Abdul, from Indianapolis Newstalk 1430 A.M. asks:

 

“Can anyone give me a reason why gays shouldn’t be able to have the right to marry?”

 

Well, I can answer that “Yes.”

 

In order for something to be a “right” is has to fullfil two conditions. (1) It must be able to be exercised without let or hindrance, and (2) It cannot impose an obligation on anyone else.

 

Your speech is a right.  You can speak.  I am not obliged to listen.  Marriage, however, fails both tests.  Long ago, we the people decided we’d rather have Mommy Government license our marriages to keep dem darn darkies from marrying our white women.  (What the government may forbid, it may also make cumpulsory, etc. etc.).  Next, it obliges me to recognize it, extend insurance to a “gay spouse” if I hire them, and so on.

 

Now, if they want the *RIGHT* to marry, you have to fulfill the definition of a right first - no licensing (Which part of “Make NO law” is hard to understand?) and second remove the obligation of me to recognize it.

 

Without that, it is a privilege derived from government and we the people - and what the government giveth, the government may taketh away.  A good reminder that even if you don’t live in a libertarian society, libertarian principles and consequences yet apply.

Mr. Stephen Guess has posted  - nay, diarrhea of the keyboard is more like it - a few rebuttals, a “Case for Feminism” and all manner of reply to comments on his posts.

Many electrons have been spent replying to him.  The buzz upon the internet has woken me o’ nights.  I have read with interest, amusement, and bemusement.  Mr. Guess’s postings have been erudite, and his naysayers have been succinct, and lethal in their - dare I say it? - deconstruction of him.

Overly verbose as well.  The answer is simple: Feminism stands or falls on a single premise.  That premise being that “Women are Oppressed.”

Mark the words carefully.  Women. A class of people.  Are.  As in “Now.”  Oppressed. A conscious act.  It is the conspiracy theory to end all conspiracy theories; the most propeller headed notion I have ever heard, fodder for paranoiacs everywhere.  It is bunk. Hookum. Poppycock. Balderdash. Baloney.

Two years ago a challenge was issued on a high-profile discussion list.  It has yet to be met.  I will repeat it here; however, the original may be found HERE. 

 Name one way that western society oppresses women that abides by the following rule:

1. It has to be socially condoned.

To be socially condoned a oppressive meme, law or social bias has to be one of several things:

1. Invisible with no high profile, government funded groups educating the public about it.

2. Visible but socially acceptable with no high profile government funded groups or enforced laws attempting to eliminate it.

3. Visible and socially promoted with high profile government funded groups or enforced laws upholding it.

Conditions

1. Which gender enforces the meme, law or social bias has no bearing. (If it did then female genital mutilation would not be oppression suffered by women in developing countries since it is mandated and carried out most often by other women.)

2. To be oppressive the meme, law or social bias merely has to restrict the choices and freedoms of one gender without corresponding restriction on the other. (For instance citing the restriction of females to certain roles would not count if males are likewise restricted to certain roles.)

It is that simple. And two years later it has yet to be answered.
This is because “opression” (Read carefully folks - as Rush Limbaugh likes to say, “Words mean things”) is an intentional thing, whether by thought, word, deed, or omission.  This is different from “Consequence.”  If I set out to go to the store, and turn left at the stop sign down the road, I am not going to get there, at least by the most direct route.  That is a consequence of my error, or of my choice.  Life is made of choices, and full of missteps.  When one suffers a consequence of something, it is not oppression.  Sometimes, too, those consequences are good - put a mitt on before you grab the frying pan, and you don’t get burned.

One does not need to go any further.  Once the premise test is failed, it’s bad logic, plain and simple.  If anything “right” about the theory is further postulated, it is coincidence, a case of a broken clock being right twice a day.  It doesn’t validate it.  Until the broken premise is fixed, any discussion of it is unnecessary.

Just stay on point.

DING-DONG, THE WITCH IS DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Go, Blue!

As a Roman Catholic, I have to say that the irony of it does not escape me when I witness the Episcopalians in Virginia dealing with their Schismatic Bretheren.

Hmmm.

I trust the properties in Merrye Olde Englande are soon to be returned to Rome, eh wot?

And I got a laugh out of it.

 

This is what the guy looking for a wife these days can look forward to most of the time from the culture of female entitlement.

 

Now, it should be noted after Vox did the “Point and Laugh” routine, Little Ms. Goldenpussy took her blog private.  I have, however, provided a translation for the reader…

 

This should weed out who are losers and who are friends. In a man this is what I need.

 

I’m posting this to see which one of you guys out there are stupid and desperate enough to keep chasing me, so I won’t have to spend my time to come to find out I have spent it on a guy who can see through me eventually.
 

1- You should own your own home by the age of 30. No excuses. I don’t care if your exwife took you. You should have been man enough to be financially stable enough to at least walk away with something. I am too old to be starting fresh financially and I do have a lifestyle to maintain. I was married to a very wealthy man before and I dont intend to take a step bckward.

 

You have to be rich.
 

2- You should make more money than me. I will not be there to support your lifestyle at all. I am working because I need something to do during the day but I dont want to continue to do it fulltime. If you don’t make enough to both have a very nice house and new cars and buy me the nice things I deserve plus an allowance you are just not grown up enough to have me. I wont lie. I am high maintainance. Deal with it or dont ask me out.

 

You have to be really rich.
 

3- You should understand that as a woman you must earn me. This is both financial but emotional. My hormones change every day and until you are a woman and can understand that deal with it. yes I am fickle and subject to change my mind. Its a womans peroggotive. If you cant deal with my mood swings move along. You should be there for me no matter how cranky I am.

 

I am allowed to be a bitch if I feel like it, and you have to take what I dish out, up to and including fucking your friends.
 

4- I do cook when I am in the mood but I don’t clean. I am not a maid. If you like your place clean you should make enough to hire a cleaning service because i should be worth more than that to you and you shouldnt expect that of me. You cant expect me to cook for you regularly either. I do have a job and a life. I cook when I want to not when you want me to.

 

I’m a slob.  You need to be rich enough to hire me a maid.
 

5- Child care. I love my kids but I am not a nanny. I mostly work because I cant stand being around kids all day. I need my me time to get away. I need weekends away on a regular basis so you should be able to afford that. I am open to having more kids but if I go through the pain and suffering to have the kid you should do the sleepless nights thing or hire a nanny and if your kids are whiny brats than let their mom keep them. I dont have time or energy to fix your kids.

 

I’m a whore who had brats to make sure I at least had the welfare and child support from them to support me.  I don’t really want to be a mother, but if I let their father(s) have the kids I have to pay them.  And I refuse to even try to like your kids.  You have to be rich enough to hire a nanny.
 

6- Staying in shape. You must have nice abs. If I had a mans metabolism I would. If I didn’t have kids I would. You have no excuse. I am sorry but I am just not attracted to guys who dont take care of themselves.

 

I’m fat.  I will probably get fatter. You have to be hot-hot-hot.
 

I am sorry this rant but come on guys grow up and get with it. If you fit the bill email me and let me know. If you dont them delete me from your friends and dont email me anymore. Sorry but this is the way it is and better to get it out of the way now than to spend all sorts of time dating before we figure these things out about each other.

 

Now, can’t you wait to get hold of my lard-ass, shallow, materialistic self?  Come on, desperate guys – get in line!
Sheesh.

Well, it is a waste of a day for me.  Everything is closed, and I am getting nothing done.

I remember when MLK was shot.  An ugly day, that.  I was living in New Jersey at the time, in my younger years, and the tension was palpable.  I was kept home from school that day.  And it turned out, with good reason.  Several white kids got beat up that day.  And nothing was ever done about it.  Political Correctness is an old thing, my friends.

You know, the more I read and know about the man, the less I respect him.  Plagiarist.  Philanderer.  Socialist, and possible communist sympathizer. We’ve got someone who has been idolized - near deified - who has feet of very soft clay.

Almost 40 years have passed since Rev. King was shot.  What has come of it?  We have a day off.  Whoop-de-doo.  He asked for 50 billion to be spent on the underpriveleged and “disenfranchised” to rectify past wrongs.  Well, that has been exceeded far and away.  What has it done?  Has it lifted anyone from poverty?  No. Black America - if anything - is far worse off for all the money that has been thrown at things.

At what point are we finally going to admit that “More Money” is just good after bad?

What “Black America” needs is education.  Jobs.  Property ownership. Family, and roots.  A stake in the nation.  And it can’t be given - it has to be claimed.  Far too many blacks don’t esteem such a stake in America; it is, in fact, scorned.  To do well in school, and so forth, is sneered at as “acting white.”  “Oreo” is still a common epithet flung - you know, black on the outside, white on the inside.  Race Warlords like Sharpton and Jesse Jackson - I tell you, if Black America had it’s problems solved tomorrow, next Monday would have them at the local McDonalds asking if you wanted to supersize that.

Fifty years ago, people were marching to integrate things - universities, dorms,  businesses, neighborhoods.  Now, for all that, there is a struggle to segregate things.  “Black Student Unions.” “Black Neighborhoods.”  “Black Schools.”  And this isn’t coming from the White side of the equation - well, other than White Liberals.  While I may resent the hell out of laws that tell me who I must associate with based on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character, I have wept at the graves of black men I have been proud to call friend.  I have worked with black people who know their stuff, but can’t get past the “Token Affirmative Action Hire” label.  I went to school with a mixed race gentleman who decided he was going to pick “White” when he filled out his forms sp he would never wonder if he earned his degree or got it on a pass.

Over and over I have watched blacks I know embrace conservative principles - and succeed.  Over and over have I watched them embrace the same empty liberal promises - and remain in their rut. And not only that, when a black man does succeed through embracing conservative principles, what is the reaction of liberals? Do they rejoice?  Are they full of congratulations?

No - they attack them.  Clarence Thomas.  Larry Elder.  Colin Powell.  Condaleeza Rice.  Thomas Sowell.

These are your friends?

Seriously?

I’d really rather not have all the problems for blacks that they face.  Drop-out rates. Illegitmacy. Drug use.  Crime.  Hell, do you know the leading caue of death for young black men is violence?  Whites don’t face this.  I’m not even fully white, and I never faced it.  Do you think it makes me happy? (Well, I am sure some liberal assbag thinks my Catholic, part Delaware Indian self secretly dances around a burning cross, but such are assbags).  Why do you think this is?

Think it might just be that in a knee-jerk attempt to be “not white” that such a mindset might throw the baby out with the bathwater and eliminate such things in mythical “White culture” that causes this not to happen?

Just a thought.  I maintain my cultural heritage.  I have my kilt, and go to Scottish Festivals, and other such things.

This may sound harsh, but, you know, when things don’t work for you, to keep on doing it and expecting a different result is kind of nuts.  I mean, what promises have left wingers fulfilled to Black America? Name one.  If you’re black, especially a black liberal, I’d like to know.  Is the “content of your character” more important than your skin color to your lefty friends?  Whose babies are dying in abortion mills, headed up by Planned Parenthood?  Ever looked at Margaret Sanger, and read what she thought of Blacks?  Has your families become stronger?  How about Literacy?  Drop-out rates?  College graduation?  Property ownership?  The middle class black families yu know - aren’t they “less black” to many of your lefty pals - especially if they don’t play Steppin Fetchit for the Liberal Standard Bearers?

There is a reason we call it the “Liberal Plantation” here on the right.

Just once, I would like to see two election cycles where Black America voted Republican - or at least non-Democrat.  It’s an old bet of mine.  Watch the libs drop you all like a hot potato like they drop every other minority who can’t be counted on as a voting bloc for them.

Sad thing is, I don’t think that America is ready for an honest discussion about race relations; and by honest, I mean one not predicated on black victimhood and white perfidity.  For all left-wing asshats talk about “privilege” I have yet to see any evidence that my white maleness has done anything but work against me.   I’ve been homeless in my life, strung out on dope, and all manner of thing.  I’ve had no quotas in place to assure me of any shot at a job, no matter how patronizingly given.  I paid my way through every cent and credit hour of my education, save for $2000 of grant money.  Every time I have gone for help - anywhere - it has been “Too white. Too male.”  I get followed around in stores by security because I look like a biker.  (Something to consider, folks - I notice gangstas getting tailed by security, even the white ones.  Never seen a clean-cut black guy in a business suit get tailed.  And I have worked security. Hmmm.)

Part of the reason we’re not going to have that conversation yet - well, frankly - I’m not going to waste my time on it.  I’ve sat in on such things before.  It winds up a bunch of white guys getting told to shut up, getting berated as a bunch of racists, having every overture rejected out of hand, then followed by the same angry group of left-wingers talk about how they weren’t listened to or given a voice.  It’s a tiresome piece of mental masturbation.  Oh, and lets not forget the impossible set of demands.

There is no negotiation in such things.  No give and take.  It’s doctrinaire, and dishonest on its face.

Look - years ago, Jimmy the Greek Snyder observed that black atheletes outperformed whites because they were bred for it.  He was fired from CBS for it.  He lost his national column because of it.

Know what?

He was a hundred percent right, too.

You go to some place, and collect part of the people there.  Take them on a hellish journey where only the strongest survive.  Work them and their descendants for a few centuries in an environment where only the strongest of them, with the greatest endurance, can survive.  Breed them for it.  Then you tell me what you get when you take the end product of that breeding and pit them against the average person in athletic contests.  Hell, man.  Had it been blacks colonizing America and enslaving white Europeans to work the plantations, we’d be talking about “Black Men Can’t Jump” today.  It’s a logical fucking consequence - and it is considered racist to observe that simple truth.

Until something like that can be observed - there is no point in it.  No point at all.

So - Happy MLK day.  Whatever.  Maybe one of these days the action can match all the rhetoric and high-soundiong words.  Until that day comes, though, I will continue to regard it as “National Day of Useless Idleness.”

Corrupt North Carolina Prosecutor Mike Nifong has finally asked to be recused from the Bogus Duke Rape Case.

And it is about bloody time.

No other comment. Seriously. I am doing my happy-dance.

Well, I am actually editing this more as I post. Just had to be the first to give the grand news.

To call this case a debacle is to give it high praise indeed.  From its inception it was tragically flawed.  Stories have been changed more times than one can count.  Prosecutorial misconduct of such proportions that Mr. Nifong is facing unprecedented sanctions.  Vapor evidence.  Harassment of witnesses for the defense.  Charges despite unshakeable alibis.  A witness with previous false allegations, and morals such as would make an alley cat in heat look like Mother Teresa.

This has been such a joke even that bastion of political correctness, Duke University, is backpedalling as fast as it can.

Mark my words - the days are soon that all charges will be dropped and this wretched miscarriage of justice will be rectified.  Well, at least until the lawsuits end.

And Crystal Gail Magnum will go down as the poster-girl for false allegations.  Folks, this is the gift that keeps on giving.  We can now add “Magnummed” to the lexicon, describing a man hit by a specious and spurious charge of some sexual nature.  The high profile nature of this case is such that we might actually see a few prosecutors do something unheard of when some sob story gets told to them.  Like, maybe, search for some actual evidence, eh wot?

Glory, glory, hallelujah!

Looks like Da Gubbmint is attempting to suppress any possible constitutional questions in the upcoming trial of a man who made his own weapons.

While I won’t address the mentality of many militia groups, some of which are extreme, I do support very much their premise.  I think we need militias.  And I would like to not just see more, but better armed ones which are better equipped, no matter how much a free person scares liberal bedwetters.

My belief in the sanctity of the 2nd Amendment is near absolute.  And I do believe it so strongly that I would exercise jury nullification should I ever be on such a jury, and I would lie about it to get on the jury.

One hint, though - whether the criminalizing of what are patently constitutional arms is abhorrent, and should be resisted, it should be resisted in a fashion that is effective.  IOW, no posting of pictures of you shooting your home-made weapons on Web sites.  Keep them disassembled if out in the open; it’s just parts at that time.  One can pack them in a false wall. One can store them in a secure location.

One can train playing paintball.   The list goes on.

There is a point where open defiance is called for - but also a time and place for quiet disobedience.  One should be prepared to resist tyranny, but should not seek confrontation unless it achieves something.

I am sympathetic to Hollis W. Fincher.  Were I on the jury, I would vote “not guilty” because I feel the law unjust and unconstitutional. However, I do feel he is as dumb as a bag of hair for forcing a totally unnecessary confrontation, especially one where I perceive no reward to measure in a risk/reward ratio.  Fact of the matter is, given the corruption of our judicial system, he has violated one of Sun Tzu’s basic laws in picking the wrong place to do battle.  The liklihood of someone like me actually being allowed to serve on such a jury - unless one lies - is slim, at best.  Not a good roll of the dice.
Pick your battles when it comes to things like this, Mr. Fincher.  Pick ones you have a chance to win, or at least where you can achieve something if you lose

I may not make any fans with this, but since when has that stopped me, eh?

Fellow MNDer, Teri Stoddard, recently wrote a column entitled “Male Bashing is Unacceptable” for which she recieved a lot of flack for daring to suggest that having women feel empowered was a not a bad thing. I have to say that I tend to agree with her, as she made it quite clear that the trendy way of doing it by denigrating men is what she finds objectionable.

I have to say - I haven’t got a problem with this. And I have a problem with a lot of things.

I am no fan of feminism, as many people who haven’t been dead for years know. I’m no real fan of the mainstream American Female - a more spoiled, pampered, whiney, privileged princess with an overblown sense of entitlement and their own self-worth you are not likely to find. I am also no fan of a whole lot of “Pro-MRA/FRA” women; I tend to observe that they come in three strains: The cheerleader who would never actually get their nails broken doing more than lip service for men, the Janey-Come-Lately who was happy to reap all the ill-gotten one sided benefits of feminism until it somehow bit them or their sons or their new husband on the butt, and finally the loud-mouth pseudo-ally who’s sole solution is “Gosh, you guys are great for taking it up the arse for us for so long - keep up the good work! Let’s have a big round of applause for our XY Chromosome butt-monkeys!”

This latter type is especially annoying. “What? Surrender privilege? Gee - um - ya mean, like in not having that cushion to fall back on? Well I’d NEVER use it! I just want it there … Honest! Why would you want to punish me by taking away my cushion? YOU MUST HATE WOMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

You know the type. I am sure I don’t need to break out the crayolas.

And I don’t see the source here of the vitriol with Teri .

You know, we’ve been around the block with women who don’t get it - and that is allright, most won’t. A good three generations of women have been poisoned by feminism, and even if the cleanup starts now, my great-grandchildren may be the first to begin to have healthy relationships again - at the earliest, too, I think. The damage that particular hate movement has done to society is incalculable, and I’m almost tempted to compare it to the damage done by the Ku Klux Klan - except that I’d probably get sued for libel by the Klan.

And lose.

Thing is, though, some women do get it. Trudy Schuette gets it. I don’t think anyone will contradict that. A lot of women make good faith efforts to get it. And Teri does a lot better than most, and damn near all the time.

One of the things that causes me to hold feminism, and those who preach it, in utter contempt is not only their shallow and knee-jerk sanctification of women while demonizing men, but their tendency to be so desperate for allies that they refuse to police their own. Any kook, any frothing-at-the-mouth man hater, is welcomed to their camp - and most probably because their belief system is so fragile they have to take whoever they can get. And, to be honest, I really don’t care. We all know who they are, and they can always be counted on to spout some insane nonsense; nonsense to which me - or someone like me, can point, laugh, and say, “Those are the people you want to identify with? Play again?” Serious - no effort on my part.

I don’t want to see the same thing on our side of the aisle. One of our biggest weapons is sanity. Well, that and truth. Sanity and Truth. And a fierce Loyalty to the Gonzman - wait a minute. Who is writing this column - me or Monty Python? Anyway - we don’t operate from such a warped worldview we have to damage our credibility by parroting nonsense. Feminists have to do that. They can’t give an inch because their ideology is based on falsity, and conceding anything brings it tumbling down. Hence - Saintly women - Diabolic men. And we know it is bunk. We have both good and evil in both men and women.

Which means - yes, it does - that we have some good women around. They may be scarce to find at times. They do exist, though, and we don’t need to damage our credibility by repeating feminist idiocy. Same thing on the other end, too, for that matter. I refuse to defend some schmuck of a man merely because he is a man. I may give the benefit of the doubt, and vigorously argue for his side to be heard, but hey - it when it all comes out he’s been a schmuck…. Well, I am not going to defend schmucks, or champion them. That job is already filled by plenty of feminists who are willing to make any excuse for a woman based solely on what is between her legs, and I consider myself above that. Besides, the pay is lousy, and the uniforms make you look like a dork. (Though, since I don’t shave my legs either…)

Second, I didn’t get involved in this for get-evenism. I have no wish at all to advance the cause of men by trampling women. I have no time for it. In fact, were I to desire a revenge, I could think of no better one than to merely make some spoiled brat of a femikook live under the same rules she and her kind have crammed down the throats of men for generations anyway. Why devise some torture, when you can use the laws at hand? Still, though - far better to apply those laws in the interest of getting them changed. It’s a sad, sad commentary that such laws won’t be changed until someone runs a sob story about how it negatively impacts women, but I will take what I can get. Too late for me, but maybe my own son might not have to spend the bulk of his adult life fighting to be a part of his children’s lives.

That’s the thing, though - infantilize a segment of the population, and you wind up having to change their nappy on a regular basis. I don’t know about the rest of you guys, but the days of having a husband hunted down and arrested because his wife messed up are days that are well gone. I don’t want to take liberty from women - just have them accept some personal responsibility for how they exercise it. Woman competes with me heads up for something, and wins it, I have no issues. Where I have issues is when she wins it because she is hitting from the red tees. That’s a handout. That is “letting the girl win.” It’s not just wrong - I think any woman who has such things handed to them, without earning them … well, if they had an ounce of integrity or self respect, they’d hand it back. I know I would. Perhaps that is why it gets so vigorously defended and rationalized away by femherroids. Not because they are trying to convince me, but convince themselves.

It strikes me that feminists are always clamoring to be “Empowered.” Okay, I can see where that word is grating, like every other feel-good, PC turn of phrase. And it is annoying because it doesn’t mean what it actually means when it is used by them. Empowered to them means having power handed to them - not equality of opportunity, but equality of result no matter what the performance is. If the girl loses, make an excuse, and award her the blue ribbon anyway. A really empowered person, though, takes their own initiative, runs the race on their own feet, and accepts what they win with grace - win or lose. They don’t whine, or make excuses for themselves when they fail, and they don’t try to argue in a court to win what they can’t achieve by their own efforts and on their own merit.

And that kind of empowerment I am for. Ain’t nothing wrong with that at all.

They can’t find three wise men and a virgin in their ranks.

Fox News reports that a National Guard post along the border was fired upon.

Troops. At an observation post. Fired upon by rabble. Who ran back into Mexico.

Our troops “retreated without injury.” Go. Read it. United States military personnel - on our own territory - retreated before rabble. Retreated. As in “Ran Away.” Why? Because our spineless Catamite in Chief, Vice-Presidente Jorge Arbusto, Governor of the Northern Mexican Territory, refuses to enforce our border and our national sovereignity.

What.

The.

F&#K?!?!?!?!?!

Absodamnlutely unbelievable. Our own troops, on our own soil, unable to return fire on an invading force.  Of drug runners.  Banditos.

It begs the question?  Why?  And why not?  Seriously.  Ask yourself that.  Why does Jorge refuse to let our soldiers defend our borders?  Is the pansy that afraid of Mexico?  Does he wonder why the Repugnicans got their asses whipped in the 2006 elections?

Do you (Republicans) now start to get the clue as to why more and more of us are not seeing one whit of difference between you and the Dhimmicrats?  I expect the “Hate America First” crowd to not give a damn about American Interests.  I expect the socialist bastards to think we owe a living to every deadbeat in the world.  I expect the hand-wringing, limp-wristed milquetoasts on the left to get their undies in a bunch over actually enforcing laws on non-white people.

Of course, what do you expect from an administration who has put two border patrol agents in prison for DOING THEIR JOB!!!!  Namely, keeping undesirables from bringing drugs into our country by any. Means. Necessary.  What a bunch of candy-asses.

The more this kind of crap goes on, the harder it is for me to get in a dither about a Hillary Klintoon candidacy.  I mean seriously.  What would be the god-damned difference?  Riddle me that, Batman.

You Republicans need to throw some people out before 2008.  Send a clear message.  Like (Oh, I dunno, let me see…) - oh, yeah - there might be an actual DIFFERENCE between your party and the Democraps?

Is going to Use Tommy Jeff’s copy of the Qu’ran to take his oath of office.

Yes, that’s right, you ignorant lout.  You do that.

As National Review Online (NRO) points out, this wasn’t a piece of scripture for Mr. Jefferson, it was a reference book.  Which means, it was profaned, that is no say, put to a non-sacred, profane, use.

STEEEEEEEEE-RIKE ONE!

Thomas Jefferson was no fan of “Musselmen” as they were called at the time, as can be evidenced by his words on the topic:

Jefferson’s Koran [James S. Robbins]

The Bashaw of Tripoli’s justification for war on American trading ships in the Mediterranean two hundred years ago, according to Thomas Jefferson, was that “it was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners.” By all means let Keith Ellison swear in using Jefferson’s Koran, maybe afterwards he can look up the passages that discuss smiting the infidels at the neck and make great slaughter among them. Probably underlined.”

In the words of the great Stan Lee: “‘Nuff Said.”