A Personal Epiphany...

I have been aided in experiencing a personal epiphany and understanding my anxiety regarding "radical Islam" by the Center for Security Policy.  I'd like to thank them.

You see, for years I have sought to understand at least two things about Islam.

1.  Where are the "mainstream" Muslims who do not support jihad? 

Islam is not a "centralized" religion like Roman Catholicism or Mormonism.  Therefore, there are many "mainstreams".  A radical (root-ical) dividing line is their adherence or deference to shariah law.  Indonesia, a virtually all-Muslim state, does not adhere to shariah law.  It is a secular republic of Muslim citizens.  Iran does adhere to shariah law and is a "caliphate" of sorts.  It's laws and social norms are based almost entirely on the teachings of the Kuran.

As with many groups, the more violent and vocal members steer at least the behavior, if not the beliefs, of other less enthusiastic members.

2.  How can one oppose the spread of Islam without contradicting the Natural right of freedom of conscience? 

Shariah law is the true threat to civilization as we know it.  It seeks to impose Kuranic rules on every person and to govern all aspects of personal, political, military, economic, industrial, financial, marital, vocational, etc. life in accordance with the teachings of Allah as revealed to Mohammed and as interpreted by clerics of Islam both living and dead.  IT IS TOTALITARIANISM.

So the answer is not to prohibit Islam.  Islam is a legitimate religion and philosophy.  The answer is to prohibit shariah because it violates virtually all of the Natural rights valued by Western civilization and protected by the US Constitution.

Here is a link to a wonderful study done by the
Center for Security Policy. 
It is not anti-Islamic or hateful or inflamatory.  It is well-written and well-considered.

I recommend it for your reading.  Because it is more than 300 pages long, please feel free to save the electronic version and read it at your leisure or to purchase the paperback version from Amazon.com. 

This Is Tragic - and Revealing...

Malian White Slavery

The link above takes you to a BBC article on slavery within Africa. 

Nigerian girls are kidnapped and moved to Mali where they are forced into white slavery.  The current estimated number of girls taken and held is about 30,000.

It makes me sick to think of the kind of abuse these children endure for the sake of a slaver's profit and a man's pleasure.  There is no punishment sufficient on this earth for those who victimize children like this.

Demographics are interesting.

Until 20 years ago, Nigeria was primarily a Christian country.  Of course there was a healthy dose of aboriginal tradition mixed in there.

A civil war, based on religion, has raged in the country for years and now less than 50% of the population adheres to a Christian faith. 

If you'd like to hear horror stories, find a Nigerian refugee who has come to North America.  Odds are he or she is a Christian.  And odds are that he or she is the only surviving member of their family.

Mali, the destination country, is currently 90-95% Muslim. 

What makes Americans so naive as to believe that we can negotiate with people who hold the belief that this behavior is acceptable?  What makes Americans so naive as to believe that we can begin to understand people like this?  What makes Americans so naive as to believe that words have the same meaning to us as they do to them?

I Like an Income Tax...

Is taxation fair? Is it a good idea?

How about an income tax?

Government, federal government, HAS to run at some level, right? In fact, the exact level at which it was designed to run is laid out in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution. You can read it at the end of this thought.

So, government needs funding. No one disputes that. There are universal benefits from government. Almost no one disputes that.

It is clear, reading Section 8, that Congress has power to impose taxes on Americans. (What is not granted is power to redistribute tax revenue to poorer Americans.)

In America today income is taxed under a “progressive” scheme wherein wealthier people pay the largest share of their income, and poorer people actually receive a portion of the tax revenue and pay no income tax.

Some call this scheme “fair” because those who “can afford it” pay to help the “underprivileged” among us. In my opinion this progressive income tax actually serves to further disenfranchise the poor. Those who pay no taxes have no vested interest in their government. They have no OWNERSHIP stake in what government does, and hence are less prone to be concerned by its actions. In fact, it is only the exception to human nature that would reject an increased hand-out from a benevolent and tyrannical government.

Picture the state in which we now live. A very small minority of the American population, what is called by the media “top earners”, pay a disproportionately large part of the US’ income tax revenue. In fact, the Associated Press reported that the top 50% of earners in America pay more than 96% of the taxes!

So what portion of the population is apathetic when higher taxes on the “rich” are suggested? I most Americans are not apathetic, some of them certainly feel a degree of animosity toward the “rich” and want to see taxes increased on them. After all, a tax increase has no negative effect (some could argue that it has a net positive effect) on the “poor” and almost no detriment to the “middle-class”.

Now, imagine a society in which every wage earner was invested by virtue of the fact that he or she paid an absolute tax of 10% of every dollar earned. Currently, a worker who earns the national minimum wage would make slightly more than $14,000 per year. That worker would be responsible to pay $1,400 in taxes to support the government programs that are designed ostensibly to benefit all Americans. Of course, the “wealthy” person who earned $150,000 per year would pay somewhere upwards of $21,000 in taxes.

What do you think the national reaction would be if a politician suggested that it was necessary to increase taxes? I think it’s safe to say that objection to the new taxes would be almost universal.

So, I think that an income tax could actually be a GOOD thing for our country if it were applied fairly and equally.

Here’s the text of Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution. These are the ONLY powers enumerated and allowed to the Congress by the Constitution. By virtue of the 9th and 10th Amendments, all other powers are reserved to individuals or to the states as their citizens allow.

One note about the portion of the first paragraph below: “provide for the … general welfare” means that an act of congress must be designed and intended to benefit the populace in general and not to benefit or harm individuals specifically.

Anyway, Section 8 reads:

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;—And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Remember...

It was about 7:30am on 11 Sep 2001.  It was the second full week of my MBA program and I was opening my locker, getting my text books out for the day.

Janie was walking by and asked if I'd heard that a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center in New York City.  We walked into the student lounge and joined a small group of our classmates watching a small TV that showed smoke pouring from the "Twin Towers".

The rest is history.

It was eerie, the feeling I had while watching the fires and collapses.  I was sick to my stomach.  My body didn't want to move, while my mind screamed at me that I should get back to studying. 

I remember the absolute quiet of the skies as no aircraft were allowed to fly in the country.  It was strangely peaceful to be outside in the crisp fall air.  The sky was blue and void of the contrails that had cluttered it longer than I'd been alive.  I remember thinking how incongruous it was that it was so beautiful on such a horrific day.

Since that day when nearly 3,000 Americans were killed, thousands more have followed them fighting and dying in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Tens of thousands have suffered life-shattering injuries and will never be their "old" selves again....

...

Is The 4th Amendment Dead?...

I walked through airport security in Phoenix, Arizona a few days ago.

As I gathered my belt and my shoes I thought, as I always do, “It would be easier if we shipped our belongings via UPS and just fly naked.”

Then I saw an elderly Asian woman hunched in a wheelchair. She was being patted down by a female TSA employee. Another TSA worker was going through every pocket and pouch in her designer carry-on bag.

This isn't the first time the disparity between the profile of the alleged 9/11 hijackers and the people I've seen shaken down by TSA has struck me.

Years ago I saw a young couple with a baby in a stroller penned in a glass enclosure while TSA workers rummaged through their diaper bag. Across the security area, in a similar glass cage, an elderly woman looked bewildered and frightened as a TSA employee shouted at her, asking if "this" was her bag.

I was incensed by the outrageous treatment of these two parties and, as I gathered my belongings at the end of the roller line, I said to the TSA worker watching me, "You people need to update your profile."

"What?" was his reply.

"I said you need to update your profile."

"Why?"

"Because I'm telling you that the old lady over there is not the one today. And neither is that couple."

The TSA worker was stunned. His confused but indignant response was, "We don't profile!"

I replied, "Maybe you should start," and walked to my gate.

If young male Islamic extremists who were nationals of Middle Eastern countries really did execute the 9/11 attacks, why are we not looking for people like them? Why are we looking "equally" at US citizens, who are Caucasian, Christian, elderly, married and female? Truthfully, I have never seen anyone remotely matching the description of the 9/11 hijackers scrutinized by airport security.

This leads me to considering the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution which reads, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The 4th Amendment was intended, in at least one dimension, to protect Americans - and those with vested interests in and relationships with America - against the use of “general warrants” by the government. A general warrant was issued to give local law enforcement and agents of the king authority to search broadly for subversive materials or goods suspected of having evaded taxation. General warrants or “writs of assistance” were commonly used by the King of England to ferret out political dissidents.

Over time, US Courts have relaxed the protections of the Amendment with justifications of expediency or the public interest and have expanded an even less stringent interpretation of the 4th Amendment to give administrative branches of government more search power than law enforcement agencies have.

I researched the history of the 4th Amendment at FindLaw.com. It’s a very interesting site for that type of stuff.

A person's right to privacy guaranteed under the 4th Amendment is seriously abridged in an airport facility. TSA is not a law enforcement agency. Courts have historically (since the 1990s) ruled that this type of agency is under no obligation to demonstrate reasonable cause before searching any aspect of a person or their belongings as long as the agency feels that its interests outweigh the interests of the individual. (Who sees the problem with that reasoning?)

Ironically, there is nationwide outrage about the idea that Arizona's new "anti-illegal immigration" law might violate a person's right to privacy. How much more invasive is a pat-down or a strip search in an airport facility than a police officer asking me my immigration status while arresting me for committing a crime?

So, we have a tyrannical monarchy that used general warrants to justify searches for subversive materials among its subjects in the 17th and 18th centuries. This is one of the tools the crown had to maintain its power and control over the people. We have a revolution that establishes a new nation based on the premise of Natural and inalienable rights. Over time, we have a people who grow complacent and a government that grows hungry for power and control over the people.

Is it a conspiracy? It’s certainly the natural progression of things.

The net effect of the increased "security" measures is to habituate me to submitting to search by any government agency. This extends to me being "okay" with the government having access to my bank records, my internet history, my library books, my use of toll roads, and virtually all other things that I do.

After all, I have nothing to hide!

This makes it possible for the collective sheriff’s departments of the state of North Carolina, as they recently did, to request access to a data base of medical and psychiatric patients’ names and the prescription medications they are taking – under the auspices that this access will make it easier for them to enforce federal drug laws and stop thousands of deaths due to accidental overdoses – and Americans collectively don’t bat an eye. Isn’t that one of the most sacrosanct of relationships, the doctor-patient privilege?

Again, I have nothing to hide. But if I’m running for mayor, I may not want members of the local law enforcement community to know that three years ago I took heavy psychotic medication to treat severe depression and thoughts of suicide following some traumatic incident in my life. (I didn’t, by the way. And I’m not running for mayor, either.)

This shift away from the protections of the 4th Amendment has happened gradually. If the US Government had suddenly implemented all these changes in one day, I would like to think that there would have been such vehement opposition that the restrictions would have been repealed immediately.

But little by little civil liberties have been taken from the people and the power of government has grown beyond any bounds intended by the founders.

How will we reclaim our Natural rights? How will our government remember that its proper role is one of protector, and not parent or oppressor?

The answer is more complex than “no incumbents” or “get rid of Obama”. This is a puzzle that should inspire the true liberal and the true traditionalist alike. Let’s work together on it.

I Missed This News From July - And March 2010...

Thinking about this rather whacky pastor in Florida who wants (or wanted) to set aside a day to burn copies of the Kuran-Koran-Quran has led me to think.

Many people are upset about his plan.  People on the political right and left have found a cause even more unifying than their support of the "Ground Zero Mosque".  They rush to anyone who will listen to warn of sending the "wrong message" to Muslims around the world.

We don't want to offend them!  This will just add fuel to the fire!  We must show our tolerance!  And on, and on, and on....

Comments and "reasoning" like those I hear on the news and in commentary blogs only show a lack of connectivity with the realities of the world we live in. 

First, if you believe the official report, we did NOT start this fight.  Only a 9/11 "Truther" would believe otherwise.

Second, if the continuing presence of 50,000 American troops in Iraq and 135,000 more in Afghanistan has not already upset the Muslim world, not much else will.  Conversely, if the Muslim world is already offended by our occupation of so much of their "turf", they won't be pacified until we have left - even if no one burns a copy of the Koran.

Third, regardless of who started the fight between the USA and "Radical Islam", Muslims all over the world have been slaughtering non-Americans for a long time.  Years.  Decades.  Centuries.  This is their way of life.  This is their primary method, historically speaking, of proselyting.  They will kill you until you confess Allah and become a Muslim.  If you think I am exaggerating, please follow this link for a Religion Of Peace Update.  It's a short news article from Australia about some killings in Africa. 

Our news outlets don't report this kind of stuff because African lives are worth less than  Arab or American lives.  They must be hanging on to that old "Three Fifths Compromise" idea that was so publicly popular with Democrats until the late 1960s. 

Right about here I want to launch into an unreasoned rant and tell everyone to just pull their heads out of their fourth point of contact and look around!  You'll see that the world today doesn't match the things you've been taught by teachers, parents, news reporters or politicians.  It's a mean, nasty, politically incorrect reality we live in - even if we're unaware of it!  And our enemy (we really do have one) is exploiting our weak-mindednesss to our detriment.

But I won't rant.  I'll continue making my observation and wrap up my comments, leaving them open-ended.

I'm not a big fan of burning books.  It smacks of Nazism and reminds me of stories from the Bible and other scriptures about burning people and things because of philosophical disagreements.  But if you want to have a fire, heck, the US Congress is okay with you burning the US flag; why not someone's holy text, too?