Sounds Like A Tyrant To Me

Of course, I'm kidding. Well, more accurately, I was being sarcastic. You see, Lincoln remains one of my favorite Presidents. Here's a quote from him I had e-mailed to me by a contact with the Federalist Society.

"If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, ... the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

-Abraham Lincoln (arguing for limiting the impact of the Dred Scott decision)

As we've discussed before, most recently here, it is the duty of all branches of government to uphold the Constitution. For that matter, it is the duty of each and every one of us citizens to do the same.

Ah, Here We Go Again - the "Youths"

The trouble with being busy is that you end up sitting on stories. The trouble with sitting on stories is that they get blogged about by writers better than you.

Nevertheless, I remain undaunted, if a little tardy on this post on the easily enraged "youths" in France.

You can read the BBC's take on the events in Villiers-Le Bel a town of 26,000, here.

It appears that there was an accident in which two teenagers died when their motorcycle hit a police cruiser. According to the BBC:

Relatives of the two dead teenagers insisted that police had rammed their motorcycle, and then abandoned them to die.

However, police say the motorcycle was going at top speed and was not registered for street use, while the two boys - who have been named only as Moushin, 15, and Larami, 16 - were not wearing helmets and had been ignoring traffic rules.

Moushin, huh? Sounds to me like some of those Irish youth who are always stirring up trouble all over Europe.

But most interesting is this article, which indicates that on average nearly 100 cars are burned every night in France. Did I read that right?

About 138 cars around France were burned overnight, which Ribeiro called almost "normal." Police say as many as 100 cars are burned every night around the country.

I shudder to think about what's going on when the burning of as many as 100 cars every night is considered normal. Just another jour in the life of the relig... nah, too easy.

The GOP CNN/YouTube Debate

I missed the debate but read most of the transcript and heard quite a bit of the exchange in the car on talk radio this afternoon. The AP story is here.

There were some interesting things to take away from this debate. Like it or not, the conventional wisdom that the primary is becoming a two-man race might just be right if the degree of sparring is any indication. I like that the crowd booed Rudy - I think he's bad for conservatives.

I liked this exchange:

Mike Huckabee, who has also come under GOP criticism for some of his immigration policies while governor of Arkansas, defended benefits he supported for children of illegal immigrants, including allowing children to be eligible to apply for college scholarships.

"Are we going to say kids who are here illegally are going to get a special deal?" Romney asked.

Huckabee objected, saying the benefit was based on merit. "We are a better country than to punish children for what their parents did," he said.

And especially this, which Romney needed to say (and he may have to say it again):

"I was wrong, I was effectively pro-choice," said Romney, who has said he changed his stance in 2004 during debates on stem cell research. "On abortion, I was wrong."

"If people are looking for somebody in this country who has never made a mistake ... then they ought to find somebody else," he said.

And in a statement rife with implications, Ron Paul indicated that he wouldn't run as an independent. This is great news because he won't get the nomination, and assuming his supporters have some sense of decency, this will be additional votes to defeat whoever the Dhimmicrats nominate.

While I'll tune in for the general election debates, I've not been inclined to catch the primary ones. Anyone out there who caught the debate, I'd be curious how this one stacked up to the prior debates.

Since Men Aren't Angels

Government - the external variety - is necessary.

There is a not insignificant sentiment that exists that supposes that the law is arbitrary; indeed I've argued with many people I consider friends on the improper absolute that suggests that free men should be free from external government. While the body of laws governing the Republic undoubtedly contains some arbitrary legislation, it is worth repeating that morality is a component inseparable from the law.

I have been sitting on this quote for a couple of days, waiting for a time when I'd have a few precious minutes to share the wisdom contained therein. And from one of my favorite Founding Fathers, no less. Enjoy, courtesy of the Patriot Post:

To grant that there is a supreme intelligence who rules the world and has established laws to regulate the actions of his creatures; and still to assert that man, in a state of nature, may be considered as perfectly free from all restraints of law and government, appears to a common understanding altogether irreconcilable. Good and wise men, in all ages, have embraced a very dissimilar theory. They have supposed that the deity, from the relations we stand in to himself and to each other, has constituted an eternal and immutable law, which is indispensably obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institution whatever. This is what is called the law of nature....Upon this law depend the natural rights of mankind."

-- Alexander Hamilton

When You've Got Two Quarterbacks

My brother Pat reminded me of this conventional football wisdom. When a team says that it has two quarterbacks, it really doesn't have a quarterback: when you've got one, you know what I mean. Chicago has had lots of seasons where we've got two quarterbacks. Teams like Dallas, and (Lord forgive me) Green Bay have one quarterback.

It's a little like that with the GOP this year. We were discussing this article by Jonah Goldberg; it's likely to make Ron Paul people happy and Huckabee people unhappy. That is, if you're willing to discount the body of evidence that's out there that links Ron Paul to Truthers and Deniers. Golberg's point about ideology aside, I don't find Ron Paul to be a better alternative to Mike Huckabee. That Paul hasn't denounced his connections and/or support from some of the fringe groups that endorse him equates to a deafening silence.

But here's the point we came to: there's no stand-out candidate this year. One can - and we did - find fault with each of them. We're faced with the prospect of choosing the least damaging or least likely to offend the principles of conservatism. The point to take away from this is that the primaries are extremely important this year, and the consequences of who we choose are enormous.

Thanksgiving 2007

God bless you all and your families this Thanksgiving and always. Let us recall the advice of His Excellency, Gen. Washington:

It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors.

Interview With Dr. Kevin Gutzman

Dr. Kevin Gutzman, author of the recently reviewed Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, was kind enough to answer some questions I had upon completion of his book.

Dr. Gutzman is associate professor of American history at Western Connecticut State University. He received his Master of Public Affairs from the University of Texas, his J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law, and his M.A. and Ph.D. in American history from the University of Virgina. Dr. Gutzman is the author of Virginia's American Revolution: From Dominion to Republic, 1776-1840 and was a featured expert in the documentary film John Marshall: Citizen, Statesman and Jurist. He as written scores of articles and encyclopedia entries, as well as reviews of books, films, and exhibitions for magazines academic and popular.

The following is the text of our interview via e-mail.

MT: Dr. Gutzman, thanks for agreeing to answer some questions in this format.
KG: You are welcome.

MT: I’d first like to ask you if you think the Judiciary is “broken” in the sense that it isn’t working the way it is supposed to; and if so, what do you see as the leading cause of this?

KG: The problem is not the judiciary, but the tradition of judicial review. Over time, what was originally conceived as the federal judiciary’s role in enforcing the Constitution against Congress – that is, in preventing Congress from legislating in areas intended to have been reserved to the states – has come to be a wide-ranging legislative role. The federal courts rarely act as protector of the states against a Congress rapacious for power, but instead usually join Congress in grabbing power intended to be reserved to the states. The result is that instead of a decentralized government in which the overwhelming majority of policies affecting Americans on a daily basis are made by elected, state legislators, we have come to have a highly centralized government in which many important questions are decided by unelected, unaccountable lawyers: federal judges.

MT: How did this begin? What were the origins of judicial review and the courts siding with Congress against the states?

KG: The power of judicial review, of judges’ deciding whether acts of Congress were consistent with the federal Constitution, was said by Federalists during the ratification debates to be inherent in the Constitution. However, they did not say that it would be exercised against state statutes, as it has been since Fletcher v. Peck (1810). Fletcher involved a completely specious construction of the Contracts Clause of Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution, and ever since then, federal courts have felt increasingly at liberty to strike down state laws on the flimsiest of bases.

The Ur-text of federal courts siding with Congress against the states is John Marshall’s opinion for the Supreme Court in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). In that case, Marshall was at great pains to “correct” the interpretation of the Constitution offered in oral argument by Luther Martin, counsel for Maryland, who happened to be one of the Constitution’s chief authors; according to Marshall, who was not a Philadelphia Convention delegate, Martin was simply mistaken to think that the powers of Congress were limited to those listed in Article I, Section 8, but extended to various implicit grants of power. When James Madison read Marshall’s opinion, he correctly noted that if people had known that this construction would be given to the Constitution, it never would have been ratified. I provide a detailed account of the most important state’s ratification dispute in Virginia’s American Revolution: From Dominion to Republic, 1776-1840 (Lexington, 2007).

MT: I thought on multiple occasions that your book stood as a pretty strong indictment of our educational system, both primary and the university level. What are your thoughts on this, and on the way a person is educated in the legal profession in the 21st century?

KG: Legal education in America is, when it comes to the Constitution, simply inappropriate. Constitutional law is treated as a common law field, one in which what matters are solely the precedent established by federal courts. What should be taught, however, is what the Constitution meant to the people at the time it was being ratified. It is, after all, what the people ratified, and not what the judges made of it, that is “the supreme law of the land.” At least, that is the theory.

People who study the Constitution below the law school level typically study it in the same way as do prospective lawyers: by reading huge volumes of court precedents. One literally would know more about the Constitution by reading it without reading the typical constitutional law casebook than he would be reading the casebook, so this mode of instruction is highly problematic. Once an error is written into the body of judicial opinions “implementing” the Constitution, it is unlikely ever to be corrected, and so future students are taught the error as if it were accurate. In effect, erroneous opinions operate as constitutional amendments.

MT: What are your thoughts on the provisions for removing judges from office? Are they too high a hurdle? What should constitute “good behavior?”

KG: The problem here is not the Constitution itself, but Senate precedent. Unfortunately, the Senate decided in the impeachment trial of Justice Samuel Chase two centuries ago that “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the grounds for which an impeached federal judge can be removed from office, must be indictable crimes. As the great Raoul Berger demonstrated in his Impeachment, however, the Senate erred: a “high crime” or “high … misdemeanor” was a political offense in the English system from which the phrase was borrowed by the Philadelphia Convention — such as, say, amending the Constitution under the guise of interpreting it. By that standard, federal judges such as Earl Warren or William Brennan heartily deserved impeachment.

MT: What are your thoughts on corrective action for addressing some of the missteps of the Judiciary as you mentioned in your book?

KG: The Constitution provides four mechanisms for correcting the courts’ errant ways: 1) constitutional amendment; 2) restriction of courts’ jurisdiction; 3) the appointment process; and 4) impeachment.

Constitutional amendment is, of course, difficult, but should be used more frequently. It was a grave error for James Madison to counsel Thomas Jefferson after the Revolution of 1800 that there should not be an American tradition of amending the Constitution to correct recent errors, and I think that his advice should be abandoned.

Restriction of courts’ jurisdiction is, by and large, entirely in Congress’s discretion. Since the Constitution does not require that there be any federal courts other than the Supreme Court or that they have original jurisdiction beyond the few types enumerated in Article III, Congress could at will deny federal courts jurisdiction over, say, cases involving the burning of flags or the notification of parents that their children have had abortions. This remedy requires only a majority in each house of Congress.

The Senate has essentially abdicated its responsibility throughout most of American history in relation to the appointment of federal judges. It should play a major role in ensuring that the president appoints not merely able, but also constitutionalist candidates. Few senators seem to believe that this is incumbent upon them.

Finally, I have been on record since 1990 in favor of a campaign of impeachments of lawless federal judges. It would do the country quite a lot of good, go a long way toward restoring the federal Constitution, if Congress undertook to remove the foremost judicial legislators from office. It would also serve, as the French say, pour encourager les autres!

MT: It seems that the other branches of government sometimes act as if upholding the Constitution is the responsibility of the Judiciary alone. What do you think it will take before the other branches of government begin to uphold the Constitution?

KG: We certainly should not leave the impression that the judiciary is the only problem. Presidents feel free to propose unconstitutional laws, to act as if the law did not apply to them, to wage war without involving Congress in the decision-making process, and in various other ways to violate the Constitution. Congress feels free to legislate in any way that comes to mind, regardless of the Tenth Amendment’s reservation of powers to the states. Yet, since they have the power of judicial review, for the courts to be directed into the right path would go a long way toward correcting the other branches’ misbehavior.

MT: The contributors and readers of this blog are firm believers in the principles of balanced government. What are your thoughts on the prospects of balanced government as a political movement?

KG: By “balanced government,” I presume that you have in mind a situation in which each branch of the federal government is in the proper relationship to the others? I agree with the great Virginia senator and political theorist John Taylor of Caroline, who said that far more important than checks and balances — some form of separation of powers — within the federal government was the principle of division of powers — the assignment of responsibility in only a few areas to the center, with most reserved to the states — between the states and the federal government. Alas, this most significant of American governmental principles is now largely abandoned. However, one can hope for its resuscitation, and the first step toward that goal is to educate Americans at large about their real constitutional heritage.

Thanks again to Dr. Gutzman. I take full responsibility for any misspellings or other formatting errors as I'm exhausted and posting late; and accidents do happen. Be sure to get your copy of the Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution; it is very well-done and a necessary part of any library.

Justice For Sale

This link will take you to a great piece in the Opinion Journal by Justice O'Connor. Someone who might otherwise be hard pressed to find common ground with Justice O'Connor found it quite readily in this comment:

Today, only a little more than one-third of Americans can name the three branches of government--much less explain the balance of power among them.

Indeed, the judiciary is a topic near and dear to my heart, as is a robust civics education - obviously one of the principles behind the creation of this blog. I like to think that I give credit where it is due, so kudos to Justice O'Connor. And thanks to my good friend Mark Misiorowski for the heads-up on the piece.

Because No Culture Is Superior

We must not pass judgment on others. I've simply got to show this to my multiculturalist neighbor and see if he thinks it's perfectly OK for a 33-year old man to marry a dog.

And Lefties also think we should draw on international law for the purpose of forming opinions - another reason to never, ever, and I mean NEVER allow a Democrat near the White House again. Frankly, I think this means you, too, Rudy.

Subject To The Jurisdiction Thereof

Ah, yes, the ever-so-troubling 14th Amendment.

As I have mentioned in other places, I was given The Heritage Guide to the Constitution as a gift a couple months back, and I have not been the same since. While there is much ground to cover with respect to the 14th Amendment, for this brief post I'm going to focus only on the Citizenship Clause, as it is called.

I could say a bit on the topic, but not any better than this from the Guide itself:

One conspicuous departure from the language of the Civil Rights Act was the elimination of the phrase "Indians not taxed." Senator Jacob Howard of Ohio, the author of the Citizenship Clause, defended the new language against the charge that it would make Indians citizens of the United States. Howard assured skeptics that "Indians born within the limits of the United States, and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this Amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supported Howard, contending that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant "not owing allegiance to anybody else... subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States." Indians, he concluded, were not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States because they owed allegiance - even if only partial allegiance - to their tribes. Thus, two requirements were set for United States citizenship: born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction.

By itself, birth within the territorial limits of the United States, as the case of the Indians indicated, did not make one automatically "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. And "jurisdiction" did not simply mean subject to the laws of the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of its courts. Rather, "jurisdiction" meant exclusive "allegiance" to the United States.

What I find interesting about this is that the historical record is there for the reading, and can easily verify original intent. Perhaps, in time, we may yet see this Republic turned away from the path to national suicide that we're on. While insisting on such antiquated ideas as allegiance will surely qualify me as a "hater" to someone, I can think of no simpler means of correcting some of the problems resulting from the 14th Amendment than insisting on the plain, simple and original intent of the authors of the Amendment.

Book Review: The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution

I learned about this latest installment to the "PIG" series when I heard the author, Dr. Kevin Gutzman, on the Michael Medved show probably three months ago.

The book is very well done and quite accessible. I spent a lot more time with it than I might another book of similar length as I kept referencing the Constitution, the Federalist, and my Heritage Guide to the Constitution (not to mention a couple of biographies of You-Know-Who) whenever I'd read something that I wanted to confirm or verify.

There are more areas where I find agreement with Dr. Gutzman than disagreement; one inevitable and notable exception is the Lincoln legacy. It has been my understanding that while Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, it was in limited situations (namely to protect a supply line into D.C.) and was followed up shortly thereafter by Congressional endorsement. It was an appropriate time to do so (war and/or insurrection was present).

There's of course a larger question of legitimacy at stake here which might need some exploration. I acknowledge that the Union in the first place was a voluntary one and could be undone. The separation of political bonds such as this isn't an act to be taken lightly nor without a valid basis for making such a break; there wasn't a "long train of abuses and usurpations" compelling the insurrection.

Suppose the state of Illinois decided that given the budget crisis, citizens could buy a license for a cool $100,000 to enslave as many illegal aliens as one could. Or suppose that retirees in the state of Oregon have become too much of a drain on the rest of the state, such that the state decides that every person over the age of 60 is henceforth "D-N-R." In each case, the state is depriving a class of persons of one of their inalienable rights; and the deprivation of the right to life is an oppression no more serious than depriving someone of liberty or the fruits of their person. While the issue of jurisdiction appears clear (domestic matters not constitutionally appropriate at the federal level), the obligation of the general government is not.

Having addressed my one area of disagreement, I could spend days posting on the excellent points of this book. My hope is that Dr. Gutzman will instead humor me and the readers here with answers to some questions. I hope to be able to post more along these lines in the not-too-distant future.

In the meantime, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution remains an essential for everyone's library, so if you don't yet have it, run out and get it. Yes, I mean right now.

Legislating By Redefinition

I have been thinking about the ways special interest groups are attempting to promote their agendas of late. I believe one of the most insidious of these methods is the attempt to legislate by redefinition. I know my fellow bloggers are aware of my opinion of those who would change the definition of a word to provide a legislative shortcut to groups or individuals to spare them the tedium of going through the legislative process.

For those who are not, I believe that to create legislative shortcuts by changing the definition of a commonly accepted word is the height of irresponsibility. (i.e. Instead of asking congress to make a new law, you simply change the definition of a term in an existing law so that it now includes/excludes the group, individual, company or government agency that is affected by that law.) This creates huge problems, not the least of which is the potential to completely redefine our government and society without so much as a "by-your-leave" on the part of the people.

If the definition of a word is changed in order to gain benefits from existing legislation, then doesn't that change the definition for all existing legislation containing that word? Even if the definition change is strictly worded to be appended to only one or two existing laws, how does that affect the process of writing legislation? How could a legislator possibly craft a bill in such a way that the meaning of the terms in it could never be changed to twist the intent of the legislation to something else entirely? If our words cannot be depended upon to mean only what they meant when written, then our Constitution and all it contains becomes just so much clay to be twisted and molded according to the whims of the day.

That said, how can such an insidious practice be stopped? I propose that we ask our legislators to craft legislation requiring that when the legal definition of a word is changed,(particularly when it is changed for the sole purpose of granting a legislative shortcut) all legislation that will be affected by that change, (Yes, in some cases, that would be every piece of legislation containing that word.), must be reviewed and have that word changed to a term or phrase that means the same as the original word but that does not include the changed definition. This would preserve the intent of the original law in a way that illuminates the flaws in the practice of legislation by redefinition. It would also discourage those who wish to gain legislative shortcuts in this manner while safeguarding our founding documents from such disastrous meddling.

This may seem cumbersome, but I cannot see any other way of protecting our current system from the havoc that legislating by redefinition will cause. If we allow one word to be redefined, where will it end? Shall we redefine "marriage"? What about "adult", "man", “woman" or "family? You know Rover there is a member of the family, it's a shame he can't get health insurance through Daddy's work too. Why stop there? Let's redefine "land", "building", and "vehicle". How much trouble could be made with that?

To allow this to become an acceptable practice would invalidate our government entirely. Our current system may take a long time to make the changes certain groups would like to have, but that is not a good enough reason to undermine it in this irresponsible fashion. If, on the other hand, this is merely another attempt to subvert the will of the people, then it is clearly our duty as citizens to make such shady dealings impossible.

Happy Veterans Day

Say a prayer today and give thanks for all of those brave men and women who have served this country.

And see this link at the Maritime Sentry for a great video tribute (if only I could figure video out!).

Unprincipled or Brave?

Kathleen Parker accurately poses that question in her recent column about the Robertson endorsement of Rudy Giuliani. While I found this announcement interesting, I didn't put a whole lot of importance on it. Maybe I'm wrong in that regard.

The troubling thing about it is this: neither alternative is very good. If indeed one views his endorsement as a matter of bravery, it assumes that the conventional wisdom is correct: "Rudy is the only one who can beat Hillary." I think this talking point has been hammered so often that people haven't taken a really good look at the validity of it. Indeed, it seems to have gone straight from talking point to accepted fact by most pundits.

I think Rudy would have enormous difficulty differentiating himself from Hillary. While he is quick to point out how different they are, on social issues they are nearly identical (remember Hillary: "safe, legal and rare"?). Assuming Hillary makes it through the primary - and there's no reason to think she won't - she'll predictably move to the center on defense and taxes, thus minimizing the differences further. What's to inspire a conservative about a Rudy candidacy at that point? Hate of the Clintons?

The primaries are the time to slug it out over ideology, of course. Here's hoping that the eventual GOP nominee stands a chance of presenting a clear contrast to the Demo candidate. If it ends up Rudy, I think America's Mayor is going to go 0-for-2 against Hillary.

Semper Fidelis

Happy birthday to the United States Marine Corps, 232 years young today. You can click here for the official history page. It is difficult to argue that there's a better organization on the planet than the Corps. Thank you, Marines, for your service and love of country. You're an example of all that's right with the United States. For that, we are semper gratus.

Our Responsibility

One of my favorite quotes - and my instinct says that it was Hamilton - goes like this: that which we obtain too cheaply we esteem too lightly. In other words, inherited riches are more likely to be squandered than those earned by one's labors.

Reading Mom's comment from the post immediately preceding this one, I was reminded of this truth. Is it any wonder that most Americans are so uninterested in matters governmental? If we've been given freedom at no cost to ourselves, isn't it simply natural to take this for granted?

Here's another rather unoriginal idea: I think that each and every generation should struggle for freedom and liberty; or, I should say, so I hope. While our challenges will be different than prior generations, our efforts at preserving and increasing liberty should be the same. The greatest generation fought fascism. Perhaps our generation will be called to fight another destructive ideology (Liberalism). Perhaps our fight will be less intellectual than that. Indeed there are destructive ideologies working right now for the destruction of the Republic.

I can't think of a reason to assume that we won't be faced with a struggle for survival in our time, nor can I think of a reason that I shouldn't prepare my children for the same fight. Should they grow up in a peaceful world without conflict, I'll thank the Lord that he let us fight to win that condition. Yet, as surely as I value the fight for liberty in this time, would my children be better served living a life unaware of how precious liberty is?

Imprimis

I've posted before on the wonderful Hillsdale College publication, Imprimis. I've been hanging on to the most recent issue for a week or so now, because I wanted to share this beautiful quote.

Unlike most issues, October's was not a speech but an interview with the Hon. Clarence Thomas. Says he:

My job is to apply the Constitution. And here’s a useful lesson: You hear people talk all the time about the Bill of Rights. But you should always keep in mind that the Bill of Rights was an afterthought. That’s why it’s made up of what are called amendments. It was not in the original Constitution. The rights in the Bill of Rights were originally assumed as natural rights, and some people at the time thought that writing them into the Constitution was redundant. Read the Declaration of Independence. We should always start, when we read the Constitution, by reading the Declaration, because it gives us the reasons why the structure of the Constitution was designed the way it was. And with the Constitution, it was the structure of the government that was supposed to protect our liberty. And what has happened through the years is that the protections afforded by that structure have been dissipated. So my opinions are often about the undermining of those structural protections.

At any rate, the whole thing is worth a read and I encourage you to check it out, but I was most pleased that it sounds like Justice Thomas would be a supporter of the principles of balanced government.

What We're Told and What We Can Guess

I saw an article the other day that I filed away to do some more research on. This morning I saw another news item with more of the same, so I figured I'd take a shot at it.

This was the original story that caught my eye. The Reuters report from Tuesday closes somewhat ambiguously:

Piracy off Somalia dropped briefly last year during a six-month period in which most of the south was ruled by a hardline Islamist movement. Incidents rose again since the sharia courts movement was toppled in Mogadishu at New Year.

One might first conclude that the sharia courts fell, and, whatever had been restraining the criminal element gone, all hell broke loose. But isn't it equally possible that the Islamist element, now marginalized, is raising revenue however they can? Couldn't Islamists have been the source of piracy all along? Once in power, this might not have been an effective use of time and resources. But now?

Back in August, the BBC ran this story on piracy in the area, and while not suggesting that these organizations are terrorist organizations noted that (emphasis mine):

Somali pirates are trained fighters, and often use speedboats equipped with satellite phones and Global Positioning System technology.

Trained where, the mind wonders. By whom?

Today brought another story on the topic. I was most interested in where this is happening: places like Kenya, Somalia, Nigeria, Indonesia. And of course, the article's reference to the Barbary Pirates.

While there is no open acknowledgment by the media on the nature of these groups, is history - not to mention geography and experience - enough to help us draw some conclusions?

The Adams Family

I've been sitting on these quotes for a while, meaning to post them up eventually, because they are both so good. Quotes courtesy of the Patriot Post's Founders Quote Daily:

"It already appears, that there must be in every society of men superiors and inferiors, because God has laid in the constitution and course of nature the foundations of the distinction."

-- John Adams (Thoughts on Government, 1776)

What do you think would be the reaction to a quote like this today? Would our second President be revered or reviled? I'm guessing he'd be called a hater, racist, nativist, something-ophobe, you get the idea.

And from that "other" Adams comes one of my favorites:

"No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffusd and Virtue is preservd. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauchd in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders."

-- Samuel Adams (letter to James Warren, 4 November 1775)

Just a day shy of 232 years since, does that sound a little bit like any country you've heard of? If not exactly there yet, getting slowly closer to being described as "easily subdued"?

Hewitt Interviews Huckabee

So Mike Huckabee was on the Hugh Hewitt show and you can read the transcript of their exchange here.

Huckabee comes off a little lacking. He owns up to making a mistake pretty well. So far, so good. He then wanders into strange territory, even suggesting that illegals who reach the age of emancipation might have to go back depending on if their parents are sent back? They're here illegally. If you're a 17 year old illegal, your whole family goes. If you're an 18 year old illegal... your whole family goes.

He then seemingly has a hard time answering a pretty simple question on SCHIP legislation, and sort of blows it on a federal smoking ban. For a conservative, a pretty fundamental issue is the imbalance between the spheres of government: the federal is far too over-reaching. Supporting a federal smoking ban seems to me to be too willing to allow distant external government to grow.

Hewitt, of course, is a Romney guy, so perhaps he had an agenda. Perhaps. But if you read the transcript, he gives Huckabee a couple of chances to consider what he's saying. I've still got to offer this disclaimer: I'd still pick him over Giuliani and Thompson.

Now THAT is Smart

The following is the text of an e-mail I got from the Duncan Hunter campaign today. I read this, sat back and said to myself, "brilliant." Kudos to Congressman Hunter.

HUNTER RECOMMENDS WAR VETERANS REPLACE STATE DEPT PERSONNEL

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 1, 2007
CONTACT: Gary Becks (619) 334-1655
San Diego, CA – Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) today recommended to President Bush a proposal to replace State Department personnel who refuse to be deployed to Baghdad with wounded veterans from military hospitals at Walter Reed and Bethesda. Hunter, who is currently running for President, went to the White House earlier today and met with President Bush to outline and detail his “Wounded Warrior” project.

“My recommendation to the President was simply that we need people in these positions whose top priorities will be to get the job done regardless of the circumstances and I know which individuals meet those qualifications. Our wounded warriors have already exhibited courage, professionalism and work ethic on the field of battle. They have already answered the call to serve in difficult circumstances and they know firsthand the meaning of sacrifice. If the State Department is having trouble with reluctant personnel, I can think of nobody more qualified than these brave patriots to rise to the challenge.

“State Department recruiters should immediately be sent to Walter Reed and Bethesda hospitals and application forms should be provided and posted on relevant employment websites. As I indicated to the President, I have no doubt our men and women in uniform will once again answer the call of their nation.”

Wait! I'll go a step further - fire all the communist appeasers in the State Department and replace them with honorably discharged Veterans.

Initiating an AFB Policy Change

As a courtesy to our readers, contributors, commenters and fellow bloggers, we've reached a point where we need to have a serious discussion on a policy item.

While it has been my intent from the beginning to make this blog an open forum for the discussion of ideas, I think I need to clarify a couple of things. First, off-topic comments promoting a website will be deleted, or, at a minimum, ridiculed. While we've desired to create an open forum, this shouldn't be construed as "post a comment and promote your website."

Also, comments that contain cursing will be edited or deleted at the discretion of the blog contributors. While we don't object to a person's ideas or opinions, we reserve the right to police our site as we see fit. I won't tolerate certain things in poor taste, and while it makes no sense to enumerate these, rest assured that we'll know it when we see it.

We'd like this site to be PG or PG-13 and be a resource for people looking for conservative commentary and opinion on Constitutionally-consistent balanced government. To that end, we're going to take a careful look at comments and, quite frankly, links. I'd be interested in how others have handled this...

Suppose an otherwise great blog has some objectionable content; for argument's sake, let's say that it is rough language in the context of a post (rather than pictures or video, which to me is pretty clear-cut and isn't anything resembling a gray area). It seems like the options are to de-list someone; ignore it (readership beware); privately request that it get cleaned up (seems too intrusive for my tastes); or "rate" your links. Has anyone run into this issue, and what thoughts do you have on the matter?

For the record, and those of you who know me best will attest to this, I have been known to curse. Especially when angry. But I try my best to keep the Lord's name out of it, and thankfully I report I do a pretty good job of that. However, in mixed, or polite, company, I am really good about holding my tongue, even in the most difficult of circumstances. And I consider this space to be polite company.

Welcoming your thoughts and comments, as always.

Principles First, Issues Second

I have long thought that the problem with the GOP was the basis by which it was created - a third party founded to eliminate what in hindsight was a temporary problem.

While some might disagree, I think one of the most glorious moments in our nation's history is the founding of the GOP and Lincoln's prosecution of the war. An ugly blot - inconsistent with the Declaration of Independence - was wiped out at great cost to the country. Yet the party has struggled with the exception of a few periods of brilliance since then (see: Reagan, Ronald) and needs to refocus.

The GOP is a party in search of an identity. Buchanan's column suggests the same. There is a great rift in the party between "moderates" and conservatives. Calling that faction "moderates" is of course a Leftist trick - per their playbook, this infernal word game suggests that the liberal-bent within the GOP is the "reasonable" or "mainstream" part of the party.

I attend a fair number of meetings and hear a lot of Republicans speak. They all beat the drum on "limited government" (don't get me started) and family values. But when the party doesn't deliver on these "principles", as it unquestionably hasn't (out of control spending, Foley, Craig, etc.), it loses the trust and confidence of all but the most affectionate members of the party.

The great problem facing us as I see it, and this is no secret as any regular reader will note, is how imbalanced our system of government has become. I think that a political movement dedicated to returning and diligently preserving balanced government would withstand the changes of time - as our founders recognized that balance would be needed regardless of the societal changes that were impossible to foresee. It is my sincere hope that the GOP can be reformed and be the bearer of those principles. Yet, if it cannot, we have to be willing to form new political bands to preserve our freedom.

More on the Enumerated Powers Amendment

We've discussed this topic before here and here. At this link is a great column by Walter Williams. Williams wonders aloud if the People's disinterest in those things Constitutional mirrors the contempt he sees in Congress, or if the People are merely ignorant.

This to me seems a little bit like the question "when did you stop beating your wife?" I might suggest first that there are probably a fair number of Congressmen who respect the Constitution, although few of them would be found in the category "Democrat." Secondly, I would guess that even among Congress, there is probably a great degree of ignorance with respect to the Constitution. Short of requiring an entrance exam, the answer to this problem lies with the People.

Speaking of the People, I'd suggest to Williams that the People are largely ignorant of the Constitution. Contempt, while it surely exists, would be the domain of Leftists, who abhor anything American (like the principles of our founding). It remains up to us - bloggers, activists, citizens - to change the conversation and educate ourselves and others on the founding principles. Our representatives are undoubtedly a reflection of the People, and changing one will change the other.

Accepting the Truth

There's something to be said for an occasional slice of humble pie.

I've said time and again how much I dislike Michael Medved. From his position on third parties (they're bad!) to his constant shilling for the GOP, he's one of the most consistently frustrating pundits I regularly listen to (and have called on a couple of occasions).

But, you've got to give credit where it's due. Medved's recent column is great; it's a topic I find fascinating. It's worth a read, and worth remembering that even sometimes people we aren't wild about can surprise us with wonderful insight.

Article V: The Convention Clause

I've probably mentioned before that I'm a member of the Federalist Society. In fact, as I write this there is a Fed Soc. meeting in downtown Chicago for the release of Clarence Thomas' book, My Grandfather's Son.

In addition to invitations to cool events like that, one of the benefits of membership is the quarterly Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. I don't always have the time to read these, and usually only take a look at one or maybe two articles in each one. The Summer 2007 volume has been sitting around for a while, waiting for a spot in the rotation, because I was intrigued by one of the "Notes" entitled "The Other Way to Amend the Constitution: The Article V Constitutional Convention Amendment Process."

It's worth reading and I encourage you to take a look at it, however in the interest of busy readers, I'll summarize the important points. First, Article V:

Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Here's my analysis. Based upon the historical background, the original purpose of the Convention Clause was to give the States the power to correct/curb either a corrupt or incompetent Legislature. As the Note states, there are a few questions with respect to Article V, the two most prevalent being: 1) can a convention be limited (avoiding a "runaway convention") and 2) can Congress control the subject of a convention?

First, given the purpose of the Clause, the power to limit the scope of a convention lies naturally with the States, who are making the application. Calling a convention for the purposes of revoking an existing Amendment, or calling for the purposes of approving a new Amendment, qualified in the application as for that purpose alone, is sufficient protection to limit the scope of the convention when called. Second, with respect to Congress' ability to control the subject matter pursuant to the political question doctrine (I would recommend reading the Note for a good background), this is inconsistent with the original purpose of the Clause, and therefore Congress' duty is ministerial, and that alone (obliged to call the convention; the use of the word "shall" denotes this).

And of course, to the first concern again, in the unlikely event of a runaway convention, the States still could reject the work of the convention (the convention fails the 3/4 ratification hurdle).

The illustrative point here is that there exists a mechanism, and a fairly well-constructed one, to make changes in the realm of external government. A well-educated electorate, of the opinion that a beneficial or even necessary change has to be made, has at its disposal a tool for preserving liberty.

If Democrats Had Any Brains...

I recently read Ann Coulter's latest effort If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans. This is going to be the AFB's shortest-ever book review.

Ann's book is a collection of quotes, organized by topic, from her prior books, columns and speeches. If you like her stuff, as I do, you'll like the book. There's little or no new ground covered here, but she knows what her fans like, and she delivers the goods.

The Swiss Example; When Will We Awake?

I generally choose my words carefully and prefer not to come off as bossing around the readership, however you simply must go read this outstanding piece by Takuan Seiyo.

It appears that the Swiss, to a degree, are rejecting the lies of multiculturalism and embracing the facts. I can't imagine Americans doing this - at least not yet. We seem to require some offense before we unite and cast aside the default PC-imposed behavior we've become accustomed to. My hope, rather, is that as more people and organizations are committed to the truth, and as truth begins to see the light of day, that we'll wake up without what seems like the necessary tragedy.

Unfit for Command

Check out this link to Pat Buchanan's recent article of the same name. Buchanan asks the question: "Does this generation have the maturity to lead America?"

The question is a good one for a couple of reasons. First, the obvious answer is that yes, of course, this generation has the maturity to lead America. Despite my numerous complaints about the Baby Boom generation, it is obvious to anyone not living under a rock that there are a lot of outstanding leaders in the BB generation. I see them at the Township meetings I attend. They are present in government at every level if you look carefully enough.

However, that those in positions of leadership are immature in many respects begs the question: how did they attain those positions and why aren't more mature - and here I'd use this word "mature" interchangeably with "conservative" - people leading America?

The how is fairly evident. Liberalism has led to multiculturalism, interest group politics and pandering to the lowest common denominator. Otherwise absurd ideas (nationalized health care, for example) that can't stand up to scrutiny are widely accepted by Americans who have been conditioned to depend on someone other than themselves for their survival. When a large portion of the population has become permanently dependent upon "the government" for food, money, housing, a job, the self-government gene is utterly - if not completely - atrophied. As the saying goes, if the government is robbing Peter to pay Paul, they can count on Paul's support.

This also leads to part of the answer to my why question above: it's easy to be dependent, especially if someone is willing to trade entitlements for your vote. But the problem is bigger than that. Other culprits include public education, a vast bureaucracy designed more for the benefit of its union members than its clients (parents and children). Public education both institutionalizes children (trains them in ways of thinking - or not-thinking) and lightly spoon-feeds an agenda that yields results contrary to the requisite skills needed to turn out productive citizens. Once trained to make the grade and demonstrate proficiency in that regard, young adults are sent off to indoctrination camps (college or university) to fully immerse them in cultural Marxism. By then, they are "adults" (as much as one considers a 17 year old an adult) and away from the influence of their families.

The other part of the "why aren't more conservatives leading America" question is this: there isn't sufficient effort being made to train young people (think college-age) to get informed and involved. What America needs is a two part education process: both children and adults need to be educated on the principles behind the founding of this Republic. Then, involvement in efforts locally and electronically (such as blogging) will prepare young people to lead when the opportunity presents itself.

I can virtually guarantee that the profile of a conservative blogger is nearly exactly as follows: self-educated on politics and Founding era history; family-oriented; and possessing a Biblical-Christian worldview (want more? How about this?). I'll allow for exceptions here or there, but overall, I think that would be the profile. That's the recipe for creating a conservative activist; to create more of them and future generations that way will require the effort I've suggested above.

"Islam is a Religion of Peace"

This statement is in quotes for a reason. It is an example of taqiyya, the Muslim practice of deception. There exists in Muslim teaching the concept of "mental reservation" which is condoned by the Quran and the Sunnah (the narratives of the life of Muhammed).

I've been reading Jihad Watch, and strongly recommend reading this section, Islam 101. Some very enlightening analysis. I was unaware of taqiyya, for example, and learned also about the principle of abrogation (damning as it is to that faith) and the hadiths (narratives) that comprise the Sunnah.

Here's one of the best lines: "The entire Islamic moral universe devolves solely from the life and teaching of Muhammed." That says a lot about the faith, and I encourage everyone here to take a look at that link. It might take an hour or so to read it, but it will be the best hour you'll have this week, and you'll never be the same after doing so.

She Said It, Not Me

But I am curious to hear an explanation or defense from the Romans or any of their readership over at The Maritime Sentry on Ann's characterization of Huckabee on illegal immigration from her most recent column. I recall hearing elsewhere that he made such a comparison, and I can't for the life of me understand what he was trying to say. The two things, of course, have nothing to do with each other.

I'd also remark that maybe someone who's "with" Fred (remember that charming slogan?) will speak up an defend his honor..., but I can't say as I know any supporters of the man, nor would I recommend anyone defending his impeachment/removal from office vote.

The Same God?

We've discussed at length in this space and elsewhere the problems with Islam - you can see a number of posts under the label Islam and more under the label Jihad. That people fail to educate themselves on the principles of that faith remains a problem; that President Bush, by his comments in the link that follows, is guilty of either ignorance or political correctness is even worse. Here's a good article by Cal Thomas that echoes some of the things that have been said on this blog and others. The truth is often an uncomfortable thing, and requires courage to reach the light of day.

Stubborn Facts

Very quickly...

While the media has never let facts get in the way of a good story, it is important to verify facts where we can find them (I almost said "trust, but verify" but I thought trusting the media was being a little absurd). I searched for "Jena" to learn more about the case earlier today (this is another good example of how far behind I am on what's going on in the world) and got this link to snopes, which is a myth-busting website.

Worth a read, and they cite sources for further research, if one is so inclined. I haven't done any further research, but the story here is significantly different than the one offered by the MSM.

John Savage, Your Table Is Ready

Go and check out John Savage's Brave New World Watch. I've linked it up on the left of the blog so I don't forget to visit and then have to go through Webster's blog to find it.

John presents his analysis (and the writing is very good) from a traditionalist point of view. Always thoughtful, often over my head, definitely worth a regular visit. Sorry it took me so long to get the link up over here!

The Future of the Union

Fascinating article about a movement afoot to break up the Union.

Some of the posters on this blog have heard of these, shall we say, unlikely "alliances" in the past; while I won't address that in the post, any of my blog mates may choose to do so in the comments or under separate cover. While I discount the viability of such alliances, one must recognize that there is a genuine frustration among the people about the degree of influence of external government; and that I think there is also a natural appeal to people of any political persuasion for the principles of balanced government. Its fundamental value proposition is that people - at the most local levels possible - get to decide how much external government they want. Regardless if you're a conservative in the South or a nut liberal from Vermont, that freedom appeals to most people.

Of course, as I've suggested before, there's a quality inherent to balanced government that lends itself to what we'd consider "conservative" principles. This is just another way of saying originalist, or, if you prefer, Constitutionally-consistent government.

For the record, I think balanced government can fix the problems that ail the Union, and preserve it intact for future generations. Indeed, there are precious few other things that have the power to do the same.

Our Worst President

A while back we discussed in this space the rankings of Presidents. We did, right? I can't seem to find it.

I got to thinking about this again when reading the excellent speech digest of Hillsdale College, Imprimis. The September issue excerpts a speech by Amity Shlaes, whose new book, The Forgotten Man, remains on my list of to-reads.

Here's a link to a wikipedia page on Presidential rankings; some interesting information is available there. I had long thought that FDR didn't deserve his place of honor on those lists, given his employ of Soviet spies in his administration and his subsequent sell-out of Eastern Europe at the conclusion of WWII. His obvious hand in our slide into socialism and interest-group politics should settle the debate forever.

Except this: which Democrat President was the worst? FDR, the father of the Cold War, Carter, the father of Islamofascism, or Clinton, the father of, well, Who Knows How Many?

On Municipal Bans

Not to be confused with "Municipal Bands" which I unequivocally enjoy...

My co-worker and friend Brian and I had a great conversation last night over dinner, and the topic came up of food bans (like Chicago's foie gras ban) and also, libertarianism. I shared with him my thoughts on the two subjects (for the record, you can read them here, a recent post on growing external government and here on libertarianism).

The tension between license and liberty in a dependent society is a fascinating one for me. While my position may seem inconsistent upon only a superficial analysis, one would quickly see that self-government is the point on which my position hinges.

That's a Message?

Do we employ men, any longer, in the diplomatic service of the government?

A'jad was at the United Abominations and the U.S. delegation walked out, to "send a message." Well, sort of. One guy stayed behind to take notes. If only I were making this stuff up.

Here's a message: as soon as this guy lands on our soil he's picked up and put into the general population of a really nasty hell-hole, like, I don't know, Cook County Jail. Then you hold him for 48 hours and see what happens.

Honestly: if any regular American (let alone President Bush) were found on Iranian soil, how long before that person is locked up, tortured, and/or murdered? Minutes? Hours?

What a Coincedence!

This article I saw online today discusses the sale of the Magna Charta, which the auction house figures will fetch around $30 million.

Heck, for much less, you can own a US Senator. Maybe even the Constitution. Talk about buyer's remorse.

Funny, that same $30 million is what Newt recently said he needed to raise in the next three weeks if he's going to run for President. From a strictly ROI standpoint, I'd say buy yourself a President. Odds are, Newt's in, but it's just a matter of time.

The Duplicity of Liberals

When someone is an unfit parent, they lose custody of their children. If you drink and drive, you lose your license - and if you're lucky, nothing more. That Liberals are dangerous for America's survival is manifested daily, and in numerous ways, and fortunately for them, the only thing we can do is vote them out.

Check out this great column by Hugh Hewitt, Columbia's Disgrace. I especially liked the retrospective of Eisenhower's efforts to expose the Nazi murder machine. I've been sitting on this for a day or so and wanted to blog about it, and wouldn't you know it, the timing actually worked out perfectly.

I say so because of this headline today, where lefties are protesting Rumsfeld's appointment as a visiting Fellow of the Hoover Institute. Especially disgusting? These comments:

An online petition contesting the appointment on the grounds that Rumsfeld clashed with the university's core values had more than 2,500 signatures Friday.

"He contradicts the fundamental standards of the university, which are order, morality, personal honor and most importantly, the rights of others," said Pamela Lee, a Stanford art history professor who helped write the petition. "This person has played a critical role in a disastrously failed military policy. He has aggressively abused international law."

Yes, folks, we're being lectured on morality and personal honor - not to mention "the rights of others" - by a Stanford art history professor. As far as liberal nuttiness goes, about the only person to the left of an art history professor is a women's studies professor. But I'm sure - absolutely certain - that Ms. Lee is also protesting for the "rights of others" by picketing abortion mills, so I should give her a break.

I don't know that much more needs to be said about the insane positions of the left, that academia simultaneously welcomes the Hitler of our time, and protests a former Secretary of Defense. Except for this: we need to take away the car keys from these folks.

The Spirit of '76

I got this quote e-mailed to me by the Patriot Post the other day, and saved it for today 9/22.

"I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country."

- Nathan Hale (before being hanged by the British, 22 September 1776)

There are too few Americans who share this love of country. Would that there were more.

When Israelis Attack, Part II

The Iranians must be a little nervous right about now. I posted the other day about the Israeli strike in Syria. Now comes word that Iran is prepared to retaliate in the event Israel strikes them first.

(pauses for dramatic effect)

Look, nobody wants to get blasted back into the stone age - even if it's not a terribly long trip as far as Iran goes - but if you're going to keep rattling your sabre, eventually someone is going to take you at your word and deal with you appropriately.

Humorously, according to Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press Writer, Iran's Revolutionary Guard is "elite." Sort of like Saddam's elite forces? I just realized that his name is Ali Akbar Dareini - "Ali is Great" Dareini?

Timely and Timeless Quote

I have had this topic on my mind for a couple of days now, and I went back through my e-mails because I had every intention of posting on this when I saw it.

While time is precious and I won't be able to wax poetic on this, the quote is too good not to share:

"[T]he present Constitution is the standard to which we are to cling. Under its banners, bona fide must we combat our political foes - rejecting all changes but through the channel itself provides for amendments."

-- Alexander Hamilton (letter to James Bayard, April 1802)

The Mighty Hamilton, no secret that he's one of my favorite Founders.

When Israelis Attack

Check out today's posting entitled "Israelis 'blew apart Syrian nuclear cache'" from the Jihad Watch.

Great blog, and a valuable resource on the conflict. 50 miles from the Iraq border is awfully close. Didn't see this story anywhere else, for that matter. Maybe US outlets are just slow to pick it up...?

Two New Blogs

Have made the list... The Maritime Sentry and the Age of Treason. Both very good blogs, go check them out. DR at the Maritime Sentry is practically me, except for the fact that I'd never voluntarily live in Green Bay. If imprisoned there, I would break out. If accidentally killed there, and buried, I'd make a point of haunting my surviving relatives until they returned me to the Land of Lincoln. Or I'd have Papa Bear pay them a visit, and maybe bring Sweetness along for good measure.

Tanstaafl at the Age of Treason has a cool blog. You might find it a little edgy if you're a sensitive type, but I dig it.

BTW, suggested spellings for "Tanstaafl" included "tasteful."

Grand Old Pandering

Something's been on my mind for a while and I need to put it out there.

Maybe I've not been aware of them in the past, but does it seem like more and more, there are "diversity groups" proliferating even among organizations like the GOP? There's a hispanic group, there are black GOP groups, and local women's groups. I'm sure there are Muslim groups. Here's the "teams" page for the GOP.

Perhaps, I will admit, I don't understand these minority groups because, well, I'm not a minority (at least I think not; I better go check the census statistics). But doesn't their existence seem to say something about the party? What, I'm not sure, but could you imagine Ann Coulter at a Women's GOP event? Or sitting at the kid's table for Thanksgiving dinner?

And on that page linked above, there's the standard comment about increasing diversity. Here's the thing: I want a party that welcomes people based upon their principles, shared values, creative ideas in support of those shared values, and the ability to contribute. If you want to call creative thinking "diversity" then fine by me. But let's not bow to cultural marxism like the rest of the automatons.

Thanks to Katie's Dad for turning me on to that link above.

When the Self Abdicates Responsibility

A silly topic, perhaps, but what's the proper role of government in the food choices of its citizens?

I found this article interesting, and it got me to thinking (pardon the delay in posting).

For that matter, when one weighs the societal costs of brain injuries, are helmet laws a good thing, after all? Anecdotally, I am rather risk-averse when it comes to my health. I have also never ridden a motorcycle. In a candid self-appraisal, I am an aggressive insurer. I like to mitigate my risks; I probably over-insure.

Is it fair to say that bikers, accepting different degrees of risk, are less likely to insure as aggressively? I'd be interested in thoughts from the readership.

I happen to know 5 different entrepreneurs (none of whom know each other) that are bikers. The risk profile seems to be consistent: entrepreneurs are risk-takers, and getting on a motorcycle - or flying a plane, for that matter - involves accepting a certain amount of risk. Yet, I have no evidence to draw a connection between risk-taking and the costs to society for coming up short on the risks one takes. It simply seems intuitive: if you're a risk taker, and you take certain types of risks, sometimes you're going to come out ahead and sometimes, well, the house takes your money.

I think the point, at last, is that government should be silent on these issues to the extent that a person's choices aren't infringing on the liberty of others. There's an intersection where a person's lack of self-government meets up with the rights of others who are affected by this lack of self-government. A good example of this is the biker who doesn't have health insurance. If he/she gets in an accident, they will get the treatment they need; you and I will bear the cost.

As long as people aren't self-governing to a reasonable degree, there's going to be a push for external government to step in and fill the role that properly belongs to the self. I've long thought that "the government" has no business in telling people what to eat. Or if they can smoke. Or if they should wear a helmet. Acknowledging of course that if people were self-governing we wouldn't have to worry about this problem, we must also admit that the urge to enforce restraint through external government when the individual abdicates his/her responsibility is a natural reaction. I'm not yet ready to endorse it, even if I understand it.

And interesting to me is this: if our Founders could see the "issues" that occupy the public space, how do you think they'd react?

Cultural Survival

Russians want Russia to not only survive, but to grow and prosper. They recognize the demographic problem that is facing non-Islamic societies, and are rewarding people for having babies. Talk about pro-family.

Of course, Russians can thank Communism for crushing the human spirit to such a degree that people found it too burdensome to reproduce. Let's hope that these actions are not too little, too late. I loved this quote from the winner from last year:

"Andrei Kartuzov, who won the last "make a baby" grand prize along with his wife, Irina, said they had been planning to have another child anyway.

The campaign "is a good help for people, especially for those living in villages," he said. "If they hold such actions every year, then maybe we will have (more children) growing up and Russia will be bigger."

And isn't that the idea, really? To make our respective nations "bigger" - more powerful, thriving and successful?

Western Europe, of course, is going through the same problems. The question is: do they have the will to fight for cultural survival?

Book Review: America Alone

Yes, I know this has been out for a while and I'm a little late to the party. Nevertheless, in the event you haven't read Mark Steyn's brilliant America Alone, I recommend it without reservation.

Well, on second thought, maybe with one reservation: the night I first opened the book up and began reading, it so unnerved me that I tossed and turned all that night. And I'm not one to lose sleep over much.

Briefly, and then I'll share my favorite parts, Steyn looks at the Islamist threat from a demographic perspective, something I hadn't heard any other commentator do. The replacement birth rate is 2.1 children per woman, and Steyn educates us on the birth rates of Western nations vs. Muslim nations. It's not pretty. Spain, for example, has a birth rate of 1.1; this means that the population will decrease by half every 35 years, an astounding statistic.

Some favorites...

P. 45 - Steyn addresses the dynamic in modern societies, particularly Europe: "Somewhere along the way these countries redefined the relationship between government and citizen into something closer to pusher and addict. And once you've done that, it's very hard to persuade the addict to cut back his habit." Sound like a growing problem of ours, as well?

P. 85 - "But Islam's appropriation of the gay lobby's framing of the debate is very artful. It's the most explicit example of how Islam uses politically correct self-indulgent victimology as a cover. You'll recall that most Western media outlets declined to publish those Danish cartoons showing the prophet Mohammed. Thus, even as they were piously warning of a rise in bogus 'Islamophobia' - i.e., entirely justified concerns over Islamic terrorism and related issues - they were themselves suffering from genuine Islamophobia - i.e., a very real fear that, if they published those cartoons, an angry mob would storm their offices. It was a fine example of how the progressive mind's invented psychoses leave it without any words to describe real dangers."

P. 159-160 - Steyn discusses what he calls "defense welfare" as part of the cause of Europe's problems. With no need to spend money on defense, they spent ever more on social programs. Says he: "Like any other form of welfare, defense welfare is a hard habit to break and damaging to the recipient."

P.187 - Steyn discusses the role of the state in failing to "protect" us. "But the only reason 'a box cutter can bring down a tower' is because on September 11 our defenses against such a threat were exclusively the province of the state. If nineteen punks with box cutters had tried to pull some stunt in the parking lot of a sports bar, they'd have been beaten to a pulp." Quite so.

P.193 - the importance of will. "In a culturally confident age, the British in India were faced with the practice of 'suttee' - the tradition of burning widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands. General Sir Charles Napier was impeccably multicultural: 'You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.'" Non-judgemental multiculturalism, he obviously notes, is a fraud.

Overall, very well-done and both insightful and witty.

Birds of a Feather

Just when you think you've seen and heard it all, comes this story yesterday, that OBL has a new video out. Now, this in itself isn't so unusual, but the facts surrounding it are just plain weird.

You can read the whole thing here, if you'd like, but I'll highlight the most, let's say, interesting aspects of it.

He claims the media is a "tool of the colonist empires."

He criticizes the Maliki government.

He criticizes "neoconservatives like Cheney, Rumsfeld and Richard Pearle."

He speaks directly to the American people acknowledging that they supported the "Democratic (sic) Party" to end the war, but that they "haven't made a move worth mentioning."

He discusses Vietnam and JFK, suggesting his death was orchestrated by major corporations that were benefiting from the war.

He praises Noam Chomsky, and criticizes capitalism, "interest related debts, insane taxes and real estate mortgages; global warming and its woes..."

Sound like any major party you know? If I didn't know any better, I'd say these were the talking points of a candidate (Obama bin Laden?) for the DNC nomination. I was struck by just how similar the messages are, right down the line.

Except for one important part of his message: the enticement to appeasers. He suggests in his message that all of these problems can go away if we just simply convert to Islam. We've discussed this before in other posts and other places, but this is the endgame. This appeal will become more frequent, and more spineless appeasers will take up the jihadists on this. It's happening on a large scale in Europe, and will eventually begin happening here at home.

Another Victory for the Good Guys

Old news by now, but thankfully the German police thwarted what appears to have been a serious terrorist plot. They're still looking for more people who were involved in the plot or aiding the suspects.

And while the media reported accurately that these were Islamists, there seems to be some factions of the media that are calling these guys Germans.

Point of clarification: it doesn't matter if these guys were born in Germany. Doesn't matter if they're as white as the driven snow. They're Islamists. That's what counts. We'd do well to recognize that this isn't an Arab problem any more - simply profiling Middle Eastern males might catch a number of jihadis, but it won't get them all. This is a problem with Islam.

We ought to recognize that this is also a problem with the West in general. We're losing an ideological battle with an enemy who espouses 7th century thinking. That just might be an indication that the strength of "modern ideas" - specifically Western liberalism and politically correct permissiveness - leaves a little to be desired.

So He's In

So Fred made his announcement... on Leno? I can sort of understand why Arnold made his announcement on Leno - it was a bit of a surprise and he was running for Governor of California, after all. But the non-candidate candidate (guess I can't call him that any more) has always been in the running, at least as far expectations go. And announcing on Leno seems... I don't know, maybe not becoming of the office you're seeking? I mean, the next thing you know, he's going to be playing a saxaphone on the Arsenio Hall show.

While I neither fear nor welcome a Fred Thompson candidacy, I cast serious doubts on his ability to "invigorate" a dispirited GOP. After all, we're looking for more conservatives, thankyouverymuch, and not more well-phrased platitudes without any meaningful substance behind them.

Hmm. I wonder...? Does that make Fred our Barack Obama? Says all the right things, but a little long on the sizzle and a little short on the steak?

How do we deal with the threat of liberalism?

Mike has put up a couple of nice posts the last few days concerning the nature of Islam, and how best for we Americans and the West to deal with the threat it poses us.

We've both been thinking along the same lines of late it seems. And we've both been searching for answers to the dilemma we face. Perhaps you've been assaulted by the same kinds of thoughts. How do we deal with Islam effectively?

Lawrence Auster of VFR asks the question this way: If we can't democratize Islam, and we can't destroy it, then what? But Auster goes further, he provides the answer. And with my friend, Mike, I strongly suggest that you read Auster's article. Mike has provided the link in his entry below.

Also, Mike's post on moderate Muslims has been a fruitful piece of work in itself. Mike and I had an exchange in the comments section that not only led to this post, but to the one preceding it. Like I said in my comments to Mike, I see some real similarities between Islam and Western liberalism. Both belief systems would destroy us. And the whole problem common to them both may be stated this way:

"There are moderate Muslims as well as moderate liberals, but there's no such thing as a moderate Islam, nor a moderate liberalism."

Both of these are extreme belief systems which are destructive fundamentally. The similarities between them, which I won't go into here except in the general sort of way that I have above, suggested to my mind that perhaps both of them could be dealt with effectively by use of the same separationist strategy Auster suggests concerning Islam, yet customized to and applied in a different way to the problem of liberalism. So I put the question to Mr. Auster, and here is his answer.

Now, I don't necessarily think Auster's reply to me is the end of it. I didn't go into much detail in the way that I posed the question to him because I was having a hard time articulating what I was thinking. But I think he's put this entry up for a reason. And I think part of that reason is to get responses from some of his readers who may have an idea of how to customize the separationist strategy to utilize it effectively against the threat of liberalism. So if any of you have any ideas on the matter, do send a comment to Auster concerning this entry.

I want to be clear. I'm not suggesting that we isolate liberals in the way that we'd isolate Muslims according to Auster's separationist principles. I'm suggesting that the ideology of liberalism be somehow isolated so that it can pose a serious threat to us no more. Because as Auster has noted elsewhere, as long as Islam has an ascendancy into our counsels, it is a threat to us. The same can be said of liberalism, as long as liberalism is a dominant power in American politics, it works to destroy our tradition, our culture, our way of life; our very existence.

Ideas?...

A Rational Strategy for Dealing with Islam

I'm going to claim any number of reasons for not having put together a coherent position on our problems with Islam up until today. For example, my report cards as a kid routinely were fine, but remarked that "Michael needs improvement in exhibiting self-control." See, I'm clearly suffering from ADD, which I guess would make me an "early adopter" - I was even into pseudo-disorders before they become popular (look, don't send me a bunch of hate mail just because I made a joke about ADD being a pseudo-disorder; I'm in a stream of consciousness mode right now and I was just having a little fun).

Or maybe, I've been so busy with work, that I only have a couple of hours a day with which to devote myself to study on topics that interest me; I simply haven't had time , you see, to develop a coherent position on the subject. Or, as the parent of a toddler and a preschooler, there's so much racket and activity up in this house that even when I have time to devote to studies, it's so darn hard to piece together more than a couple of sentences before getting interrupted and having to rush off to broker a peace agreement.

There's a great post called "If we can't democratize Islam, and we can't destroy it, then what?" over at View from the Right - see the link to that site along our left sidebar (hat tip: Terry).

Here's the scary thing - Auster had this figured out in January 2005. If I'm an early adopter for ADD, Auster didn't adopt - he invented the solution to dealing with Islam. Smart guy. Probably has a whole mess of kids too, blowing one of my excuses out of the water.

Folks, I can't say it any more emphatically than this: read that link above. It should be required reading for every American who values his/her culture and way of life.

Moderate Muslims

I have, in the past, scoffed at the notion of such a thing as moderate Muslims. My thinking on that has been formed by what appeared to be a complete lack of condemnation of the actions of extremists, by practitioners of that faith; if indeed there were moderates, my reasoning went, why were they silent on atrocities committed in the name of their faith?

I was listening to the Michael Medved show this week and he devoted a segment to encouraging moderate Muslims. It got me to thinking about the issue some more, and I've refined some of my thinking on the matter.

Before going further, I'd disclaim that I share a slightly different perspective than someone like Dennis Prager when discussing religions: Prager asserts that it is most appropriate to judge the practitioners of a particular religion, and not the religion itself. While Prager makes a point of not criticizing the particular doctrinal aspects of a religion, I think it is appropriate to begin to shift the conversation in that direction. My blogmate Terry pointed out a post at VFR wherein Auster discusses liberalism, and how it manifests itself even in conservatives; particularly notable to me is the self-censoring that conservatives engage in on a given topic, such as criticizing another faith. Inasmuch as I reject moral relativism, I'm inclined to say that we should begin to make informed (righteous) judgments, yes, even with respect to other faiths. More on that in a bit.

I blogged a while ago on the South Korean missionaries who were taken hostage by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Thankfully, the remaining hostages were all released just the other day, see here for details. At what price their freedom comes, the outside world will never know; let us hope that the deal was not a sell-out for immediate gain at the expense of long-term success against extremism.

Especially in light of the hostage crisis, I've been reflecting on the leadership of Hamid Karzai, and to a lesser degree, that of Nouri al-Maliki in Iraq. These leaders are, in fact, living, breathing, moderate Muslims. Karzai in particular was highly critical of the taking of the Korean hostages as being unjustified. He has also taken a leadership role in trying to settle tribal differences, knowing that it is local leadership that will bring Afghanistan out of the middle ages and thus improve life for all Afghanis.

Now here comes the dilemma. As I readily admit, I am not a Koranic scholar. I have read a few books on the religion and, along with anecdotal evidence, have enough data to conclude that there are fundamental problems with Islam. While this post isn't a critique of the tenets of that faith - and perhaps I may yet provide one someday - suffice it to say that if we begin with a fairly core belief, we're immediately at odds with reason.

Muslims contend that the angel Gabriel visited their prophet through which Allah revealed the Koran to Mohammad; they claim Allah is the same God of the Jews and Christians. The Koran - the supposed word of God - permits violence, slavery and the possession of concubines; and this is a short list of the contradictions between the Koran and the Holy Bible. God is a perfect being and cannot contradict Himself: he cannot be both God and the devil; He cannot be both the Truth and a lie; He cannot be inconsistent. So, of the three monotheistic faiths, two suggest that God is one thing and the third suggests He is something quite different.

An interesting discussion remains to be had - also not the point of this post - about the compatibility of reason with major world religions. Rodney Stark wrote a wonderful book called the Victory of Reason, which I wholeheartedly recommend.

At long last, here is where I have been headed with this post: while we're engaged in a battle for our existence with a large segment of Islam, it is worth noting that there are "moderates" in that faith - something I have not done, in a candid critique of my own rhetoric. While Islamic societies have been closed to outside influences for centuries, we should encourage and be encouraged that there are these people, many in leadership roles, throughout the Muslim world. And we should engage moderates where ever we meet them, in the hopes that the Divine gift of reason may enlighten a dark part of our world.