liberty
The two doors of the mosque
Muslim activist groups like CAIR wonder why a lot of Americans don't trust Muslims. Maybe it's because if everyone knew what was really going on behind the doors of the mosque, no one would trust them.
The same imam who demanded that the men continue in the path of jihad did a complete 180-degree turn in this session, stressing instead the suras that promoted the "brotherhood" between Muslims, Christians and Jews. "After all, we worship the same God, and follow the teachings in the books he gave each of us. We are all the same, we are all People of the Book," he stressed.
The differences between the sessions were striking. Clearly the second session was a recruiting session.
Were the women aware of what was being taught in the first session? Certainly those women who spoke Arabic should have been.
The reason for concern is obvious: Two different doctrines are being promoted. One peaceful, friendly, warm and fuzzy doctrine is being used to draw people in, with a focus on the well-being of their children.
But the Arabic-speaking sessions clearly have an anti-American tone.
ACLU "observers" aiding illegals, smoking dope
Volunteers with the Minuteman Project in Arizona say "legal observers" sent by the ACLU to monitor the citizen border patrol have been seen smoking marijuana in violation of the law.
[...]
[...] ACLU monitors sent to the border to watch Minuteman activity and report civil-liberties abuses to authorities have begun flashing lights, sounding horns and warning off illegals and their "coyote" human smugglers from entering territory patrolled by the volunteers.
[...]
A volunteer reported, according to the South East Arizona Republican Club, "The ACLU is getting desperate to get something on the Minutemen and are trying to provoke incidents now."
"They pushed one of the Minutemen the other night trying to get him to push back. Didn't work. Then last night they walked up and shined a spotlight right in a Minuteman's face from six inches or so away. Didn't work that time either. We immediately report these types of contacts with them to the sheriff to counter any claims they try to make against us. They should be called the UCLU (Un-American Civil Lawsuit Union).
"They give us the middle finger every chance they get to try to get us to react. We are still trying to figure out if that is their age or IQ." It's so nice to know the defenders of liberty and our Constitution are on the job down there in Arizona. Larger pictures of the alleged dope smoking can be found here. [With thanks to Israel R. for the links.]
PATRIOT ACT Pop Quiz
Link to a legitimate news story showcasing a civil acts violation in the United States as a result of the PATRIOT ACT. Good luck.
To date, not one court or congressional committee has found evidence of any abuse of the powers under the Patriot Act.
Not one civil action has been filed against the government under Section 223, which allows citizens to seek damages for any willful violations of the Act.
Did you have a happy Government Income Confiscation Day?
In the late 19th century, Justice Stephen J. Field noted in an opinion: "If the provisions of the Constitution can be set aside by an Act of Congress, where is the course of usurpation to end? The present assault upon capital is but the beginning. It will be but the stepping-stone to others, larger and more sweeping, till our political contests will become a war of the poor against the rich; a war growing in intensity and bitterness."
Indeed. For most of American history, taxes were levied primarily on consumption, rather than income, and for good reason. In The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton argued, "It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess."
All that changed in 1913, however, when the central government started taxing income. At that time, federal taxes were equal to 3% of GDP and the entire tax code was two pages. Now taxes are in excess of 20% of GDP and the tax code is more than 46,000 pages (including 481 separate tax forms). Additionally, taxpayers will spend a cumulative 6.5 billion hours complying with that code, and due to its complexity, more than half of taxpayers will rely on "professional preparation," costing them more than $200 billion. Yes, flat-tax or federal sales-tax me now. The only reasons we didn't pay through the nose this year was unemployment on my part, having a nice little deduction in toddler form, and paying the bank so one day we can own the home we occupy. I especially enjoyed Alexander's ripping of FDR in his column. Greatest President of the Twentieth Century? For whom? The Communists?
Jefferson on the judiciary
"The Constitution...is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please." --Thomas Jefferson Once again, I am amazed at how prescient our Founding Fathers were, with regard to the present state of government in these United States.
Sacrosanct for me but not for thee
How is it that some people can see the Constitution as a "living, breathing" document, that it must be adapted and interpreted in the light of our changing culture, and that we are able to find new rights and laws in the emenations of the penumbra of the aureola. And yet these very same people would have an absolute conniption if you suggested using the same approach on Roe v. Wade? [Via Blogs4God, with the above title shamelessly ripped off from one of Roy's commenters.]
Sergeant Paul Ray Smith, United States Army
Today President Bush posthumous awarded the Medal of Honor to Sergeant Paul Ray Smith of the U.S. Army. Sergeant Smith, in April of 2003, led a counter attack against members of Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard who had ambushed Army troops at the Baghdad Airport. His actions saved more than 100 men. Only three Medals of Honor have been awarded since the Vietnam War. We are grateful for people like Sergeant Smith, and our hearts and prayers go out to his family, especially his children. Were that more of our countrymen of Sergeant Smith's mind.
Our Divine Tribunal
The Divine Tribunal -- excuse me, I mean the Supreme Court of the United States, as it's officially known -- has decided, by a 5-to-4 vote, that executing criminals under the age of 18 is unconstitutional.
Where, you may ask, does the U.S. Constitution say that? Well, nowhere, actually. But the Tribunal doesn't decide what's constitutional by consulting the Constitution. That would cramp itsstyle.
[...]
Conservatives often accuse liberal justices of "legislating from the bench." The charge is too kind. The problem isn't that they legislate; it's that they lie.
Quote of the day
As seen on the Laura Ingraham web site this morning:
"At this point I would rather have a right-wing Christian decide my fate than an ACLU member."
-- Eleanor Smith, a disabled, self-described liberal agnostic lesbian
How our constitutions are supposed to work
Two Republican Florida Senators could have saved Terry Schiavo's life by voting 'yes' to a law. 'The death penalty is an authorized punishment for capital crimes designated by the legislature' (Article I, Basic Rights, SECTION 17, Florida Constitution), not the order of a county judge. The Florida House could have impeached Judge Greer (Article III, SECTION 17) for committing the felony (Florida Statute Chapter 825) of denying nutrition to a disabled person and multiple violations of guardianship (Florida Statute 744).
[...]Instead, George Greer, a black-robed priest-king, ordered that a deputy sheriff stand guard in Terry's room and prevent her parents from giving her a cup of water. When Gov. Bush had an executive agency exercise their authority under Florida law, George Greer ordered -- took executive authority -- over all Florida authorities.
[...] The Roman Republic ended when Roman Law was contested by men who said, 'the law is what I say it is.' Civil wars begat dictators, more civil wars and dictators until the civilization was a shell to be broken by invading barbarians. American Civilization is at her Rubicon. People seem to have forgotten that our constitutional republic's system of checks and balances applies to all three branches of government. The judicial branch is not the final word on what the legislative and executive branches decide to do. The judiciary's job is to ensure that what the legislative and executive branches are doing are within the boundaries of the respective constitution (federal or state). This is a job in which the judiciary has continually failed, nearly from the inception of our nation. Likewise, the judiciary is not to engage in making up law from the bench, which has repeatedly done since the 1960s, up to and including the granting of constitutional rights never before voted upon and passed. Law is the purview of the legislature, not the judiciary bench. Rights are granted by God, not the government. The judiciary has no enforcement powers of its own; it has to rely on the executive branch to enforce any decisions it may make. This is why I don't see why the deputy sheriff in the Schiavo case mentioned above could not have been removed by a state trooper on orders from Governor Bush, should the governor had chosen to do so. That deputy does not answer to Judge Greer. He answers to the Sheriff, who answers either to the constituents who elected him, or to the elected county government which appointed him. The latter, in turn, is answerable to the people who put them in to office. Unless that deputy committed a crime, or is acting as a baliff in the judge's courtroom, Judge Greer has no executive authority over him. Judges are not the final arbiters of what the law is. They are the insurers that the law is followed, and that law does not trample upon stated constitutional rights. It is not their job to "interpet" the law; a good law should need no interpretation. I am continually amazed at how the words "Congress shall make no law..." has been applied to state and local governing bodies. Likewise, "...shall not be infringed" has become "...shall be infringed when deemed necessary." No, it means shall not. Not then, not now, not ever. Not by a little or a lot. It means not at all. Yet we see it happen all the time, and by and large, as a populace, we do nothing about it. If a law is unclear, then the judiciary should send it back to the legislature for a do-over. Other than that, they should keep out of the law-making business. The Constitution of the United States is plenty clear-cut on many matters. We have simply allowed what was once clear to our forebears to be muddied in our eyes. [All emphasis throughout is added. --R]
More on the Apple trade secret cases
If you're not subscribing to MDJ or MWJ, you're missing out on what is the very best and most comprehensive coverage of the ongoing Apple trade secret lawsuits. Matt Deatherage has worked to the point of failing health to deliver a knock-out of an issue this past Sunday that features the most intensive news of the cases I've seen. Matt & Co. deliver brilliant point after brilliant point, with so many good ones, I'd have to reprint the entire article to get them all in. There is one example on why these cases are important for businesses, and why this is not about the political right to free speech as set forth in the First Amendment.
How many people would have looked twice at the original iMac if its Bondi Blue design had leaked out two months in advance, and competitors had already released similar-looking PCs? Apple actually introduced the machine at an event that everyone thought was for some of O'Grady's long-rumored PowerBooks, and it was - plus "one more thing." It's said that only about 30 people within Apple knew what the machine looked like or that it would be announced that May day in 1998, and the press coverage conveyed the shock at Apple's bold move.
The iMac's design influenced everything from rival PCs to peripherals to pencil sharpeners, but because Apple kept its work secret until it was ready, all those products were rightly seen as iMac copycats. If Think Secret had leaked the iMac like it did the Mac Mini, would the world have seen those products are iMac knock-offs - or seen the iMac, the original idea that was stolen and released prematurely, as "just part of a trend?" That sums it up. If the latter had happened, would Apple have recovered as quickly from its doldrums as it did? Would it have recovered at all? One could make the argument that the success of the iMac fueled the development of iTunes, the iTunes Music Store, and the iPod. Without the runaway success of the iMac, Apple as we know it today might not exist at all. That success could have been placed in serious jeopardy with rumors of the new machine leaking out. If you could spend your money on only one Macintosh publication, I would recommend MDJ or MWJ. (I have no affiliation with these publications, or their parent company, GCSF, Inc., other than as a satisfied subsriber.)
Taking away their shovels
"Congress doesn't act unless there is a crisis," one member of Congress once told me. That axiom is growing more apparent every day. Since many in Congress want to deny that we face crises in our economic infrastructure, the public must act now to remind them. We must demand urgent action to save our economic infrastructure. We must holler until they start to follow.
Instead of reading poll numbers, Congress must start reading thousands of e-mail messages from angry voters in their districts and states. Instead of listening to their political advisers, Congress must start listening to thousands of phone calls from people who are fed up with the income tax code, the dysfunctional Social Security structure, and runaway deficit spending. Instead of focusing on partisan politics and the next election, we must force Congress to focus on not leaving this mess for the next generation.
Let's start with a few real simple and specific messages. Congress, replace the income tax code with a national sales tax modeled on the FairTax. Congress, pass legislation that includes optional personal retirement accounts for workers younger than 45 years of age using 4 percentage points of their payroll taxes. Congress, let's enact a balanced budget amendment, since you have demonstrated that you cannot control your spending addiction.
Imagine what would happen if every member of Congress received this simple message every week from thousands of voters in their districts and states. Maybe then they will begin to see the same crises that we the people face every day.
Guarding your privates on campus
One FAL member’s monologue follows: "Hello, my name is Mary Man-Hating-Is-Fun. I am 23 years old, and I am what a feminist looks like. Ever since I learned to embrace my feminist nature, I found great joy in threatening men's lives, flicking off frat brothers and plotting the patriarchy's death. I hate men because they are men, because I see them for what they are: misogynistic, sexist, oppressive and absurdly pathetic beings who only serve to pollute and contaminate this world with war, abuse, oppression and rape."
Other members of the FAL wore scissors around their necks and sang a song about castration.
David Huffman, a writer for the UNH conservative paper "Common Sense" was outraged by the, shall we say, mr-ogyny of the event. Huffman was asked to leave the public university event during the open microphone session. Despite the fact that he wasn't singing songs about castration, FAL members said he was making women feel uncomfortable. Perhaps it was because he wasn't singing about castration that these women felt uncomfortable.
Huffman pointed out that nowhere did the posters advertising the event say "Women Only." He was simply excluded from an event at a public university based upon his gender.
The evening of man-hating was simply an example of an extremist group promoting stereotypes and encouraging violence towards another group. This is the kind of thing that is tolerated in the name of campus diversity, simply because the targets are the "right" group (Read: Not blacks, women, or gays).
After hearing poems that talked about castrating men, read by women with scissors tied around their necks, Hoffman asked "How is this any different than hating African-Americans or Jews?" The answer is simple: It is no different in principle. But, of course, the FAL is not based upon principle. The organization is based upon blind hatred. [Emphasis added on unlawful items. --R]
Loving death
Terri Schiavo may well die. No good will come of it. Those who are half in love with death will only become more red-fanged and ravenous.
And those who are still learning--our children--oh, what terrible lessons they're learning. What terrible stories are shaping them. They're witnessing the Schiavo drama on television and hearing it on radio. They are seeing a society--their society, their people--on the verge of famously accepting, even embracing, the idea that a damaged life is a throwaway life.
Our children have been reared in the age of abortion, and are coming of age in a time when seemingly respectable people are enthusiastic for euthanasia. It cannot be good for our children, and the world they will make, that they are given this new lesson that human life is not precious, not touched by the divine, not of infinite value.
Once you "know" that--that human life is not so special after all--then everything is possible, and none of it is good. When a society comes to believe that human life is not inherently worth living, it is a slippery slope to the gas chamber. You wind up on a low road that twists past Columbine and leads toward Auschwitz. Today that road runs through Pinellas Park, Fla.
What's at stake in Lebanon
With the democracy domino wobbling and threatening to fall in Lebanon, there is a lot at stake for many in the region. The Wall Street Journal sums it up (paid subscription required):
An estimated one million Syrian guest workers reside in Lebanon and remit their wages to relatives back home, and Syrian officials have plundered much of the international aid Lebanon received over the past decade. The Bekaa Valley also serves as a lucrative transit point for narcotics and other contraband. Without Lebanon, Syria's economy might collapse. So, too, might the Assad dynasty: Bashar's grip on power is far less sure than his father's, and the loss of prestige that a withdrawal from Lebanon would entail might well be politically fatal to him and the minority Allawite clique through which he rules.
For Iran the stakes are strategic. Its elite Revolutionary Guards operate terrorist training camps in the Bekaa. Iran has also placed upward of 10,000 missiles in Lebanon, including the medium-range Fajr-5 rocket, bringing half of Israel within their reach. It thus maintains the option of igniting a new Mideast war at any moment, as well as a hedge against the possibility of a pre-emptive Israeli strike on its nuclear installations. Yet if Syria withdraws, no pro-independence Lebanese government will indulge Iran's military presence. The Lebanese have had enough of allowing their territory to serve, Belgium-like, as the battleground of choice for foreign powers.
For Hezbollah, the stakes are greater still. During the years when Israel maintained a security zone in southern Lebanon, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah could present himself as a patriot fighting occupation. But Israel removed its forces from Lebanon in 2000, and now Nasrallah's support for Syrian occupation exposes a different set of motives: not patriotic, but Jihadist. And the last thing the Jihadists want is for Lebanon to again become a flourishing, pluralist, cosmopolitan Arab state. Syria's withdrawal would likely precipitate a Lebanese decision to enforce UN Resolution 520, which requires the Lebanese Army to patrol its border with Israel, a function now performed by Hezbollah. At length, it could lead to the disbanding of Hezbollah as an independent militia, though its terrorist wings would likely continue to operate. So let's see: Syrian influence is weakened, the dictatorial ruling party is squashed, and the democracy domino potentially falls in that nation. Iran's influence is further weakened, and its military presence threatening Israel loses ground; actual, physical ground. Lastly, Hezbollah's power is further weakened, and the organization is exposed for what it truly is and always has been: a group of terrorists. Tell me, o occupiers of the Left and haters of America, democracy, and liberty, what is the down side?
SSA makes case for reforming itself
Private accounts would pay workers based on the total amount they've paid into the system over their working lifetimes, not an average of what they paid in for part of their time in the work force. If private accounts had been around in 1989, I would have started growing mine with the first paycheck I earned pruning apple trees in the dead of winter in upstate New York. That account would have then been able to take advantage of what Albert Einstein called "the most powerful force in the universe," compound interest. So instead of penalizing workers like me, who pay in early, private accounts will give workers the advantage of nearly two extra decades of accruing retirement assets.
Viewed from this perspective, it's clear that by uniting against reform, Democrats are defending a system that is skewed against the workers they claim to represent--those who are handed little in life and must enter the work force early. Some of them work their way through college, but many stay in blue-collar and service-related jobs. They make less money each year, but make it up by working longer and harder. The Social Security debate is now about whether to allow these workers to capitalize on all of their hard work while saving for retirement. Isn't that what the Democratic Party is supposed to be all about?
On the Apple lawsuits
I have refrained thus far from commenting on the lawsuits by Apple against Think Secret, PowerPage, and Apple Insider, none of whom I will dignify with a link. There are others who are doing a far better job of shedding the real light on this issue, in that is has nothing to do with the First Amendment. Notably, John Gruber and Jeff Harrell have gotten it right. Think Secret, PowerPage, and Apple Insider should have to reveal their "sources," and they should suffer some form of punishment. I don't think hefty fines or jail time is necessary, but something punitive enough to ensure they will discontinue this nonsense, because it is hurting Apple. My disdain for Jason O'Grady's rumor-mongering goes way back, and my thoughts then still hold true now. By combining real facts leaked by insiders and NDA-holders with utter speculation, these rumor-mongers set up false expectations for unannounced Apple products. This leads consumers, as well as Wall Street "analysts", to be disappointed when the real product is announced, and downplay the significance of the product because it is not exactly what the rumor-mongers said it was going to be. These sites are hurting Apple by revealing sensitive and private corporate information, and it has to stop.
So what exactly are you protesting?
I spent part of last week ringing up the organizers of the anti-war events with a couple of questions. The first: Would they allow anyone from the newly-elected Iraqi parliament to address the gatherings? The second: Would the marches include expressions of support for the democracy movement in Arab and other Muslim countries, notably Iraq, Lebanon and Syria?
In both cases the answer was a categorical no, accompanied by a torrent of abuse about "all those who try to justify American aggression against Iraq."
[...]
Why are so many Westerners, living in mature democracies, ready to march against the toppling of a despot in Iraq but unwilling to take to the streets in support of the democratic movement in the Middle East?
Is it because many of those who will be marching in support of Saddam Hussein this month are the remnants of totalitarian groups in the West plus a variety of misinformed idealists and others blinded by anti-Americanism?
Or is it because they secretly believe that the Arabs do not deserve anything better than Saddam Hussein? [This article requires a free registration; get one from BugMeNot.] [Via Best of the Web.]
The real domestic issue
Peggy Noonan points to civil defense, not Social Security or tax cuts, as the real number-one domestic issue. The one no one is talking about.
New long distance record in Iraq
A U.S. Marine, Staff Sgt. Steve Reichert, has scored a kill shot while engaging the enemy in Iraq, and the shot was over a mile away. For his actions, Staff Sgt. Reichert has been awarded the Bronze Star for Valor.
In the after-action report, the platoon leader made a remarkable account: that Reichert made the shot from 1,614 meters – about a mile away. His accuracy was the deciding factor in the outcome of the firefight. For the math-impaired, 1,614 meters translates in to 1765.0918662 yards. There are three feet in a yard, so that number times three yields 5,295.2755986 feet. Staff Sgt. Reichert scored a kill shot at fifteen feet beyond a mile. Boys and girls, that's a long, long way for a rifle shot.