] Gouverneur Morris, “To Thomas Jefferson, April 6, 1792,” in The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 23, 382.

[7] Thomas Jefferson, “To William Short, January 23, 1792,” in ibid., 58.

[8] For example, Morris actively worked with constitutional monarchists to undermine the National Convention even while Jefferson ordered him to support it. Similarly, he privately sent sensitive diplomatic information to his friend Alexander Hamilton and to President Washington in an attempt to circumvent Jefferson’s authority. At the same time, Jefferson actively agitated against Morris’s appointment and actively petitioned Washington against his influence on policy regarding the Revolution.

[9] Thomas Jefferson, “Memoranda of Consultations with the President, [11 March–9 April 1792],” in The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 23, 260.

[10] Before his appointment, Morris had advised Louis XVI on the Constitution of 1791. He does briefly mention his participation in the royalist plot while minister to Jefferson through a veiled reference in his July 10, 1972 letter describing the plot as the King’s “New Career.”

[11] Gouverneur Morris, “To Alexander Hamilton, March 21, 1792,” in The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, vol. 11, February 1792 – June 1792, ed. Harold C. Syrett (New York: Columbia University Press, 1966), 162–163. Gouverneur Morris, “To George Washington, April 6, 1792,” in The Papers of George Washington, Presidential Series, vol. 10, 1 March 1792 – 15 August 1792, ed. Robert F. Haggard and Mark A. Mastromarino (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2002), 224.

[12] Gouverneur Morris, “To Thomas Jefferson, June 10, 1792,” in The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 24, 1 June–31 December 1792, ed. John Catanzariti (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), 52, 55.

[13] Gouverneur Morris, “To Thomas Jefferson, June 17, 1792,” in ibid., 93-94.

[14] Gouverneur Morris, “To Thomas Jefferson, August 16, 1792,” in ibid., 301. Gouverneur Morris, “To Thomas Jefferson, September 10th, 1792,” in ibid., 364. Gouverneur Morris, “To Thomas Jefferson, August 30, 1792,” in ibid., 332.

*[15] Thomas Jefferson, “To Gouverneur Morris, November 7, 1792,” in ibid., 593.*

[16] Thomas Jefferson, “To Gouverneur Morris, December 30, 1792,” in Thomas Jefferson: Writings, 1002. Importantly, there are reasons to believe Jefferson never actually sent the December 30 letter to Morris. No record of the letter exists in State Department files, while Jefferson sent a very similar letter to Thomas Pinckney, the Minister to Great Britain, on December 30 that is recorded. Similarly, Jefferson used nearly the exact same language in a March 13, 1793 letter to Morris.

[17] In fact, their last correspondence was a letter from Thomas Jefferson to Morris on October 3, 1793, with no further letters exchanged before Jefferson resigned his post in late December.

[18] Gouverneur Morris, “To George Washington, February 14, 1793,” in The Papers of George Washington, Presidential Series, vol. 12, 16 January 1793 – 31 May 1793, ed. Christine Sternberg Patrick and John C. Pinheiro (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2005) 142–143.

[19] Gouverneur Morris, “To George Washington, June 25, 1793,” in The Papers of George Washington, Presidential Series, vol. 13, 1 June 1793 – 31 August 1793, ed. Christine Sternberg Patrick and John C. Pinheiro (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2005) 146.

[20] There is reason to believe that Morris was already arriving at this conclusion independently following the upheaval of August 10, even before he received Jefferson’s November response. Consider his August 22, 1792 letter to Jefferson. He remained largely negative in tone lamenting Lafayette’s failure to contain the radical Jacobins and his subsequent fall from grace and exile: “He, as you will learn, encamped at Sedan and official Accounts of last Night inform us that he has taken Refuge with the Enemy. Thus his circle is compleated. He has spent his Fortune on a Revolution, and is now crush’d by the wheel which he put in Motion. He lasted longer than I expected.” Yet, he now seemed resigned to remaining in Paris, rather than fleeing himself, and accepting the new National Convention as the legitimate government of France, surely anticipating that these would be Jefferson’s instructions: “Going hence however would look like taking Part against the late Revolution and I am not only unauthoriz’d in this Respect but I am bound to suppose that if the great Majority of the Nation adhere to the new Form the United States will approve thereof because in the first Place we have no Right to prescribe to this Country the Government they shall adopt and next because the Basis of our own Constitution is the indefeasible Right of the People to establish it.” Gouverneur Morris, “To Thomas Jefferson, August 22, 1792,” in The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 24, 313–314.

[21] Thomas Jefferson, “To William S. Smith, November 13, 1787,” in Thomas Jefferson: Writings, 911.

[22] Thomas Jefferson, “To James Madison, June 29, 1792,” in The Papers of James Madison, vol. 14, 6 April 1791 – 16 March 1793, ed. Robert A. Rutland and Thomas A. Mason (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1983), 334.

[23] To further support this interpretation of Jefferson’s unwavering faith in the Revolution consider that he had embraced the Jacobins, even if he misunderstood who they actually were, just weeks after he praised their archrival Lafayette, and his long time personal friend, for “establishing the liberties of your country against a foreign enemy. May heaven favor your cause, and make you the channel thro’ which it may pour it’s favors. While you are exterminating the monster aristocracy, and pulling out the teeth and fangs of it’s associate monarchy.” Yet even after hearing of Lafayette’s exile from Morris and Jacobin despotism from both Short and Morris, his support for the Revolution only increased. Thomas Jefferson, “To Lafayette, June, 16, 1792,” in The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 24, 85.

[24] Thomas Jefferson, “To John Hollins, February, 19, 1809,” in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 428.

[25] William Short, “To Thomas Jefferson, August 24, 1792,” in The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 24, 322, 325. The “tribunal” Short mentions is a reference to the Revolutionary Tribunal set up by the National Convention in August 1792 at the encouragement of the Robespierre and the Paris Commune. Exactly as Short predicted, the Tribunal quickly became the main organ through which the Jacobins enacted the Reign of Terror, holding what were effectively show trials to justify the purging of royalists and moderates. At the height of the Terror, the Tribunal was entirely dominated by Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety, which used it to eliminate conservative (Girondins) and moderate (e.g. Danton) Jacobins and those considered too radical (e.g. Hébertists). Short’s invoking of the chambre ardente is likely a sarcastic reference to the religious courts of the Ancien Régime, where heretics, particularly Huguenots, were subjected to cruel punishments. The implication being that even the absolutist Bourbon regime the republicans deposed would be embarrassed by the new government’s despotic tendencies.

*[26] Maximilien Robespierre, “Report on the Principles of Political Morality,” in University of Chicago Readings in Western Civilization,Volume 7: The Old Regime and the French Revolution, ed. Keith M. Baker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 374-375.*

*[27] Thomas Jefferson, “To William Short, January 3, 1793,” in The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 25, 1 January–10 May 1793, ed. John Catanzariti (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), 14.*

[28] Annette Gordon-Reed and Peter Onuf, Most Blessed of the Patriarchs: Thomas Jefferson and the Empire of the Imagination (New York: Liveright, 2016), 193-194.

[29] Ibid, 15.

[30] An earlier articulation of this idea is evident in the aforementioned June 16, 1792 letter to Lafayette, where Jefferson celebrates French success while lamenting that in America there are “Eastward … champions for a king, lords, and commons,” and that “Too many of these stock jobbers and king-jobbers have come into our legislature, or rather too many of our legislature have become stock jobbers and king-jobbers.”

[31] For further support of this interpretation of his opinion of both Short and Morris see Jefferson’s March 23, 1793 letter to William Short where he wrote: “Be cautious in your letters to the Secretary of the treasury. He sacrifices you. On a late occasion when called on to explain before the Senate his proceedings relative to the loans in Europe, instead of extracting such passages of your letters as might relate to them, he gave in the originals in which I am told were strong expressions against the French republicans: and even gave in a correspondence between G. Morris and yourself which scarcely related to the loans at all, merely that a long letter of Morris’s might appear in which he argues as a democrat himself against you as an aristocrat.” Thomas Jefferson, “To William Short, March 23, 1793,” in The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 25, 436.

[32] Thomas Jefferson, “To John Trumbull, June 1, 1789,” in The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 15, 27 March 1789 – 30 November 1789, ed. Julian P. Boyd (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958), 164.

[33] Marie G. Kimball and Alexandre de Liancourt, “William Short, Jefferson’s Only ‘Son,’” North American Review 223, no. 832 (1926): 481.

Any citations between asterisks indicate the citations to the relevant quotes.

Your perceptions are warped. You must have been in public school indoctrination centers your whole childhood where psy-ops rotted your brain, as they used peer pressure to embed irrational emotions, so you can’t “think” period. The irrational emotions are embedded so truth and facts create cognitive dissonance in you.

I trust Jefferson’s Words ONLY-—not some other biased person’s “views” since they are biased-—by their very nature. Even if they are a spouse, there is no knowing his heart and soul except by what he writes and by his actual actions.

You don’t understand the Bible at all, esp. Jesus Christ. You really need some theology courses so you can understand the great love God has for all his Creation and how he made only human beings in his own image, with free will and creativity and the ability to use Reason.

Actually, I rejected the public school teaching and even my college teachings after sensing they were false, and in fact, come to think of it, I was getting an inkling that my public school teachers may have been trying to brainwash me (and besides, most of the time I was in school I was special needs, and I in fact actually was a rarity among my peers in that I reported EXACTLY what was being taught at school each day to my parents. Heck, in College, I even showed them recordings of my classes and asked them if they were accurate.), most of them anyways, a while back. The public school system, for example, sang praises for the French Revolution, at least up to the Reign of Terror. I see the French Revolution for EXACTLY what it really is, an event where a bunch of psychopaths decided to slaughter everyone and their neighbor for a sheer laugh. I already know that schools brainwash people. I lived it, and I ultimately rejected it and if anything want to see education DESTROYED due to seeing just how much of a brainwashing tool it truly is.

And BTW, 3/4 of the quotes I provided WERE from Jefferson’s own words, they literally came from correspondences between him and Morris and Short. How are they NOT from his own words, when they were letters written directly FROM him?

And I DO understand the Bible, ESPECIALLY Jesus Christ. I know he died for our sins, via his Father’s command, and I also know, and BELIEVE, more importantly, that he rose from the dead. And I also understand fully that God created us simply to control us, not out of love. If he truly had “love” for us, he’d go farther than simply have Jesus rise up in three days, he’d even go so far as to rip our free will out simply to ensure we don’t get separated from him again. Unconditional love = you drag someone who clearly doesn’t want to be with you with you to show you love them, whether they want it or not. And I also know that God is all knowing, meaning he KNEW, for example, that Sodom and Gomorrah could not be saved long before it was even BORN, and he LIED to Abraham (something which, BTW, is against the Ten Commandments). Had I been in God’s position, and I were truth incarnate, and all knowing, I wouldn’t even BOTHER entering a barter with him and thus give him the false hope that they could be redeemed. If anything, I’d shoot down his attempts before he even gets started, cite that other than his family none are innocent in Sodom and Gomorrah, mind-rape him, and then incinerate Sodom and Gomorrah. I also know, for example, that God ordered for Saul to commit genocide against the Malenkites or whatever they were called.

I might as well add as an addendum, if he truly loved us, he wouldn’t have forbade us from eating from the Tree of Knowledge in the first place. He initially WANTED us to not eat it at ALL, and if anything our being evicted from the Garden of Eden involved rebellion, free will, and his hatred of our doing so.

Milo Murphy’s Law and the late Phineas and Ferb are fine. A little “green” crap here and there, but I can’t see them being considered inappropriate for kids.

You might as well watch Milo Murphy’s Law from the same guys. They’re crossing over with P&F very soon. Weird Al voices Milo!

LOL. If Jim was charged by the word, this thread would require its own Freepathon.

Your heart is full of anger. You really do not understand the Bible at all. I advise you to study theology as I did. It clears up all the ambiguity—there is none if you can understand the actual theology. The Bible is perfect and brilliant and is the only worldview which could create the mind of a Tesla or Newton or Pascal. Throwing out the Bible, gives you Marx, a miserable, vile, angry man, and a Lenin (a syphilitic pathetic loser) and Stalin (psychopath to the extreme). Worldview matters. Jefferson loved Jesus Christ and knew him to be “sublime” and the perfect archetype and perfect virtue system to build a “culture” (as noted in his letter to Dr. Rush.) Jefferson couldn’t “think” like Robespierre or Rousseau or Voltaire. He was a Lockean which is what 80% of the Declaration exhibited.

Judging Jefferson not by the entirety of his massive correspondence is your problem where he states his worldview quite brilliantly-—he believes in individual natural rights only from the Christian God—never the State.

And you seem to not understand his very words, when he does write. You must not have understood the Socratic dialectic or the Aristotelian logic which is the basis of reason. Jefferson’s understanding of the words, Liberty and Equality, were not the “same” as the evil psychopaths in Europe who were seeking influential people’s backing—much like politicians do now. Do politicians lie? Was Jefferson lied to? Of course, he was. Was he deceived a little-—of course, he was. All of us are for a while, since we want to believe the best of other people.

The psychopaths (bankers/elites) were orchestrating the Revolution in France, the same bloody cabal/Freemasons would engineer and fund Lenin for a much larger multi-million genocide of Christians, just the same way they funded the French Revolution and later Hitler-—to engineer the killing and displacement of masses of Christians. To destroy Western Civilization, the godless cabal knew they had to destroy the Christian worldview in the masses-—so they got control of all the schools, destroyed the Natural family-—enslaved them so they would give up their children to the State to indoctrinate so free will is destroyed (thinking is impossible—feelings control the emotions-—collective minds).

Do google Fichte in 1810, his “snow is black” quote. It is what Common Core does in the public schools today. All of us are affected by the toxic culture we are now raised in....it is totally rotten and warps our perceptions. We have to UNLEARN EVERYTHING-—and realize that everything written after 1925 was forced through a Marxist lens which warps our understanding of the Founding Fathers, etc. because they need to collapse Western Civ to bring us all into total slavery. Schools today literally destroy the formation and mapping of the brain in children to make them into “bots, just regurgitating what they have been programmed and it is all warped Marxist cr*ppola.

End game: “transhumanism” of J. Huxley-—so that people are happy slaves “living” in this totally controlled system by a few psychopaths. They have controlled our information since before WWI, so they could get us into the war and get millions of Christians killed and genocided like in Armenia. Programming with lies and warped ‘truth” makes us so we can’t “think” and have “free will” and individualism which only came from the theology of Christianity and only existed in Christian cultures. So, as Neitzsche so gloriously proclaimed, “God is Dead” in Europe—as it certainly was in his time, and would soon be in America, so total slavery and massive suicide/nihilism could begin with the reign of the “progressives” (neo-Marxists) like culture icons, Margaret Sanger and Bernard Shaw and John M. Keynes, the sodomite, the godless who preached the Rousseauian “feel good, do it” morality of satan.

Yeah, I actually DO understand the bible. And in the bible, God specifically told us NOT to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, we disobeyed, bam, we got original sin for it, then God decided, especially after Cain murdered Abel, to flood the entire planet. And during the Old Testament, he also proceeded to force the Egyptians via plagues to release the Israelites, slaughtered any of them who built the Golden Calf, and also slaughtered Sodom and Gomorrah, even lying to Abraham by falsely giving him any indication that the town was redeemable. He also has Saul try to commit genocide against a certain group of people. God also forced his laws unto us, we must obey them, not just the Ten Commandments, but also the laws of Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers. And for Jesus, he was born via immaculate conception and the Virgin Mary, to die on the cross to save us from our sins, and he also constantly did miracles and even managed to subdue Satan during the 40 day fast. He also made it very clear, even in the New Testament, that sinners, ie, anyone against God, is not allowed into Heaven, but condemned. Yes, I’ve read and fully understood what the bible says. And for the record, you’re right about ONE thing, I AM full of anger, because of us Christians being slaughtered and ostracized by atheists in all their stripes, being targeted by them for extermination, and what’s worse is that God is doing absolutely nothing. My idea of God actually DOING something about it is him basically doing what he did in “Sinners at the Hands of an Angry God” and sadistically slaughtering the Atheists and dropping them into fire like spiders on a candle, or what he did during Sodom and Gomorrah.

As far as Jefferson, that guy gutted the entire bible by destroying ALL the elements that made Jesus Jesus, by making him just some sage instead of the Son of God with supernatural powers. He wasn’t just some wise individual. Did all of that with his “Jefferson Bible”, which even Protestants wouldn’t DARE try to do to their own scripture. Don’t believe me? Read these links:

*http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/06/27/jeffersons-jesus/

*http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/06/25/rewriting-jefferson/

*http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/04/11/fr-barron-eviscerates-dandy-andy/

Also, I AM familiar with Socratic dialectic, because I’ve taken an Ethics course, and besides which have watched Ethics in America which dealt with that exact argumentative style. And no, Jefferson clearly wasn’t engaging in that. He witnessed, first hand I should add, what the Parisian mobs were doing, which included gutting a prison warden and then parading his body parts across the street while drunk with sadism and blood. You don’t need to ask the Jacobin leaders what they were up to in order to realize they were up to no good and that it was NOTHING like what America did. Or are you now going to claim we paraded a British soldier’s head on a pike after killing him on the streets? I’d be more forgiving if he were in America at the time, especially when the other Founding Fathers at least had THAT excuse. But he didn’t, he was there on-sight, with plenty of concrete evidence of what’s actually going on, and what’s worse, he continued supporting them as late as 1793, even when most of his contemporaries stopped supporting them by the September Massacres in 1792 a year earlier due to getting a good idea of what it was actually like.

And just in case you claim you only want to read it from his own words, the first two links contain statements actually MADE in his own words on the matter.

Oh, give me a break. Your arrogance is unreal and totally irrational. No-one can truly understand the Bible-—that is why it has been argued over even before it was collected into the “Bible”. Even the brilliant scholars argued and created schisms about it for centuries.

You can’t understand Language-—meaning of worlds when you “think” that Jefferson had the same worldview as Voltaire and Rousseau. It is not possible at all...You can ONLY judge Jefferson by his worldview by analyzing ALL his work and words.

Give me a break. Jefferson only simplified the Bible and didn’t rewrite it to be a “bible” but created a work which could be used in all pubic forums without any contradictions to other Christians... to just the words (perfect) of Jesus Christ——that which no one disagreed with.

He wanted freedom from all the differing religion sects (WHO WAS CORRECT??????????HE DIDN”T KNOW) .. and create a curriculum that all schools could use which would not offend others. Franklin worked out that idea also-—so they could unify everyone (which was impossible—but they knew unity was important for the young nation).

Although someone like you is always offended by anything that differs from YOUR perceptions, Jefferson tried all his life to unify everyone—as much as possible, for the good and most perfect virtue system (Justice System). He did not endorse any one organized “church” but to be inclusive of all the Christian religions that existed in his time, other than the completely irrational ones like atheism. By the way, Jefferson was anti-Catholic to the extreme like most protestants. (I am Catholic, btw-—pre-VII and I understand what Jefferson was “thinking” so it doesn’t even offend me in the least. The Catholic Church condemned ALL protestants). There is only one Truth.

As I said-—Jefferson quit reading “newspapers” and publications IN HIS OWN TIME-—since they were filled with LIES and MISREPRESENTATIONS and BIAS-—which ALL things are if not from the DIRECT SOURCE!!!!

I agree with your righteous anger-—at the destruction of Christians by atheists (Marxists/postmodernists, etc) which is VERY REAL and ONGOING!!!!!!!!!!, but you shouldn’t be arguing against those who believed that freedom of religion was an ESSENTIAL part of being free and who was part of the idea that Natural Rights only come from God and never the State or man (an oligarchy). Rule of Law-—as Jefferson envisioned and wrote, is the ONLY way to create a free society if at all possible as Hobbs “knew” it was not.

“Oh, give me a break. Your arrogance is unreal and totally irrational. No-one can truly understand the Bible-—that is why it has been argued over even before it was collected into the “Bible”. Even the brilliant scholars argued and created schisms about it for centuries.”

I’m not being arrogant, and actually, people CAN truly understand the Bible. It wouldn’t even EXIST if no one could truly understand it, since the entire POINT of its existence is for God to give directions to us. That’s what God himself made VERY clear when he gave it to us, the inspired word of God. If I were God, I would NEVER have given it to them if no one could understand it.

“You can’t understand Language-—meaning of worlds when you “think” that Jefferson had the same worldview as Voltaire and Rousseau. It is not possible at all...You can ONLY judge Jefferson by his worldview by analyzing ALL his work and words.”

Analyzing all of his worldview and works also proves he’s a very contradictory man, actually. That much has been repeated by both defenders and critics of Jefferson. I gave you PLENTY of sources making this clear.

“Give me a break. Jefferson only simplified the Bible and didn’t rewrite it to be a “bible” but created a work which could be used in all pubic forums without any contradictions to other Christians... to just the words (perfect) of Jesus Christ——that which no one disagreed with.”

There was absolutely NO reason to completely gut out the divine elements of Jesus (and yes, Jesus being the Son of God is the most important element of him. We wouldn’t even call ourselves Christians if we didn’t acknowledge Jesus as lord, savior, and more importantly, God’s one and only son.). And for the record, that kind of thinking is EXACTLY what got Christianity watered down to this day, and why it’s considered weak right now.

“He wanted freedom from all the differing religion sects (WHO WAS CORRECT??????????HE DIDN”T KNOW) .. and create a curriculum that all schools could use which would not offend others. Franklin worked out that idea also-—so they could unify everyone (which was impossible—but they knew unity was important for the young nation).”

Actually, true freedom requires divisions, not unity, a constant battlefield. And trying to gut what made Christ Christ by completely gutting his divine and supernatural elements would have destroyed Christ as a character. Strip him of ALL of his divine aspects, and you might as well be worshipping Buddha. Besides, God didn’t want any religions other than his own, so he would have been AGAINST Freedom of or from religion. Do I really have to remind you of what happened when Solomon allowed for freedom of religion in Israel? That resulted in God orchestrating the Babylonian Exile in response.

“Although someone like you is always offended by anything that differs from YOUR perceptions, Jefferson tried all his life to unify everyone—as much as possible, for the good and most perfect virtue system (Justice System). He did not endorse any one organized “church” but to be inclusive of all the Christian religions that existed in his time, other than the completely irrational ones like atheism. By the way, Jefferson was anti-Catholic to the extreme like most protestants. (I am Catholic, btw-—pre-VII and I understand what Jefferson was “thinking” so it doesn’t even offend me in the least. The Catholic Church condemned ALL protestants). There is only one Truth.”

Sorry, but if I were to have true “freedom of religion”, no organized religion, I’d have every religion fight each other in a battlefield and slaughter each other simply because, hey, since they’re free, that also means they’re free to fight and kill each other for the sheer sake of it. Besides, like I said, God’s orchestration of the Babylonian Exile after Solomon allowed for freedom of religion makes VERY clear what his exact views on freedom of religion were. And for the record, God wanted Christianity to dominate the entire globe, and have an empire of which God alone was ruler. That’s the only reason we exist.

“As I said-—Jefferson quit reading “newspapers” and publications IN HIS OWN TIME-—since they were filled with LIES and MISREPRESENTATIONS and BIAS-—which ALL things are if not from the DIRECT SOURCE!!!!”

Yeah, I heard that, but I also know that he cheered for the French Revolution even when the first look he got of it in Bastille Day, when they were literally carrying the slaughtered guards as dismembered body parts in a parade should have been a very big hint that it was absolutely nothing like the French Revolution.

“I agree with your righteous anger-—at the destruction of Christians by atheists (Marxists/postmodernists, etc) which is VERY REAL and ONGOING!!!!!!!!!!, but you shouldn’t be arguing against those who believed that freedom of religion was an ESSENTIAL part of being free and who was part of the idea that Natural Rights only come from God and never the State or man (an oligarchy). Rule of Law-—as Jefferson envisioned and wrote, is the ONLY way to create a free society if at all possible as Hobbs “knew” it was not.”

Freedom of religion is EXACTLY why this whole crap exists, actually. Heck, for the third, maybe fourth time now, do I REALLY have to point out how the Babylonian Exile was created in direct response to Solomon legalizing freedom of religion for every religion besides Judaism? And for the record, I view God as being, a benevolent tyrant, but a tyrant nonetheless, one who only cares about his OWN dominion, and will gladly slaughter anyone who refuses him, just like he did in Sinners at the Hands of an Angry God, or the various times he did so in the Old Testament and even to a certain degree threatened people in the New Testament. And besides, why didn’t Jefferson speak out against the Jacobins when they committed their barbaric acts in Bastille Day, even when he witnessed them. Do I have to remind you, again, that what we did during our revolution NEVER amounted to what they did, meaning we never butchered the British when they weren’t fighting at all?