Search This Blog

06 December 2016

Sam Speaks: Islamic Terrorism at Ohio State


By Sam Frescoe
samfrescoe@gmail.com
http://samfrescoeproject.blogspot.com/
The Sam Frescoe Project
#SamFrescoe

#islam  #terrorism  #ohiostate  #ISIS  #radical  #evil
 
Welcome to this installment of Sam Speaks. Today, Sam Speaks is an opportunity to rebut stupidity. I am your host, Sam Frescoe. I’m glad you’re here!

--- WARNING ---
You are about to enter a “feelings endangerment zone” currently occupied by a liberated thinker that is a straight, white, God fearing, freedom loving, gun-toting expert marksman; an all American patriot. Be advised, it’s highly likely that the occupier of this space doesn’t care about your feelings in any way.
--- WARNING ---

Introduction

Imagine the scene…you are sitting in your favorite overstuffed chair, the back is ever-so-slightly reclined, your feet are up, and your shoes are off. It’s the American picture of total comfort. It’s just you, a cold beer, and the streaming video choices that YOU want to watch. Life is good. No! Life is outstanding.

Having been AT WORK all day to EARN A LIVING, you decide to get caught up on current events. To that end, you down half your beer, reset your backside into that perfectly formed set of divots, and select a news story; and then, it happens.

Stupidity enters the scene from above and below, from the left and right, and from all other directions. You are trapped! All you can do is shout in vain as your calm is infested with stupidity; and, not just your run-of-the-mill stupidity. Nope! It’s the full-stench, knuckle-dragger kind of stupidity. That’s right, it’s millennial-academic stupidity.

In all fairness, it should be noted that your beer always remained in the upright and secure position having never taken flight. Well done. Well done indeed.

Getting Started

As you may already know, on 28 Nov 2016, in Columbus, Ohio, individuals on the Ohio State campus were attacked with lethal intent by Abdul Razak Ali Artan[1] using a butcher knife he purchased earlier that day.[2] As a result, 11 people were wounded, and the attacker was killed by the Police first responder.

The attacker, Artan, left his native Somalia with his family in 2007. They arrived in the United States from Pakistan in 2014 as legal permanent residents and green card holders. Artan had just transferred from Columbus State this semester. [3]

On 29 Nov 2016, Fox News reported that investigators have found evidence that Artan was inspired by ISIS propaganda and likely “self-radicalized.”[4]

On 30 Nov 2016, the New York Times reported that investigators believe Artan may have been inspired by Anwar al-Awlaki, a Qaeda recruiter and propagandist, or by the Islamic State terrorist group.[5]

Framing

On 1 Dec 2016, Faith Goldy, a Rebel Media correspondent, posted a produced video titled “Ohio Students Can't Say ‘Terrorism’”. The purpose of this piece was to sample opinion of multiple individuals located on the Ohio State campus concerning the 28 Nov 2016 knife attack.

Sam Speaks

Now, it may be just me; but, it seems clear (at least to me) that the level of attempted-murder-by-butcher-knife-at-the-local-car-crash is violently out of proportion to the norm for the Ohio State campus.

Begin Transcript

Goldy >> I’m here at Ohio State University which has just become the setting of ISIS most recent terrorist attack on US soil. Committed by one Abdul Artan, a Somalian refugee. Now, it should be pointed out this terrorist attack comes just two months after another knife terrorist attack in Minnesota that was perpetrated by the son of Somalian refugees.  So, I figured we’d walk around campus and ask students if they are shaken up by recent events here in their own backyard or if the occasional terrorist attack is just a small price we have to pay for multiculturalism.

The phrase “terrorist attack on US soil” catches my eye. Normally I associate “terrorist attack” within a military context. For example, terrorist attacks are a way of terrorism. So, naturally, I opened by ready edition of “DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms” and located “terrorism.” As tailored to address the Ohio State scenario, “terrorism” is defined as the unlawful use of violence, often motivated by religious beliefs, to instill fear and coerce societies in pursuit of goals that are usually political.

Let’s test the scenario to estimate if “terrorism” applies.
Test-1: Was the incident violent? – Yes
Test-2: Was the incident unlawful? – Yes (Duh!)
Test-3: Was the attacker motivated by religious belief? – Yes
Test-4: Did the attacker intend to instill fear? – Duh! (Yes)
Test-5: Did the attacker have political goals? – Yes 

That’s five for five, folks.
With regard to the attack, I’m going with terrorism.

Goldy >> Do you feel safe on campus after the attack this week?
Male-1 >> Yep
Hang tight, folks. This young man could be a certified badass.
Goldy >> You do? Do you call it a terrorist attack?
Male-1 >> Depends on what your definition of terrorism is.
Disregard my last.
Goldy >> According to your definition.
Male-1 >> No
Really!?
Do you smell that? Do you know what that smell is?
Well let me tell you. It’s a heaping stack of DENIAL.

Goldy >> What would you call what happened terrorism?
Male-2 >> I don’t see, I don’t know what happened yet. I don’t know what it’s about, and I think we still have a lot to learn about the incident.
Clearly, this person is a pathological liar or a complete imbecile.
Goldy >> ISIS has claimed responsibility.
Male-2 >> I do realize that, but, that doesn’t always mean that’s what necessarily happened.
Nailed it!
I suppose it’s best to excuse the whole thing, right?
In the dictionary, under “knuckle-dragger”, it reads see him.

Goldy >> Would you call this terrorism?
Female-1 >> Um, I’m not sure. I’ve just been kind of like keeping updated with the news. Um. I’m not sure like if they’ve confirmed that or denied that.
Who are “they” and how long have “they” been running your life?
Goldy >> ISIS claimed responsibility.
Female-1 >> Yeah, so I don’t know.
You mean the ISIS connection is true?! WOW!
All this time I figured that you were simply ignoring the whole thing.
By the way, how do you know the ISIS connection is true?
Are “they” talking to you right now?
Perhaps at night…when you are all alone…alone in the dark?
 
Goldy >> Would call what happened terrorism?
Male-3 >> No, I wouldn’t. No, I would say it was a misunderstanding.
Oh, I get it. The knife-wielding-asshole that stepped out of the car he intentionally crashed was trying to say “hello” according to his native custom. I must admit that I did not know this.
Note to Self: Somalians on/near the Ohio State campus are likely to present themselves as knife-wielding murderers.
Goldly >> A misunderstanding? Why would say that?
Male-3 >> Because I think that person probably experienced a lot of racism; and, racism is a traumatic experience; and, I hope that people that look like him and who don’t look like me feel safe on campus too.
That’s it! Eureka! Case closed!
The knife-wielding murderer is actually a victim of traumatic racism. Brilliant! That excuses the whole thing.
FYI, Male-3, you have to be a racist to even think like that.

Goldy >> Do you think that it’s fair game to bring up his religion?
Female-2 >> I mean…I think that it’s kind of dangerous to bring up his religion. Because, like, yeah, he was a Muslim and that, but, like, that doesn’t mean that all Muslims are bad and we should be afraid of all of them.
Nonsense! The truth is that you are afraid of Muslims.
Point-1: It is a fact that the attacker was a Muslim.
Point-2: Why are you willing to excuse the evil motives of an evil actor because you are hoping that the Muslims you are afraid of are not “bad” people?

Goldy >> Do you think it’s fair game to bring up the man’s religion?
Male-4 >> I mean…I think it needs to be separate from the, the rest of what you’re looking at.
Hello! Terrorism!
Male-4 >> I think if it’s clear that it’s a terrorist attack, as far as how it was inspired, then I think you go off of that and not the religion.
You are the only one judging an entire faith, friend.

Male-2 >> I guess I would say you know, until we know more what role his religion played in the incident, if any, I think we can stay away from that.
Perfect, the liar is back.
Goldy >> Did you read his Facebook post right before committing the attack?
Male-2 >> Yeah. Yeah. I think they are ambiguous. I mean, you know, lots of people probably say those same sorts of things. Probably hundreds of thousands of people, and don’t do terrorist attacks. So I’m not sure that they’re related.
You know…maybe your right. There isn’t anything to see here. Let’s overlook the whole evil-motive, evil-intent, evil-act, evil-outcome thing. Really, the wounded students, heroic Police Officer, the family of the deceased, and the community at large should disregard that stuff.

Question…when are you going to tell them?

Goldy >> So, do you think that this is just the sort of thing that we are going to have to accept going forward. It’s just a price to pay for being a multicultural, diversity tolerant society?
Female-2 >> I mean, yeah, probably, like, when you’re accepting people all different, like, walks of life and different races and religions, like, some there are bad people.
You are correct (I’m being serious this time). Some people from different walks of life, races, and religions are bad people. This is a true statement (poorly crafted, but absolutely true).
Female-2 >> Sometimes people are bad, and, like it’s going to happen.
Oh…right…it happens…defective people turn to murder.
And all this time I thought attempted murder was both a choice and an absolute wrong, regardless of the circumstances.
Female-2 >> It’s not because one group is worse than another. It’s just because bad people exist.
So what are you saying?
Some people are born “bad” (defective)…oh well…it happens.
A question, if you are so willing to excuse the attacker (he was just a “bad” one), then how do you know that you are not from a “bad” (defective) lot yourself?
Goldy >> So you would say Islam is the same as any other religion?
Female-2 >> Yeah.
Wrong! Islam is not like any other religion. It’s uniquely identified as Islam for a reason.
Female-2 >> Like, there are radical Christians and just, any religion is gonna have extremists,…
Okay, I will pick up that gauntlet. Name five radical-Christian-knife-slashing attempted murderers in the United States today.
Female-2 >> …and, just because they’re Muslim doesn’t mean that, so, suddenly all Muslims are bad.
You said “they” (meaning plural, as in more than one); and, used “they” to associate Islam and religious extremists; and, then came to the defense of Muslims that were not involved with the attack.

Goldy >> Who do you think is the bigger victim here, the eleven injured or the Somali community who’s lost someone?
Don’t do it! Goldy just baited you. Look away! Run!
Male-2 >> Well…
Just couldn’t resist…could you?
Male-2 >>…I, you know, obviously I hate to, you know, put,…rank victimhood. But, for the people that got hurt, that was terrible, and the good news is, I think, they are going to recover.
Virtue signaling. It just makes you look more stupid.
Male-2 >>The Somali community, I think a lot of, um, I feel, you know, I feel sorry.
You just virtually signaled an entire viewing public that you are, in fact, stupid.
Male-2 >> What, we’ll know more when we know what happened, and what was going on. I hope that they can recover from this as well.
Drink this...it’s cool aid: one part denial, one part excusal, two parts false virtue. After you drink it, and you must drink it all, you will feel encouraged to support, persuade, promote, excuse, forgive, explain, refute, and overlook terrorism everywhere you are living.
Male-2 >> I’m sure that, you know, the man’s family evidently didn’t know anything about this. I’m sure that they felt horrible to lose their son and brother and so forth.
Arrest him! He knows way too much about the attacker and his family to be innocent…and so forth.
Male-2 >> So I think there’s a lot of, there’s a lot of sympathy to go around. I guess.
I…I…I…have no words.
Goldy >> Are you a student here?
Male-2 >> No. I’m a faculty member.
That’s it! My beer bottle is empty. I’m throwing it!

Goldy >> Well, you can chalk it up to ignorance, inhibition, or even indoctrination; but, it would seem folks here on the ground at OSU are unwilling to admit, to come to terms, and cope with the fact that Islamic terrorists have just targeted their own backyard.
For the Rebel Dog Media, I’m Faith Goldy.

End Transcript


Going Forward – The Only Solution

The last line, the bottom line, is this: If you don’t want the level of attempted-murder to remain violently out of proportion to the norm for the Ohio State campus, then EVERYONE must stop ignoring, condoning, excusing, denying, and/or encouraging the use of violence, its actors, and its benefactors.


Thank you. – Sam Frescoe


Your View

Your thoughts and perspectives are important. I invite you to tell me what you believe with the comment section below or at samfrescoe@gmail.com. Please check out The Sam Frescoe Project on Facebook.


© 2016 – SamFrescoeProject.Blogspot.com – All Rights Reserved

 




[1] Max Blau, Emanuella Grinberg and Shimon Prokupecz, CNN, “Investigators believe Ohio State attacker was inspired by ISIS’. Updated 11:21 PM ET, Tuesday 29 November 2016
[3] Max Blau, Emanuella Grinberg and Shimon Prokupecz, CNN, “Investigators believe Ohio State attacker was inspired by ISIS’. Updated 11:21 PM ET, Tuesday 29 November 2016

05 December 2016

Religious Liberty & Good Governance


By Sam Frescoe
samfrescoe@gmail.com
http://samfrescoeproject.blogspot.com/
The Sam Frescoe Project
#SamFrescoe

#religion  #liberty  #govern  #firstamendment  #university

Have you ever read a headline and thought the article was important enough to read, just to be disappointed?  And then, for some reason you can’t quite put your finger on, read the article again? And then…a day or so later…you started to wonder “What if the author has a point here?” – For me, this is one of those articles.


In the Discourse – Campus Reform

On 2 Dec 2016, Anthony Gockowski, Investigative Reporter, Campus Reform,[1] published an article with the following lead-off bullet statement: “With Christmas approaching, universities are cracking down on potentially offensive religious decorations, all but banning displays of the ‘Nativity Scene’ and images of the ‘crucifixion’.” Within the article, the author supported this statement by quoting phrases from multiple university policies. The author goes so far as to conclude that “at least one appears to have banned even private displays.” As a result, the tone and tenor of the article suggests the identified universities are in the wrong.

As always, context matters. Campus Reform claims to be a campus watchdog project dedicated to exposing bias and abuse on the nation's college campuses. To that end, they partner with “student activists and student journalists to report on the conduct and misconduct of university administrators, faculty, and students.”[2] Campus Reform is a “product” of Liberty Institute. The Liberty Institute is a conservative activist group specializing in “campaigns, fundraising, grassroots organizing, youth politics, and communications.”[3]

Based on the above, I conclude that Campus Reform believes in conservative political activism on college campuses. That Campus Reform provides a “news” outlet for that activism. It happens that Campus Reform is a cyber publisher.

Overall, I remain disappointed with the article. I clicked on the headline in the hopes of reading an investigative essay, a journal entry that simply presents all sides. However, in my view, the author fell short of my hope and engaged in a rhetorical attack. Oh, well.

On the other hand, what if, in the author’s view, the policies of the several universities represents an unacceptable government overreach? Clearly this question is leading, and implies motive; however, I believe it does prompt some important questions.

Conservative “Couching” of Religious Liberty

The language of the First Amendment is as follows: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.[4] Meaning, Congress shall not make any law establishing any religion; and, Congress shall not prohibit the free exercise of any religion.

The intent of this Amendment is to “prevent misconstruction or abuse of [Congressional] powers”.[5] This is further reinforced by one of The Founders, James Madison. “The protection of [diversity in the faculties of men] is the first object of government.” This includes the “zeal for different opinions concerning religion.” – Madison, Federalist #10

Motives, Roles, Responsibilities

Clearly the Establishment clause of the First Amendment is focused on restricting the Congress, meaning the federal Legislature, from either forcing any religion onto The People, or forcing any religion from The People. Additionally, it seems clear that these restrictions was put in place to further reinforce the ideal that protecting the diversity of human-kind is the first purpose of government. So, given the broad nature of the subject, how might Americans go about examining it applicability on State and local academic institutions?

Accountability Questions

·         How was the power to restrict the States or The People in supporting the establishment of religion, or prohibition of free exercise of religion, bestowed to the Congress?

·         If The People don’t like how these restrictions are realized, then how could those restrictions be rescinded, rejected, amended, disbanded, or abolished?

·         Explain why the restrictions of the Congress supersede the sovereignty of the States or The People to do as they see fit?

Justification Questions

·         How can an exclusive group of federal legislators be more intelligent or morally superior than The People or the States directly engaged with the circumstances?

Morality Questions

·         Is it morally right to restrict the States or The People just because the Congress is restricted?

·         If the Congress is willing to restrict the States and/or The People by contract, then is the Congress willing to hold the States and/or The People harmless should they reject the contract?

Prudence Questions

·         You are the Congress. You are constitutionally constrained as the Congress. Now you want the States and/or The People to agree to the same constitutional constraints because you are The Congress?

·         You are the Congress. You are constitutionally constrained regarding religious matters. Now you want me to agree that I should abide by religious constraints because you are the Congress?

·         How is it wise to defer to the Congress on religious matters, when the people that pay the price for making bad decisions are local below the State?

Logic Questions

·         Just because the Congress is restricted, does it follow that the States or The People should restricted as the Congress? If yes, then is the federal government monopoly over the use of force and determination of guilt and justice necessary?

Intent Questions

·         Given the situation, which scenario seems most applicable, and why?

o   The Constitution and Bill of Rights define and ground our government structures to implement founding principles which serves all the citizens and protects American freedoms.

o   The political and elite classes use government functions to manipulate institutions to enlarge and entrench themselves by regulating groups of citizens and voting blocs resulting in diminished individual rights and freedoms.

·         What if this is a mechanism used to increase diversity while shrinking proximity in order to realize a kind of social-political warfare; thus, legitimizing use of government force?

Going Forward

It’s time to examine why governments are involved in these matters at all.

What do you think?

 
Thank you. – Sam Frescoe


Your View

Your thoughts and perspectives are important. I invite you to tell me what you believe with the comment section below or at samfrescoe@gmail.com. Please check out The Sam Frescoe Project on Facebook.

 

 

 

The Issue

While the Campus Reform article does not specifically state an issue, the following could be framed: University administrations are unjustly restricting “potentially offensive religious decorations” during the period between Thanksgiving and Christmas on American campuses in order to respect the diversity of others by issuance of controlling policies and guidelines. The article seems to represent a credibility challenge.

Claims & Counter-Claims

Campus Reform claims that “with Christmas approaching, universities are cracking down on potentially offensive religious decorations.” The author supports his claim with phrases from specific university policies. While, the author does not offer a warrant, it could be inferred by the tone and tenor of the article that the identified universities are in the wrong.

Rowan University holds the position that “office decorations are allowed as long as no obvious, religious icons are displayed.” To that end, Rowan issued a policy titled “Holiday Decorations in the Workplace”.[6] They warrant their position as a means to “be respectful of all beliefs and the various observances.” Their policy seems to follow an emotional approach.

Brockport College holds the position that “individuals and departments” are to “ensure inclusiveness and respect for a wide range of religious and cultural customs.” To that end, Brockport issued a policy titled “Culturally Sensitive Holiday Decorations All Year Long”.[7] They warrant their position as a means to “be sensitive and respectful to individuals”. Their policy seems to follow an emotional approach.

Missouri State seeks to align itself with “decisions of the United States Supreme Court and other federal courts interpreting the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution in the context of decorating public buildings.” To that end, Missouri State issued a policy titled “Holiday Decorations Guidelines”.[8] While they do not directly warrant their position, it may be inferred that Missouri State desires to align itself with legal precedent. Their policy seems to follow an logical approach.

Oregon State recognizes that “a festive environment, especially during the December/January holidays, is important to many of our students, employees, and stakeholders.” To that end, Oregon State issued a policy titled “Guidelines for Holiday Decorations”.[9] They warrant their position as a means to “inclusive and respectful of a range of cultural traditions”. Their policy seems to follow an emotional approach.

The New Jersey public school position was not examined.

© 2016 – SamFrescoeProject.Blogspot.com – All Rights Reserved

02 December 2016

Think, Speak, Repeat – The Counter-Regressive Solution





By Sam Frescoe

#SamFrescoe
 
#freespeech  #regressive  #regressivism  #freedom  #think


"Always take the time to think before you speak.” – I remember this being retold over and over while growing up, and throughout my professional career. Based on my military experience, I am willing to take this idiom a step further. “In times of stress, even under the worst conditions, never stop thinking.”

  • "Invest a few moments in thinking. It will pay good interest." - Author Unknown
  • "Time given to thought is the greatest time saver of all." - Norman Cousins
  • "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too" - Voltaire
  • "Reason obeys itself: ignorance submits to what is dictated to it." - Thomas Paine

Over time, this idea of “speak occasionally, think always” has served me well. It’s kept me on a prudent path while reserving occasion to consider the case of an opposing view.  More often than not, this logic-based, considerate approach has realized outcomes with better results than if I acted alone. However, what’s served me well, does not represent the norm among those 15-30 years of age. It seems that the next generation of Americans believes in motivation and decision-making by feelings and sympathy versus thinking and empathy.


 
American society continues to change in a similar manner. For example, having realized the nature of their next-generation customers, academic and cultural institutions adjusted their business approaches. In turn, the lagging institutions of America, political parties and governments at all levels, adjusted their banter to garner the next-generation of voters. This has provided a social-political space to give rise to various supremacy movements (transgenderism, religious pluralism, social justice, the return of restorative justice, etc.). As a result, there is a collision of uncompromising views competing for the limited space occupied by the American discourse. In other words, diversity is being forced into close proximity resulting in a form of social-political warfare.


 
“So What?”


 
It seems that the 15-30 year old generation believes inequality of human capability is no longer a foundation for opportunity. That this generation is carving out space for cultivating outrage in order to demand parity regardless of realities or other considerations. It happens that this generation is willing to leverage the force of government to achieve its aims. As a result, their preferred approach to defining their social-political identity is regressive and harmful to the American Way of Life.


 
Regressivism


 
Regressivism leverages three primary principles: 1) equal outcome holds primacy over equal opportunity; 2) equal outcome includes personal feelings, in addition to wealth, status, physical composition, and any other factor or characteristic; 3) intent is superior to merit regardless of outcome or circumstance. The preferred strategy for achieving favorable results is to act in the name of “doing for the greater good” (a liberating concept) in order to silence all those in opposition (a regressive result). This strategy is realized as forms of political correctness, micro-aggressions, white privilege, malicious defamation, trigger warnings, condoning of violence, and safe spaces.


 
How did we get here?


 
Simple! Those that knew better failed to stop, correct, or ostracize wrongdoers.


 
For Regressives, the prevailing messaging condones wrongdoing so long as it is done in the name of justice. In other words, to delegate responsibility, the keepers of logic and truth (parents) sold out to the makers of rules and regulations (government); and then, to remain in power, the keepers of rules and regulations (government) sold out to popular opinion (voters).


 
Regressivism is Harmful to America


 
Regressive principles do not recognize moral absolutes or natural rights. As a result, in order to secure power, Regressives are willing to use the force of government to subordinate dissenters. In their view, the decrees of governments are preferred over objective truths. These principles are “regressive” because they uphold oppression of others as a moral imperative. This is why Regressivism is harmful to America and the American Way of Life.


 
A Solution


 
The American Way of Life, as with the Constitution of the United States, must be supported and defended by those with a working knowledge of moral absolutes and natural rights.

  • First, the fundamental rights of every American citizen were not created or given by a government.
  • Second, because the capability of human-kind is highly diverse, the leading moral purpose of a government is to secure opportunities for its citizens.
  • Third, regardless of comfort, objective reality must hold sway; therefore, good governance places logos before ethos and pathos.
  • Finally, those that know right from wrong must stop, correct, or ostracize wrongdoers.  
Going Forward


 

“Speak Occasionally, Think Always” – The only moral purpose of a government is to secure freedoms to The People. The most freedom loving government is one that governs the least. – The first, best safeguard is to think, then speak, and repeat.






Thank you. – Sam Frescoe









Your View



Your thoughts and perspectives are important. I invite you to tell me what you believe with the comment section below or at samfrescoe@gmail.com. Please check out The Sam Frescoe Project on Facebook.



© 2016 – SamFrescoeProject.Blogspot.com – All Rights Reserved

Personal Responsibility is an American Absolute


By Sam Frescoe
samfrescoe@gmail.com
http://samfrescoeproject.blogspot.com/
The Sam Frescoe Project
#SamFrescoe

#personalresponsibility #Lifestyle #socialjustice #justice #prudent #freedom #respect

There is a significant shortfall of personal responsibility in America today. It was once permitted by exception, but now it is promoted as a lifestyle; and, with the decline of personal-responsibility there is a rise of collective-responsibility. In other words, over the past several years social-justice and collective-justice have taken center stage. I would go so far as to say that the actions of some, because of their group affiliation, are ignored, condoned, excused, denied, or encouraged without a second glance.

Think about it. Consider the list below while reflecting on the evening news. I’m willing to bet you can overload the comments section with example after example.
·         Special rights for protected classes are favored over Checks and Balances
·         Feelings of judgement are put before finding of facts
·         Centralized permitting, promotion, or prevention of something versus laissez-faire
·         Collective conformance is favored above respecting individual choices
·         Humility is declining while supremacy is rising

 
“So What?”

I offer this post to you for one reason. To show you that regardless of timing or circumstance, natural or artificial, personal responsibility is defining to individual Americans and inherently valuable to the American Way of Life.

If you are responsible for nothing, then you can get away with anything.
If you can get away with anything, then what is the meaning in what are doing?
If what you are doing has no meaning, then what is your purpose? – Ravi Zacharias


“Personal responsibility begins from the inside and moves outward. We must begin by taking responsibility for our thoughts, choices, and reactions. Then we can be responsible for the circumstances we create in our world.” – 12 Reflections on Personal Responsibility [1]

Personal Responsibility is Unavoidable

What is personal responsibility? “Personal responsibility is the willingness to both accept the importance of standards that society establishes for individual behavior and to make strenuous personal efforts to live by those standards.”

From this definition, it’s clear that personal responsibility is a choice, not a circumstance; it’s learned, not bestowed; it’s a duty, not an option; it’s inwardly personal, and outwardly impactful; it’s ever-present regardless of surroundings. Because the nature of personal responsibility is sweeping and non-transferrable, it is also unavoidable and must be addressed.

Personal Responsibility is Just and Prudent

Everyone is singularly responsible for their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Because these things originate an individual, they are accountable to that individual. For justice to be defined, proportional, relevant, and meaningful, this truth must be recognized.

No one has the right to do what is wrong. The foundation of judgement requires the existence of absolutes that don’t require the taking of something, or giving of something, to know and secure. Some examples include the right to live, to make choices, and to own your body. Personal responsibility ensures the inherent value of these natural rights endures regardless of time and circumstance.

Personal Responsibility is Freedom Loving and Respectful

Personal responsibility informs us about freedom, ownership, and accordance of the same to others. Personal responsibility is both liberating and self-regulating.

Secular Argument – I own my body. I own the property that my body produces. I own the ideas that my body produces. I own what I produce from the sweat of my own brow. I own the thoughts that I express. I own the property and wealth that I accumulate. If this is true of a free person, then it must be true of me and you.

Faith Argument – We were created in the image and likeness of an all knowing, all loving, all powerful God who is perfectly free. Because we are made in His image and likeness; therefore, I we perfectly free. If this is true of a free person, then it must be true of me and you.

Personal Responsibility is All American

Because America was founded on an exceptional idea, America is an exceptional nation. Simply stated, that idea is that every citizen is of value. For this idea to hold true and transcend the generations, personal responsibility is mandatory. For without it, a citizen would not possess human value; and, as a result, neither would their thoughts, desires, deeds, or the tangible results thereof.

“For the accomplishment of this great purpose, the exertions of no one citizen are unimportant. Let no one, therefore harbour, for a moment, the mean idea, that he is and can be of no value to his country…” – James Wilson, cosigner of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States

Going Forward – A Solution

The American Way of Life requires Americans that fully and proudly embrace personal responsibility. Personal responsibility cannot be avoided, but it can be mastered. One way or another, regardless of our collective differences, whether we like it or not, each of us is individually accountable for our interactions with others and the world around us.


Thank you. – Sam Frescoe


Your View

Your thoughts and perspectives are important. I invite you to tell me what you believe with the comment section below or at samfrescoe@gmail.com. Please check out The Sam Frescoe Project on Facebook.

 


My Personal Responsibility

While growing up in an American household, personal responsibility was expected and enforced. My parents were accountable for teaching me. I was held accountable for learning. As a result, the responsibility I had to myself and others was clear and well understood. Now that the roles are reversed, it is my duty to teach my children. In this way, personal responsibility continues to be handed down to future generations.

“We have the divine gift of free will.
Conscious choice is a gift that carries great responsibility.”
[2]

Why is personal responsibility so important? Simply stated, personal responsibility is important because you, and only you, can make decisions for yourself. Every choice you make can benefit or harm yourself and others. Even avoiding decisions is a choice. In this way, personal responsibility, at least in part, defines us as human beings and individual Americans

How is personal responsibility manifested in day-to-day living? To avoid specific examples, and the potentially endless caveats to each, I am going to offer what works for me. For me, personal responsibility in action boils down to only two rules. For any given decision presented to me, I apply these rules and react honorably. If I cannot sufficiently apply these rules, then I am likely getting ahead of myself and need to think before I act.

·         Rule #1: No one has the right to do what is wrong.

·         Rule #2: Everyone is singularly responsible for their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.

Is there a significant shortfall of personal responsibility in America today?
Regardless of your answer, as for me and my house, the answer is no.

 

© 2016 – SamFrescoeProject.Blogspot.com – All Rights Reserved