Follow the Links

These quotes may encourage you to read the whole article. You'll be better for it!

Vaclav Klaus: "As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning."

Grant Jones: "Some people can't handle the truth about their religious cult of Gaia."

Hugh Fitzgerald: "Those candidates for President should begin to demand an end to the 'payment of the disguised Jizyah of aid' ... It sets up the idea in the minds of Muslims who receive the aid that it is theirs by right, it is owed to them by the Infidels. And they act according to that belief. Just look at the 'Palestinian' Arabs using such absurd terms as 'embargo' and 'boycott' to describe the refusal of Infidel states to give aid to Hamas, or to a Hamas-linked government."

Reuters: "The U.S. House of Representatives voted on Friday to prohibit any aid to Saudi Arabia." (HatTip AOW).

"George Mason": "Despite the many re-readings of Anthem over the years, I was not prepared for a big surprise this time. It was all there before, but the context for the surprise was not. The quality of life and way of life details of this society focus on Marxist collectivism, to be sure, both in Ayn Rand's native Russia and elsewhere in the world. This time, however, in 2007, Anthem took me to the very heart and essence of Islamic society as well."

Secretary of What State?

Condi Rice has pledged $86 million to Fatah, the Palestinian terror organization formerly headed by Yasser Arafat. Condi’s claim, that Fatah is a moderate bulwark against Hamas, hinges on Arafat’s tradition of lying through his teeth while supporing Israel’s destruction with wave after wave of suicide bombing. That Fatah and Hamas are made of the same cloth is undeniable. Hamas just refuses to lie.

Buried in the news is a little noticed gift to Hamas, again courtesy of the American taxpayer. The Washington Post has a single line burried in the middle of an article: “Rice said an additional $40 million will be contributed to the U.N. agency that assists Palestinian refugees in Gaza.” The people of Gaza overwhelmingly support the unapologetic terrorist organization, Hamas, which draws its members from the general population. Disguising support for Hamas as humanitarian aid has precedent.

The Islamic Committee for Palestine was established in 1986 by Sami Al-Arian and Hussam Jubara “as a philanthropic advocacy group devoted to alleviating the suffering of Palestinian women and children. In reality, the organization served as an American front for the terrorist organization Palestinian Islamic Jihad.” [1] It “was an Islamist organization that raised money in the United States for Hamas.” [2] Al-Arian was charged with seventeen counts including “conspiracy to murder and maim people abroad.”

In 2001, the FBI and Treasury froze the assets of The Holy Land Foundation, an Islamist organization base in Texas disguised as a humanitarian relief organization. “Treasury officials conceded that a 'substantial amount' of the money raised goes to worthy causes, but insisted that Holy Land's primary purpose has been to subsidize Hamas.” [3] It’s founder, Ghassan Elashi, was sentenced to 7 years in 2006 “for doing business with a terrorist (funnelling money to Hamas throughout the the past 10 years.)”

Has Condi Rice joined Sami Al-Arian and Ghassan Elashi?

Update1: It gets worse! Condi contemplates joining forces with the creators of Hamas and the teachers of bin Laden. The New York Sun explains how the State Department contemplates reaching out to the originators of Hamas and the teachers of bin Laden! “The Bush administration is quietly weighing the prospect of reaching out to the party that founded modern political Islam, the Muslim Brotherhood. … These developments, in light of Hamas's control of Gaza, suggest that President Bush … has done more than any of his predecessors to accept the movement fighting for the merger of mosque and state in the Middle East. … Making the case today for outreach is Mr. Leiken, who co-authored [an article] titled, ‘The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood.’ … has gotten the attention of senior National Security Council officials and Secretary of State Rice.”

Nuclear Attack On American Soil?

A few recent articles briefly broach the topic of a nuclear attack on America. Given that an attack on an American city is a religious aspiration of our jihadist enemy, the near silence on this topic points to the difficulty we have facing the threat. The threat isn’t a technology; it is an enemy likely to use this technology which raises the difficulty we have discussing the problem. The enemy is clearly Islamic in nature.

Most discussions focus on covert activity but state-sponsorship is still a requirement for entry into the nuclear club. Our actions are inadequate to deal with the problem. We’ve failed to stop Pakistan from acquiring nuclear weapons and furthering the spread nuclear technology. But we’ve removed Saddam and discouraged Kaddafi; only to become obsessed with utopian nations-building. Leaders of both political parties emphatically oppose Iran’s development of nuclear weapons; but they oppose doing anything concrete to stop Iran even more.

The French newswire, AFP, reports that at a recent “international conference on nuclear terrorism” in Miami, experts called for “renewed efforts to crack down on black market sales of nuclear and radioactive material.” This was followed by the shocking (shocking!) news that “the likes of Al-Qaeda network leader Osama bin Laden -- responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States -- are actively seeking nuclear material.” The productiveness of the conference can be gauged by the summary statement: “Communication, sharing and coordination ... are the essence of what will ultimately make our network stronger than the terrorist network."

If that doesn’t convince you of the expertise and competence of those charged with protecting us from an attack that is because they aren’t convinced either. In a Washington Times’ article titled “FBI director predicts terrorists will acquire nukes” we learn that it isn’t only foreign terrorists that are a threat but “homegrown terrorists not affiliated with al Qaeda who have been inspired by its message of hatred and violence” i.e. those inspired by Islam to wage jihad.

Not to be outdone in defeatism, passivity, and denial, the New York Times, in an op-ed called “After the Bomb” is concerned about avoiding another Katrina-like response of the Federal government when (not if) we are attacked. A passing quip urges that we resist “the temptation … to retaliate.” Instead the author urges that we grovel for the cooperation from the governments who gave the terrorists nuclear technology. No mention is made of the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction that kept our enemies from using nuclear weapons (either directly or through proxies) during the Cold War.

It is common to hear that we can never morally use nuclear weapons; too many innocent people will die when it is only a few perpetrators (covert like al Qaeda or dictators like Saddam) who are responsible. Usually this is accompanied by some vacuous moral vanity about “being better than they are.” Finally this is capped off with “we brought it on ourselves” with the implication we have no moral right to respond.

When talking to the younger generation, what’s shocking is the widespread belief that we were morally wrong to use nuclear weapons in WWII. Growing-up in the 1950s and 1960s this was considered a crank-viewpoint. It is almost standard now although I’d like to have hard statistics to gage if my sample is correct. The vast moral doubt that permeates the younger generation about our nation and our culture suggests a lack of self-esteem required to vigorously defend this nation against foreign threats. The accompanied acceptance of an eventual nuclear attack is the result of a surrender which is first and foremost a moral surrender. A person or nation that doesn’t believe in their worth and greatness won’t have the righteous fighting spirit to insure their existence.

The spiritual killers within are our greatest enemy. Civilizations aren’t destroyed by primitive savages unless they’ve been already destroyed at the core from within.

The Blame-America Libertarians

One wouldn’t normally comment on the absurd notion, put forth by one Ron Paul, that we brought the Islamic attack of 9/11 on ourselves; but the Paulist version comes from an obscure source on the right and is worth noting in passing. First let me note that I argued that the cause of 9/11 is religious in origin. The Paulist faction of the libertarian movement holds that these attacks were the unintended consequences of our foreign policy – we brought it on ourselves.

But what if the perpetrators attacked us on 9/11 because of one of the many contradictory grievances found in the rants of a grotesque medieval savage? The jihadists are, of course, moral agents whose excuses have little bearing on their guilt. Regardless of which of our actions they use to rationalize their attack, it is better that we learn sooner rather than later that we have an enemy in this world – preferable before they have nuclear weapons.

The Paulist libertarians argue that had we not inflamed them we wouldn’t have suffered that specific attack at that time. Perhaps, perhaps not! One academic argues it is just as respectable to complain that our past weakness emboldened the enemy as to claim that our egregious acts of injustice understandably led to the attack of 9/11. While such critics are wrong, they are worse than wrong. They are taking the enemy’s side.

They are making common cause with the enemy to further pet policies that happen to coincide with the enemy’s demands. It is reasonable to question the cost of being the world’s police. But it is a very different matter to take the side of the world’s criminals, freaks, and savages whose reason for our withdrawal is motivated by the desire to establish an oppressive regime. And it is despicable to cite the actions of such vicious perpetrators as grounds to change our policy.

Would one use McVeigh’s attack in Oklahoma as grounds to criticize the Clinton/Reno policy in Waco? Would one exploit the attacks on abortion clinics to warn of the “unintended consequences” of Roe vs. Wade? Would one cite eco-terrorist attacks as proof of the problems of unconstrained capitalism? What scoundrel would cite a vicious terrorist in such manner?

Normally Ron Paul’s blame-America attacks would remove him from any reasonable discussion. However, his presence in the debates gives the other candidates a proxy for the far left viewpoint commonly found among Democrats. He can be a perfect stand-in and punching bag. He has already helped Rudy Giuliani. Don’t be surprised if others follow suit just to stay competitive. This may be an interesting race.

Let's Take Them On!

Ayaan Hirsi Ali spoke to a libertarian audience today, at the Waldorf-Astoria. Her opening line was: if I were talking to a Muslim audience the first thing I would say is “Islam is bad for you.” But instead she wanted to remind us about what is right about the West and why we need to fight for our core principles.

The freedom of Holland allowed her to leave Islam and live a much better life. Yet she told a story of how young Moslem women in Holland are held back not so much by the state but by the chains of religion. Islam is a “superstition” that relies on “fear” of divine punishment. It teaches women to submit and children to obey; the fear of God is ultimately ingrained in the willing believer. The “individual” learns to conform to the “collective.” She stressed repeatedly that individualism is the enemy of Islam.

We must maintain our “vigilance.” “Individual happiness” and “individual freedom,” which we enjoy in abundance, “can’t be taken for granted.” Our “Enlightenment” heritage is threatened by “irrational” superstition that seeks to “subordinate the individual.” She ended her speech with a firm call to arms: “Let’s take them on!”

In her answer to questions she touched upon Holland’s “welfare system,” alleged “hijacking” of Islam, the limits of democracy, the inherent contradiction between Islam and liberalism, the hopelessness of Islam as a doctrine, and the hope for Muslims as a people.

When asked about encountering religious Americans she said that in the “seven to eight months” here she has “not been confronted with that much religiosity” because here you can “choose who to associate.” She said that most of what she hears about American fundamentalists doesn’t bother her except for the prospects of teaching “Creationism” in the schools. You should not teach “superstition in the science class.” Otherwise, she says, here you are free to go your own way mainly because we are not forced together by an overbearing state--in contract to Holland.

The theme of individualism, both personally and politically, was woven through out her speech and answers to questions. The audience was quite receptive.

Remembering Pim

Bruce Bawer, in the New York Sun, remembers Pim Fortyun on the 5th anniversary of his death.

"Sunday, May 6, marks the fifth anniversary of the assassination of Pim Fortuyn. Fortuyn was nine days away from an election from which he was expected to emerge as Dutch prime minister. As he walked out of a radio studio near Amsterdam, a left-wing activist named Volker van der Graaf pumped five bullets into his back. Fortuyn died almost instantly.

The killer would later explain that Fortuyn's views on Muslim immigration made him a "danger." It was the Netherlands's first political assassination in over 300 years. ...

Fortuyn recognized the rise of fundamentalist Islam in Europe as a menace to democracy. And he said it straight out — eloquently, forcefully, fearlessly. Back in 1997 he'd published one of the first books anywhere to sound the alarm. Only days before September 11, 2001, he wrote that communism's role as a threat to Western freedom "has been taken over by Islam." ...

The more he spoke out, the more journalists and politicians smeared him — an openly gay man and life-long liberal — as a right-wing extremist, a racist, a new Mussolini or Hitler. Yet millions of his countrymen knew better. Accustomed to leaders who shunned controversy and spoke in empty formulas, Dutchmen were stunned and delighted to hear Fortuyn say things they'd long been thinking themselves. Voters from all over the political map became his ardent supporters. He seemed poised not only to transform the Netherlands but also to lead the way for all of Western Europe."

Read the whole article here.

The Second Amendment

I haven’t posted much recently in part because others are saying what needs to be said. In the past I tended to contribute to the debate when I thought others were missing a point or an emphasis was misplaced. I usually don’t talk about specific legal matters or individual acts but one concern that continues to resurface and which reveals the sorry state of today's debate is the 2nd amendment.

Long-standing historic rights, hard won rights which our forefathers shed their blood and gave their lives, should not be discarded suddenly to “solve” the problem of the moment. Our momentary comfort, often illusory, is a poor guide to the rightfulness of the principles and laws we need to insure our lives and liberty in the long-run. Thus, we should come to the debate with some understanding of history.

The notion of an individual’s right to protect his life from harm has a long history in English and American culture. But equally important is the ultimate insurance against the rise of a tyranny, either from domestic disintegration or foreign domination: the right to revolution. Our nation was founded by citizens rising up to fight a violent revolution against the encroaching tyranny of the Crown and a parliament ruling from abroad. The first battle was fought to protect the militia’s military supplies. In a literal sense we went to war to secure our right to bear arms, which was the ultimate means of protecting all other rights.

Today this right is under attack. In a hypocrisy typical of the left, the same people who praise the terrorists in Iraq as “insurgents who are fighting a foreign occupation just like we would” are the very people who would deny our citizens the means to own the weapons with which to fight. The agitprop filmmaker, who was cheered in Europe for making a movie on bowling and guns, was the first to absurdly compare vicious suicide bombers targeting civilians, to the Minutemen who faced and fought the King’s army in the American Revolution.

Europe’s leftist elite is going ballistic. Instead of blaming an evil mass killer for the deaths of over 30 people, they’re blaming Charlton Heston. But, of course, they haven’t had a stellar record of avoiding tyranny, have they? Over the past century, continental Europe faced communism, fascism, and Nazism. While evil is not inevitable there still is much to be said for Pakaluk’s characterization:

“Before we begin to agree with critics who might point to crimes such as the Virginia Tech massacre, or Columbine, as a sign of some unusual sickness in American society, we should consider that the scene of a madman with power, killing others remorselessly out of malice and envy, as he descends to his own self-destruction, was played out on a very large scale in Germany, Cambodia, Russia, and other nations in the last century. That sort of evil, which seems to afflict human nature generally, has so far been manifested only in private action in our country — thanks to our laws and political institutions, and the character of our citizenry. And for that we should be grateful.”

Let’s learn about the history that made that possible before we rush to discard long-standing institutions.

Jefferson's Birthday

April 13th is Thomas Jefferson's birthday; his 264th! As long as liberty graces this land, the spirit of Jefferson lives on. Here is one biography of Jefferson. Does anyone have another favorite online?

Of Note

The WSJ article "The Trouble With Islam" says much about that and about the enablers in the West.

On FPM, Elan Journo talks about the administration's willful blindness to the Islamic threat.

Presidential candidate likens Ayaan Hirsi Ali to those who warned about Nazism in the 1930s.

Edward Cline writes that our Iranian policy consists in "turning the other cheek" with the predictable response from the Islamic enemy.

Mario Loyola opines that Iran's hostage-taking aims to stall a military response to its nuclear program.

Naturalism in art circa 1480.

Update: Myths of Islamic tolerance.

Update2: Ayaan autobiography's a must read!

Cicero on Private Property

Cicero’s views on private property reveal in a nutshell his political worldview. In De Officiis he continually returns to the topic to reiterate that the “right of ownership is inalienable” (Book I paragraph 37). His reasons are rooted in natural law and the “laws of human society” (I 21) but his exposition has a very different emphasis from contemporary libertarian arguments. Instead of the laissez-faire notion of protecting domains of individual seperateness, Cicero sees rights as unifying; and the violation of property rights as a grave injustice that destroys society’s harmony and the “common bonds” between men. Men of good will do not plunder their neighbors wealth, directly or through the apparatus of the state.

His notion of the origin of private property is not quite the immaculate conception of Locke: “There is, however, no such thing as private ownership established by nature, but property becomes private either through long occupancy … or through conquest … or by due process of law, bargain, or purchase, or by allotment …Therefore, inasmuch as in each case some of those things which by nature had been common property became the property of individuals, each one should retain possession of that which has fallen to his lot; and if anyone appropriates to himself anything beyond that, he will be violating the laws of human society” (I 21)

While the motive for property is understandable, Cicero worries about the excesses: “... men seek riches partly to supply the needs of life, partly to secure the enjoyment of pleasure. With those who cherish higher ambitions, the desire for wealth is entertained with a view to power and influence and the means of bestowing favors; … Fine establishments and the comforts of life in elegance and abundance also afford pleasure, and the desire to secure it gives rise to the insatiable thirst for wealth. Still, I do not mean to find fault with the accumulation of property, provided it hurts nobody, but unjust acquisition of it is always to be avoided.” (I 25)

Nevertheless government policy should be clear: “The man in an administrative office, however, must make it his first care that everyone shall have what belongs to him and that private citizens suffer no invasion of their property rights by act of the state. It was a ruinous policy that Philippus proposed when in his tribuneship he introduced his agrarian bill. … he often played the demagogue … [and his speech] deserves unqualified condemnation, for it favored an equal distribution of property; and what more ruinous policy than that could be conceived? For the chief purpose in the establishment of constitutional state and municipal governments was that individual property rights might be secured. For, although it was by Nature's guidance that men were drawn together into communities, it was in the hope of safeguarding their possessions that they sought the protection of cities. The administration should also put forth every effort to prevent the levying of a property tax …” (II 73)

Clearly no socialist, Cicero condemns confiscatory taxation time and time again. “Now, there are many — and especially those who are ambitious for eminence and glory — who rob one to enrich another; and they expect to be thought generous towards their friends, if they put them in the way of getting rich, no matter by what means. Such conduct, however, is so remote from moral duty that nothing can be more completely opposed to duty. We must, therefore, take care to indulge only in such liberality as will help our friends and hurt no one. The conveyance of property by Lucius Sulla and Gaius Caesar from its rightful owners to the hands of strangers should, for that reason, not be regarded as generosity; for nothing is generous if it is not at the same time, just.” (I 43)

“.. to exploit the state for selfish profit is not only immoral; it is criminal, infamous. … But they who pose as friends of the people, and who for that reason either attempt to have agrarian laws passed, in order that the occupants may be driven out of their homes, or propose that money loaned should be remitted to the borrowers, are undermining the foundations of the commonwealth: first of all, they are destroying harmony, which cannot exist when money is taken away from one party and bestowed upon another; and second, they do away with equity, which is utterly subverted, if the rights of property are not respected. For, as I said above, it is the peculiar function of the state and the city to guarantee to every man the free and undisturbed control of his own particular property.” (II 77-78)

By book III, Cicero rhetoric reaches a crescendo: “Finally, if a man wrongs his neighbor to gain some advantage for himself he must either imagine that he is not acting in defiance of Nature or he must believe that death, poverty, pain, or even the loss of children, kinsmen, or friends, is more to be shunned than an act of injustice against another. If he thinks he is not violating the laws of Nature, when he wrongs his fellow-men, how is one to argue with the individual who takes away from man all that makes him man? But if he believes that, while such a course should be avoided, the other alternatives are much worse — namely, death, poverty, pain — he is mistaken in thinking that any ills affecting either his person or his property are more serious than those affecting his soul.” (III 26)

He still expresses this as the harmony of interests: “This, then, ought to be the chief end of all men, to make the interest of each individual and of the whole body politic identical. For, if the individual appropriates to selfish ends what should be devoted to the common good, all human fellowship will be destroyed. And further, if Nature ordains that one man shall desire to promote the interests of a fellow-man, whoever he may be, just because he is a fellow-man, then it follows, in accordance with that same Nature, that there are interests that all men have in common. And, if this is true, we are all subject to one and the same law of Nature; and, if this also is true, we are certainly forbidden by Nature's law to wrong our neighbor. … This attitude demolishes the whole structure of civil society. Others again who say that regard should be had for the rights of fellow-citizens, but not of foreigners, would destroy the universal brotherhood of mankind; and, when this is annihilated, kindness, generosity, goodness, and justice must utterly perish; and those who work all this destruction must be considered as wickedly rebelling against the immortal gods. For they uproot the fellowship which the gods have established between human beings, and the closest bond of this fellowship is the conviction that it is more repugnant to Nature for man to rob a fellow-man for his own gain than to endure all possible loss, whether to his property or to his person . . . or even to his very soul — so far as these losses are not concerned with justice; a for this virtue is the sovereign mistress and queen of all the virtues.” (III 26-28)

Cicero believes in complementing the protection of acquisition and ownership of property with the virtue of liberality -- but within reason, with taste, to those worthy of aid, for the right things, and with one’s own wealth. “There are, in general, two classes of those who give largely: the one class is the lavish, the other the generous. The lavish are those who squander their money on public banquets, doles of meat among the people, gladiatorial shows, magnificent games, and wild-beast fights — vanities of which but a brief recollection will remain, or none at all. … Again, the expenditure of money is better justified when it is made for walls, docks, harbors, aqueducts, and all those works which are of service to the community.” (II 55) But he is a practicing politician and accepts the social reality of his day. “To conclude, the whole system of public bounties in such extravagant amount is intrinsically wrong; but it may under certain circumstances be necessary to make them.” (II 60)

But never over do it! “The second point for the exercise of caution was that our beneficence should not exceed our means; for those who wish to be more open-handed than their circumstances permit are guilty of two faults: first they do wrong to their next of kin; for they transfer to strangers property which would more justly be placed at their service or bequeathed to them. And second, such generosity too often engenders a passion for plundering and misappropriating property, in order to supply the means for making large gifts. We may also observe that a great many people do many things that seem to be inspired more by a spirit of ostentation than by heart-felt kindness; for such people are not really generous but are rather influenced by a sort of ambition to make a show of being open-handed. Such a pose is nearer akin to hypocrisy than to generosity or moral goodness.” (I 44)

Cicero believes the state exists to protect private property and to outlaw “force and fraud.” His concept of fraud is broader and includes actions that might be allowed under the doctrine of caveat emptor. He sees no problem with charging more for food when it is dear but the deception of market conditions by commission or omission that leads to taking advantage of momentary ignorance (perhaps failing to hear of the news of the bumper crop) is seen as fraud in Cicero’s book. In the end of book III he gives both sides of a debate on this issue citing two “highly esteemed” thinkers. (III 51)

De Offisiis consists of three books, the first on honor, the second on utility, and the third on the inherent identity of honor and utility. He argues that the moral is the practical; that it respects the interests of all, and brings about the good will and harmony of a civilized order. Despite the fragile nature of the Roman Republic, Cicero never despairs on human nature. The title, often translated to “On Duties” would be better translated to the lengthier “On the Moral Obligations of a Gentleman of Public Affairs.” It served that purpose as a core text in Renaissance and Enlightenment liberal arts curricula. It is a core text of the Western tradition.

Limited War

In Clausewitz Revisted, the author, Tom Snodgrass, argues that we are fighting a limited war and that is a losing proposition.