Archive for category Law, Morality & Religion in the Public Square
One Brit’s Opinion-No Mosque
Posted by Tom in Law, Morality & Religion in the Public Square, Terrorism on August 24, 2010
Europe, indeed England, is witnessing its own Islamifcation. When I traveled to London in the ’70s half the hotel signs were in Arabic; it has only accelerated in succeeding decades. And Shria law governs the local Muslim enclaves. Well here’s a no-holds-barred opinion from across the pond:
Understand Islam, Fail To At Your Peril
Posted by Tom in Europe, Foreign Policy, Homeland Security, Law, Morality & Religion in the Public Square, Statism, Terrorism on August 2, 2010
I recently received a You Tube video entitled “Three Things About Islam.” It is long but provides good source references at the end. In sum, it makes three points: 1. Islam has not been hijacked. Westerners have been told and assume that it has been hijacked by violent jihadists, how otherwise could a religion be so violent. The Qur’an has both peaceful and jihadist verses often thought contradictory but it provides a rule for resolving apparent conflicts, the last in time governs. Unfortunately, the violent jihadist verses are later in time than the peaceful verces.
2. Sharia Law is a duty for all Muslims. Sharia is the anthesis of separation of church and state, indeed the anthesis of freedom. It combines religion and political aspects into one totalitarian society commanded by the Qur’an. The law is ancient commanding eye for eye justice, stoning, and dismemberment for proscribed offenses. It governs contracts and commerce. The world will not be at peace until all nations are governed by Shria Law. So creeping Shria as in the UK where Shria courts already exist is indeed a danger. At current birth rates Europe will be majority muslim within our children’s lifetimes. So whether through the bed room and creeping Shria or through 911 type jihad, Muslims are installing Shria worldwide.
3. Muslims lie to non-Muslims. The Qur’an sanctions these lies in order to convert infidels and advance Shria Law. This principal is called TAQIYYA. To say one thing to non-Muslims and the exact opposite to Muslims is frequently used in the Arab world today. This is the very means of calling Islam the religion of peace!
Hussein Obama has curried favor in the Arab world bowing to its leaders and apologizing for the United States. He is an advocate of the “religion of peace” view of Islam. He even urged the NASA director to reach out to Muslim countries. Methinks Hussein’s Muslim roots are getting in the way of his job as president!
The YouTube video is long and made for a British audience so I did not embed it in this post. If you are so inclined to further study, the link is here.
Hussein’s Manipulation of Justice
The Department of Justice is supposed to be the most independent of all cabinet offices. Rightly so, since it has the power to investigate, to indict, and to prosecute. It is an awesome power, a power of trust, discretion and justice. It alone is the power not to prosecute after investigation, to nol pros. It is as close to the judicial power as power can get. It has traditionally been independent.
Enter Hussein and Eric Holder, gofer to Hussein. In the face of uncontroverted evidence of voter intimidation and against the advice of local, career Justice Department attorneys, Holder refuses to take a default, that’s uncontested, judgement against the Black Panthers. Why? Political motivation in Justice? Oh, are the Black Panthers black?
As bad, Hussein Obama ordered Holder to file a lawsuit against Arizona for its law enforcing federal law. Legally most experts agree that the lawsuit has no merit. No matter, it’s politics. Hussein while not having read the Arizona law, and refusing to enforce the federal law, is currying favor with the illegals who he hopes will vote, yes vote, for his leftists Democrats, excuse me, progressive Democrats!
Kris Kobach in his NY Post piece today, Behind US v. Arizona: pure politics, tells it like it is.
What a horrible degradation of justice in this country. It is easy to forecast trials like those in Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and Nazi Germany coming here soon. Speak against Hussein at your own risk! His misuse of justice for political purposes knows no bounds.
Pray that we will be rid of this ilk in the next election.
Unprotected Against Jihad
Posted by Tom in Defense, Foreign Policy, Homeland Security, Individual Freedom, Law, Morality & Religion in the Public Square, Military Policy, National Character, Terrorism on June 1, 2010
Hussein Obama’s counterterrorism tzar, John Brennan trivializes the danger of Islam according to Andy McCarthy in today’s NRO post, An Islam of Their Very Own. The article is a must read with only two conclusions possible: Obama is stupid or naive or he is converting the U.S. to sharia, that is Islamic law. In essence, become Muslim or die, so ruled Mohamed after his militant successes.
“Brennan admonished that we must not “describe our enemy as ‘jihadists.’” Why not? “Because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam.” Right again. There is no gainsaying that jihad is deemed to be a divine injunction in Islam. If one regards all forms of Islam as “legitimate,” then jihad, too, must be legitimate. Yet “legitimate” is a slippery concept. It could mean that something is good. Or it could just mean that something is authentic — something that really exists, for good or ill.
“Islam falls into the latter category. It exists. In many of its iterations — not just al-Qaeda’s ideology but Islamist ideology, which is quite mainstream — Islam means the West existential harm. This is why we are supportive of reformist Muslims, however pessimistic some of us may be about their prospects. The point, though, is that Islam is not going away. It is part of the hand we are dealt, like it or not. We don’t need to trash-talk it gratuitously, but neither should we pretend that it is an asset on our security ledger. It’s not.
“Alas, the Hope administration doesn’t see it that way. For Brennan, as for Obama, Islam is immovably in the first category: “legitimate” as in “good” — end of discussion. To sculpt this alternative reality, two things are required. First, we must ignore Islam’s many troublesome elements — e.g., its supremacism, inequality, intolerance, denial of freedom of conscience, endorsement of violence, etc. Second, to the extent that the resulting atrocities can’t be ignored, we must pretend that what ails the Islamic world is our fault, not Islam’s.”
Andy’s point echos the points made during Herman Pirchner’s presentation and discussion at our last Reno Hayek dinner, namely that radical Islam and its Jihad is closer to the Koran than any reformist/secular branch of that “religion.” I put that in quotes to denote that it is more than just our concept of “religion;” it is government, society and religion in the sense that Mohamed imposed upon his conquests.
Here’s my empirical observation: not many, if any, Moslems have condemned the Jihads, the terror, the 911 carnage, the call to exterminate Israel.
These people are backward, immoral, intolerant, and violent. They advocate or tolerate “supremacism, inequality, intolerance, denial of freedom of conscience, endorsement of violence, etc.” For them, the end justifies the means, no matter how distorted either end or means in reality are. They blow themselves up in hopes of “virgins in heaven.” Pity those few virgins in number! But, that is the level of their intelligence.
Hussein Obama apparently ignores “man caused disasters.” Islam is good because he wishes it so. This is contrary to the reality that we witness every day. Islam is bad.
“Our political leaders can continue to trivialize jihad as if it were some benign struggle to brush after every meal. They can continue to ignore the core tenets that make sharia antithetical to a free, self-determining society. But they can’t do that and do the only job we need them to do: protect our lives and our liberties.” Andy McCarthy’s article is a must read.
Hussein Obama is hell-bent-for-leather to “hope and change” the United States into an Islamic nation under Sharia law. Be very fearful for our nation.
Hope in Our Future
Posted by Tom in Law, Morality & Religion in the Public Square, National Character on April 26, 2010
Our last dinner meeting was quite depressing with its undeniable projections for our future given Obama’s totalitarian deficits, debt and unfunded liabilities coupled with his ambition to burden us with more. Big Government, Big Redistribution, socialism to communism to nazism from Obama, Reid, and Pelosi in one easy term!
It’s refreshing then, the other day, to get this email from one of our younger members who’s not only a businessman but an activist.
Tom, In light of last time’s gloomy economic discussion, I wanted to pass along a few statistics from where I sit in the manufacturing world – where I believe the future potential and economic growth of our country lies:
PC Cowardliness–Caving To The Towel-heads!
Posted by Tom in Humor, Individual Freedom, Law, Morality & Religion in the Public Square, National Character, Press on April 24, 2010
Sadly disappointing news that Comedy Central backed down to death threats against “South Park” creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone and bleeped an episode warning against “intimidation and fear” by Islamic fanatics who were offended by the show. Heretofore the network has stood behind nearly all the over-the-top satire despite protests and calls for boycotts.
But where Islam and the prophet Mohammed is concerned, the First Amendment’s guarantees of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press no longer apply.
Even sadder that the supposedly “fair and balanced” Bill O’Reilly questioned the creator’s judgement in writing and producing the piece. Towel-heads have Bill a bit unbalanced perhaps. See Diana West’s Media Leave “South Park” Creators Out to Dry in Real Clear Politics.
The conclusions of the New York Post article, Cowardly Central are appropriate here: As UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh noted, the consequence of Comedy Central kowtowing to a blatant death threat “is that the thugs win and people have more incentive to be thugs. Behavior that gets rewarded gets repeated.” Alas, regarding radical Islam, the behavior that “gets rewarded” is murder — Exhibit A: Theo Van Gogh. Revolution Muslim may be little more than a couple of Queens cranks with Web access — but who’s willing to take a chance on that? Not Comedy Central, that’s for sure. And until the West decides — culturally and collectively — not to take it any longer, it’s only going to get worse.
“Land of the Free and home of the Brave?” No, not at all. We have already been conquered by “fear and intimidation!” Practice your Sharia law, you attorneys, because before long that’s what will govern us.
Philosophical Ramblings
Posted by Tom in Constitution, Individual Freedom, Law, Morality & Religion in the Public Square, National Character, Taxation, Welfare on April 22, 2010
Saw one of my favorite Docs today and told him of the dismal projections for our country discussed at this week’s Reno Hayek Symposium Dinner, the current and future deficits, the debt, the unfunded liabilities and on top of all this the Omamacare sludge hammer. We both pondered the “no way out-no apparent solution” future. The concern here is for our children and grandchildren. And, its not that they can’t be better, be more independent than we, but that we are saddling them with unimaginable debt burdens so bad that they can’t be overcome no matter how strong they are.
We then discussed the untenable tax burden necessary to barely maintain but not reduce these entitlements, their corresponding debt and merely the interest cost necessary to maintain both. This is not a tax the rich issue, the rich will no longer be here or anywhere for that matter. This is a gigantic burden on the middle class; the less-than-middle class pay no taxes, and in fact have payments going to them. The anticipated 20% VAT tax atop the increased income tax and estate tax will not come close to solving the problem. In fact this tax on consumption will merely accelerate the downward spiral in our consumption based economy. This because consumers will be further forced to hunker down, down to a subsistance existence.
We pondered the all-but-impossible solution of reducing entitlements arguing its necessity but also its political impossibility. Then we broached the real issue, equality.
This, discussed initially in medical services. Should we all be entitled to the best, the Mayo clinic, the latest technology? Or should only those who can afford the best be able to buy it? In Europe it is the entitlement scenario, but the best becomes the non-best. This because the best requires capital investment at risk for long duration and problematic results. My Doc pointed out that med-tech investment is down! In Central America medical treatment and services are pretty good and the tech used is state-of-art but only for those who can afford it. The lower classes are relagated to a lower level of care above first aid but not the best available.
What as a society do we want for our society? What as a society can we afford for our society?
I think it gets down to two issues: the proper role of government and the moral responsibility of the individual. Government must defend our shores first and formost. It must enforce criminal laws protecting person and property. It must maintain a system of civil justice resolving disputes between citizens. And given our republic structure it must resolve issues between states. Finally it must provide for its continuance, succession and amendment. Our founding fathers pretty well set this out initially in the Declaration of Independence and later in the Constitution.
I think the proper role of the individual is to provide for himself and his family; that is food, shelter, education and protection. Beyond that the individual must be a contributing member of society helping his fellow man in need. This frequently through synagogue, temple or church and also through voluntary community societies. The individual must also be a responsible citizen, voting, volunteering, and participating in government offices when elected or appointed.
What of equality? What of entitlements? We are not “all created equal” nor has history shown us to be “endowed by our Creator, with certain unalienable rights” of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The closest we come is to expect “equality of opportunity” despite our limitations. “Equality of result” is never attainable. Nor are we “entitled” to be equal. We struggle to do our best for ourselves, our families and our society. But we are not entitled to nor should we be guaranteed the same as everyone else.
This realization gives us the opportunity to help others, to be charitable, to do moral good. Including providing charitable hospitals and medical care, to get back to the earlier example. Here the government has no role; it is the exclusive role of the individual with other individuals alongside.
So, to prevent or at least mitigate the greatest intergenerational immorality in our history, we must limit entitlements, reducing and means restricting social security, medicare, medicaid and Obamacare. Keep in mind our grandkids have no voice, they are innocent of our current theft of their future. Our parents, the greatest generation, left us a better future but perhaps one too soft. Will we do worse by our children and grandchildren?
Dennis Prager, “It’s a Civil War”
Posted by Tom in Constitution, Law, Morality & Religion in the Public Square, National Character on March 23, 2010
Prager posts a dynamite column at RCP today, positing Sunday’s Obamacare vote as “the biggest step ever down a road diametrically opposed ” to America’s “original intent of keeping the state small so that the individual can be free and great.” He prescribes seven “to dos:”
1. Know and teach America’s core values. 2. Recognize that we are fighting the left, not liberals. 3. Democrats should be referred to as Social Democrats. 4. Work tirelessly to repeal the bill. 5. Our motto: “Th bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.” 6. Do not let other matters distract. And, 7. Acknowledge that we are in a non-violent civil war.
Dennis Prager’s contribution to #1 is a video, “The American Trinity,” which follows:
Something to think about.
Underwater But Not In Default….Is That Good?
Posted by Tom in Economics, Financial Crisis, Law, Morality & Religion in the Public Square, Real Estate on March 12, 2010
Today’s WSJ front page trumpets, Americans Pare Down Debt, and proceeds to tout the economic benefits of the “de-leveraging,” to wit: the consumer will have more money with which to buy things, resuming its role as driver of the economy. U.S. household debt fell by 1.7% a first, but this occurred largely by default. Is that good? Certainly de-leveraging by prepaying is good, just as increasing savings is good. The bubbled consumer was, and still is, over-leveraged and under-saved! But is a raft of foreclosures and the concomitant drop in real estate values good?
The other side of the story is that 11.3 million homeowner mortgages, 24%, of the total are underwater. Nevada has 70% sucking for air, Arizona 51%, Florida 48%, Michigan 39%, and California 35%. (See CNNMoney report.) This will double to 22 million mortgages, 48% of the total by 2011 according to a Reuters report. This means that a lot of people are still paying the monthly payments on the underwater mortgages. Alternatively, it means that the lenders have not filed notices of default and started foreclosures. Is this situation good?
Under most state’s laws, borrowers can walk away from mortgages with no personal liability; hand the keys to the bank, which has no recourse against the borrower, and then go out and rent for less than the mortgage payments. Why aren’t more of the 11.3 million borrowers taking advantage of this?
Kevin Hassett penned an intriguing article in the March 8th edition of National Review, Mortgage Mortality, that attempts to answer that conundrum. He posits two alternatives:
First, in the long range it is uneconomic to default on that underwater mortgage. The default has immediate adverse consequences: the credit rating gets hammered raising the price of future loans, the loss of future equity and potential profit when housing values recover, and the loss of tax deductions on mortgage interest. These adverse consequences outweigh the benefit of default.
Second, there is a branch of economic literature which suggests that “Americans’ morality is driving their default decisions.” A recent survey by Guiso, Sapienza and Zingales of homeowners about their willingness to default found out that 80% said that it would be “morally wrong” to strategically default on their mortgages! But caution, these results reversed if the respondent already knew someone who had defaulted.
So maybe it’s not “morality” that keeps homeowners paying the underwater loans, but social stigma or the lack thereof. Hassett cites Dan Ariely’s tome, Predictably Irrational, to buttress this “social stigma” concept which goes back to Adam Smith. Ariely relates a controlled test taking experiment at MIT, where two groups take the same math test, with one given more of an opportunity to cheat by self-reporting results; however, in the self-reporting group, half had to also list 10 books they had read, and half had to list as many of the Ten Commandments as they could remember. The results: cheating occurred in the self-reporting group and to a greater extent in the non-Ten Commandment half of that group!
So do we have a growing ticking time bomb of underwater mortgages? Are the inflated values of those mortgages on bank and investor balance sheets going to create another financial crisis? Is our government doing all it can to hide the problem and support artificial values on the backs of people who can’t afford their mortgages? Should we forecast several Japan-like lost decades or hope that the bomb explodes?
I have no answers but it appears prudent to be well aware of the problems.
Tom Motherway
“One nation, under God” Upheld by the 9th Circuit
Posted by Tom in Constitution, Law, Morality & Religion in the Public Square on March 11, 2010
I just got an email from George Caras a member of our Reno Hayek Symposium who took justified pride in letting me know that his old Stanford teammate and friend, Judge Carlos Bea wrote the 2-1 majority opinion in Newdow v. Rio Linda Unified School District, upholding the use of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. Michael Newdow, a doctor and attorney who founded the “First Atheist Church of True Science” (Now there’s an oxymoron if there ever was one!) challenged the practice on First Amendment grounds. He said he would request a rehearing and then a Supreme Court appeal. (See the AP report here.)
In a separate 3-0 ruling the same court upheld the use of “In God We Trust” on our coins and currency saying that “it has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion.”
Judge Bea is also a teammate and fraternity brother of my friend Ron Tomsic. Both he and George are lucky to know this competent jurist. But as I said to George, I’ll bet Bea doesn’t get to write too many majority opinions in our 9th Circuit!
Tom Motherway