The Democrats are aware of this and face the same issues. Anyone who has been paying attention to politics knows that John McCain has been on the opposite side of the Republican base for years. He has favored gun bans, opposed tax cuts, sponsored McCain/Feingold (which creates a campaign finance system that most favors democrats), and supports the democratic position on Illegal Aliens. In short, much of the far lefts agenda will be successfully promulgated under a McCain administration for the exact reasons that Ms. Coulter ably notes. However, when you take this a step further, you realize that actually more of the far lefts agenda will be successfully completed if McCain is president than if a democrat is president, since many Republicans in congress will be more compliant if President McCain favors a bill. Further, the Democratic Party will not have to accept any responsibility for either the calamitous results of their programs, or the upcoming recession. Neither will they have to take any heat from their base about failing to immediately withdraw from Iraq, a policy which both parties realize is a strategic impossibility at this point, due to the oil economic issues. Likewise, they know that many of their wildest policies will be unpopular with a large segment of the population, so they want to avoid any backlash similar to the one that happened in 1994. With McCain in the White House, the democrats will have carte blanche to legislate their hearts desires, with the immunity and impunity of still having a Republican to blame it all on.

Across the aisle, the Republican base knows that Hillary Clinton has some very strange ideas, and none of her husbands charisma. So, if she were elected president, there would likely be two solid years of her attempts to promulgate terribly unpopular programs, which would be stymied in a closely divided congress, while the international situation and the economic woes can be solidly laid at the feet of the Democrats. After all, if the Democrats control the presidency and both houses of Congress, frustration directed at Republicans rings rather hollow. In all likelihood this is the only foreseeable means by which Republicans could regain control of either house of Congress.

So, in 2008, we may well find ourselves playing a game of "Presidential Hot Potato". Experienced and cagey Democrats may desperately want to lose this election. They may, like Sen. Kennedy, endorse Barak Hussein O'Bama, in the hopes that a wildly left wing black man, with connections to Islam, cannot possibly beat any Republican, that party may shove forward, regardless of how "soft headed" or inept. Likewise, the Republican base may want to "take a dive" here, and let Hillary or Hussein become president, so as to recapture congress in 2010 (Hillary being the safer bet, since Hussein O'Bama is much more likely to do things in foreign policy from which we will never be able to recover). The Presidency in 2008 is a "hot potato" which each parties "base" voters may want their party to avoid.

The result may be something extraordinarily strange and will befuddle all the pollsters. In the general election, we may see core Democrats crossing party lines to vote for McCain, since he is the candidate most likely to shepherd through the legislation of their hearts desires, while simultaneously giving their party political cover from their unpopular agenda. With this going on, the Republican base, combining revulsion for McCain, with some political savvy about losing some battles to win the war, may be willing to cross party lines to vote for Hillary. Since so much is currently at stake in the world, it reminds this author of the ancient Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times".

David Roth

Jan 31, 2008

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

The Die is Cast

Almost immediately after independence, the U.S. government found itself in conflict with the Barbary sheikhdoms of Morocco, Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli. For centuries, these states filled their coffers by piracy, stealing cargoes, enslaving crew, and collecting ransom. European sea-going nations often entered into treaty and tribute arrangements with the Barbary leaders in order to buy immunity and curtail competition.[5] In 1784, Moroccan pirates hijacked the U.S. merchant ship Betsy in the Mediterranean and enslaved her crew. A year later, Algerine pirates seized two more vessels, the Maria from Boston and the Dauphin from Philadelphia. The U.S. ministers to England and France, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson oversaw a peace treaty with Morocco, but the Algerine leadership refused any accommodation. In 1796, President George Washington ordered construction of six warships to form a U.S. navy and to protect U.S. shipping from Barbary pirates. In 1801, in the wake of an upsurge in piracy, President Thomas Jefferson entered into war with Tripoli, bombarding the city three years later and winning the release of American hostages.[6] Peace did not last. With the U.S. military embroiled in the War of 1812, Algerine pirates again began terrorizing American crewmen and disrupting U.S. trade. They miscalculated. In 1815, President James Madison dispatched a squadron of U.S. Navy frigates, which defeated the pirate fleet and won reparations from Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli.[7]

Many historians consider the Barbary wars a sideshow relative to contemporaneous events such as the French Revolution, Napoleon's conquests, and the War of 1812, but the Barbary wars are significant to today's conflict. Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison each believed the Barbary wars to be a continuation of the American Revolution. The ground war in North America may have freed the United States from British tyranny, but the Barbary campaign was necessary to win the same freedom of action and commerce within the international community.[8] The episode also crystallized perceptions of Islam and the Ottoman Empire in the American mind. While Americans did not perceive the Barbary wars as a conflict between Christianity and Islam per se, religion was an issue. The two sides fought, not over theological differences, but rather as a result of the divergent ideologies enabled by the two faiths.[9] Washington and Adams referred to the Muslim leaders as "nests of banditti" while Jefferson's and Madison's campaign literature called them "petty tyrants."[10] The "despotic Turk" became the antithesis of early American republican identity.

What Americans and Europeans saw as piracy, Barbary leaders justified as legitimate jihad. Jefferson related a conversation he had in Paris with Ambassador Abdrahaman of Tripoli who told him that all Christians are sinners in the context of the Qur'an and that it was a Muslim's "right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to enslave as many as they could take as prisoners."[11] Islam gave great incentive to fighting infidels, Abdrahaman explained, because the Qur'an promised that making war against infidels ensured a Muslim paradise after death.[12] Richard O'Brien, the imprisoned captain of the Philadelphia merchantman Dauphin and later the U.S. consul to Algiers, related similar conversations with ‘Ali Hasan, the ruler of Algiers.[13] Ottoman leaders used the same rationale to justify the enslavement and trading of captives from the Balkans, Caucasus, and Ukraine.[14]

The role that jihadi ideology played in the Barbary wars is documented with explicit references to jihad and holy war in the treaties that U.S. officials entered into with Muslim rulers. Tunis and Algiers, as the western outposts of the Ottoman Empire, even described themselves to American envoys as the "frontier posts of jihad against European Christianity."[15]

U.S. officials took a conciliatory attitude. Realizing that the North Africans were hypersensitive to the historic conflict between Islam and European Christianity, especially in the context of the expulsion of the Moors from Spain, U.S. officials bent over backwards to deny the religious and ideological nature of the conflict, especially to the Muslims themselves. They realized that religious conflict might jeopardize the commerce that the United States still hoped to find in the Mediterranean. In 1821, President John Quincy Adams was barely able to resist assisting the Greeks in their war of independence when both the American and European publics urged war with the Ottoman Empire.[16] The founders possessed a deep conviction for religious tolerance and proudly explained in the short-lived 1797 treaty with Tripoli that the U.S. was not a Christian state at all but rather one which had no official religion and maintained laws forbidding the prohibition of religion.[17] Perhaps their denial of the religious and ideological nature of the conflict foreshadowed the attitude many Washington policymakers adopt today. Then as now, it has become the basis of a fundamental misunderstanding of the root of the conflict.

The Barbary conflict was the beginning of continuous U.S. interaction with the Muslim Near and Middle East. While Jefferson and Madison believed that a continuous U.S. military presence in the Mediterranean was necessary to protect U.S. national interests, in 1831, President Andrew Jackson secured a treaty of amity and free trade with the Ottoman Empire leading the secretary of the navy to report seven years later that it was no longer necessary to keep a U.S. fleet in the Mediterranean.[18] Three years after Washington withdrew the squadron, Ottoman privateers began raiding U.S. shipping, forcing the reconstitution of the fleet after the U.S. Civil War.

No longer, though, did the U.S. government feel content to view relations with Muslim governments only through a commercial lens. The Civil War interjected discussion of natural law and freedom into U.S. policy formulation. American missionaries increased their presence in the Muslim Middle East throughout the nineteenth century although Muslim prohibitions on conversion to Christianity led them to focus their efforts more on aid and education than on proselytization. Simultaneously, the Ottoman sultan and other Muslim rulers began to pursue more pronounced repression against both Christians and Jews.[19] Intolerant, fundamentalist strains of Islam gained ground on the Arabian Peninsula and in North Africa.[20]

By 1840, the final year of his administration, and again during his unsuccessful campaign for a second term in 1848, Martin Van Buren expressed concern for the plight of Jews in the Ottoman Empire, which he called "the most anti-Semitic of countries."[21] In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, strife between Muslims and Christians in the Balkans and in Istanbul led President Ulysses Grant to dispatch six warships to the waterways around the city to ensure the safety of Americans.[22] In 1882, President Chester Arthur dispatched the Mediterranean Squadron to Alexandria to help evacuate Americans and Europeans following anti-Christian violence in the city. President Grover Cleveland even proposed an Anglo-American intervention in the Ottoman Empire to assist Armenian Christians against Muslim violence.[23] In 1903, an assassination attempt on the U.S. consul in Beirut amid anti-Christian rioting led President Theodore Roosevelt to dispatch marines to the city. A few months later, marines landed in Tangiers after the kidnapping of a Greek businessman from the U.S. consulate there.[24] Behind each incident was Muslim violence toward minority Christian and Jewish communities.

The nineteenth century foreshadowed increasing conflict between the United States and Muslim Middle Eastern countries. The failure of effective Ottoman political reform coupled with the evolution of Islamic reform toward greater Islamism and less tolerance set up a conflict between the American notion that governments rule at the consent of the governed and the dominant attitude among Muslim potentates who subscribed to an intolerant, coercive, anti-Semitic, and anti-Christian ideology.

Twentieth-century Continuity

Into the early twentieth century, successive U.S. administrations sought to remain aloof from Arab and Ottoman politics. President Woodrow Wilson did not include the Ottoman Empire in the U.S. declaration of war against Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, an omission he said was to mitigate the risk of Ottoman retaliation against its Christian or Jewish populations, thereby implying his sense that the Porte saw the United States through a religious rather than just diplomatic lens.[25]

The U.S. government sought to remain detached in all but the commercial sphere. The U.S. trade relationship with the Middle East expanded exponentially in the mid-twentieth century. In the decade following the end of World War II, U.S. commerce increased 167 percent. The next decade saw a 226 percent rise, and the following decade a 321 percent increase in absolute terms.[26] Such involvement, though, had diplomatic and strategic overtones.

During the Cold War, "armed neutrality" could no longer protect U.S. strategic interests. Successive administrations and the State Department pursued a "pro-Arab" policy in the region to stymie the expansion of Soviet influence into those countries. In a January 1945 correspondence, Dean Acheson, secretary of state and chief architect of the U.S. Cold War Soviet containment policy, argued for a pro-Arab tilt to U.S. policy in order to deny the Soviet Union any possible inroads into the region.[27] Successive administrations embraced the policy. Dwight D. Eisenhower sided with Gamal Abdul Nasser against Israel, France, and Great Britain during the 1956 Suez crisis. While the U.S. government often stayed on the sidelines, in eleven of the twelve major Cold War and immediate post-Cold War conflicts between Muslims and non-Muslims, Muslims and secular forces, or Arabs and non-Arabs, the U.S. government supported the former group.[28] Washington, for example, backed the Afghan mujahideen against the Soviet Red Army in the 1980s and supported Bosnian Muslims against Serbs and Croats. U.S. administrations have even leaned hard on Israel, preventing the Jewish state's destruction of the Egyptian, Jordanian, and Syrian armies in 1967; ignoring the Israeli government's pleas not to sell state-of-the-art weaponry to Saudi Arabia; and pressuring for concessions to the Palestinian Authority despite its embrace of terrorism. The only exception to Washington's pro-Arab tilt has been U.S. diplomatic intervention in support of Israel at the United Nations and White House commitment to maintain Israel's qualitative military edge.

During the six decades since Washington abandoned its "armed neutrality" policy in favor of deeper relations with Arab states, friction has increased between U.S. officials and Islamist ideologues. The pro-Arab tilt Washington pursued during the Cold War to stymie Soviet intrigues and maintain energy security, meant partnership with non-democratic regimes and often corrupt rulers in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, and the Persian Gulf emirates. Islamists and other opposition groups argued that Washington should support the people and not autocrats. But such rhetoric is laid bare by the antagonism that U.S. support for Israel engendered among many of these self-professed democrats. Israel is the only democracy in the region. Its citizens, 17 percent of whom are Muslim, enjoy basic civil liberties regardless of their faith and, even in the West Bank, enjoy a standard of living far superior to that of Egyptians and Jordanians.[29]

Jihadi Antipathy

Both the United States and Jews have become the focus of Islamists' irrational enmity as Islamist thinkers and Arab demagogues deflect any internal responsibility for Muslim countries' woes. This was a common theme both of Sayyid Qutb, the leading Muslim Brotherhood ideologue and, later, Al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden.[30] In Knowing the Enemy, Mary Habeck, a professor of military history at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, documents how Qutb and bin Laden spread a message that the decline of majority Muslim polities is not the result of flaws within Islam itself but is instead the deliberate effort of the United States and the Jews.[31] Today Pakistani madrasas (Islamic schools) alone spin out more than one million graduates per year steeped in jihadi ideology.[32]

Underlying much jihadi thought is antipathy toward democracy. Both Qutb and bin Laden argued that democracy is not a solution to inequity and corruption in Islamic societies.[33] In a video that marked the sixth anniversary of the 9-11 attacks, bin Laden said, "It has now become clear to you and the entire world the impotence of the democratic system and how it plays with the interest of the peoples and their bloody sacrificing of soldiers and populations to achieve the interests of major corporations."[34] While some Islamists—such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt or Muhammad Khatami in Iran[35]—speak of their embrace of democracy, seldom do they include Enlightenment concepts such as tolerance, rule-of-law, and property rights. They do not accept, as did the U.S. founding fathers, that people are endowed with both the natural right to freedom from coercion and the liberty to improve their lives. In practice, then, regardless of their rhetoric, they eschew democracy.

The failure of Islamic states to incorporate the Enlightenment's advances in thought has caused their stagnation, if not decline, over the last several centuries. In contrast, the incorporation of Enlightenment and democratic principles into Western governance has resulted in history's most rapid improvement in the human condition. Only those Muslim countries that have embraced, in some fashion, Western principles of democracy, free markets, property rights, tolerance, and the rule of law have prospered. Most Arab states refuse. Bernard Lewis, perhaps the doyen of Middle East studies in the Western world, explained, "By all indicators from the United Nations, the World Bank, and other authorities, Muslim countries—in matters such as job creation, education, technology, and productivity—lag ever further behind the West. Even worse, the Arab nations also lag behind the more recent recruits to Western style modernity, such as Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore."[36] All majority Muslim countries except Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, and Turkey, which have recently adopted significant free market and democratic reforms, rank in the bottom half of world productivity; of the rest, only Morocco, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and Bangladesh reach the third quartile.[37] According to the World Bank, the average per capita income of all majority Muslim countries collectively is less than half of the average for the globe. Only Kuwait approaches the global average life expectancy;[38] all other Muslim majority states lag in the bottom half of the world in this important measure of health.

Jihadis thrive in such stagnated conditions. This leads to negative annuity: Jihadism both grows amid stagnation and fuels stagnation. It accelerated coincident with the European Enlightenment and the relative decline of the Muslim Middle East. At its core, jihadism is a violent rejection of many of the fundamental principles of the European Enlightenment. Democracy, free markets, tolerance and freedom of religion, secular government, and separation between the religious, the political, and the individual spark religious fury. It is no coincidence, then, that jihadis, under the banner of cleansing their religion of evil Western influence, have focused their attentions on the United States, the clearest manifestation of the European Enlightenment today. They will continue to threaten Western civilization until they are checked.

Fumbled Strategy

One of the greatest challenges facing strategic leaders today is objectively examining the centuries-old roots of Islamic jihadism and developing a strategy that will lead to a lasting solution to the Western conflict with it. Many Western policymakers fail to assess realistically why Arab and Islamic governments have been unable to improve the condition of their populations, especially in contrast to the West. This inability to grasp the root of Islamic jihadism is the result of a moral relativism prominent in modern Western liberal thought. For example, over the last few decades, it has become common to value diversity and multiculturalism above societal well-being and improvements in the human condition.

It is not, as Thomas Friedman argues in The World Is Flat, that the fruits of the American experiment—free markets, property rights, tolerance, democracy, and the rule of law—have left Islam behind.[39] On the contrary, it is Islam that has opted out of progress by allowing, promoting, and embracing centuries of reactionary and retrospective reforms that rejected the idea that humans can indeed improve their condition through reason and rationality. Muslim clerics and leaders within the impoverished nations of the Islamic world need to understand that they are responsible for the condition and grief of their people. It is Islamism's rejection of religious tolerance, democracy, and the rule of law, in conjunction with its embrace of anti-Semitism, theocracy, and sectarian strongmen exempt from law and privileged by the authority they have usurped, that is the real enemy in the Islamic world's centuries-long interaction with the United States. While Islamists skillfully manipulate the Western mass media to enunciate an à la carte menu of grievances, eighteenth- and nineteenth-century interactions show these are not the root cause of jihadi terror. Indeed, a U.S. intelligence assessment, published two years before Israel's independence and any subsequent jihadi grievance, already highlighted Islamist terrorism as a long-term threat.[40] So long as Western officials adopt a nearsighted, grievance-based view of the roots of Islamist terror, they will embolden jihadis through appeasement.

It is essential that the grand strategy of the United States addresses this basic conflict of interest. The present conflict is not new. And it is religious. Believing that only a few "rogues" have misappropriated religion is both naïve and counterfactual. U.S. and Western leaders must confront the reality that jihadism is a religious phenomenon that has grown popular and powerful enough to threaten the continued progress of the American experiment and the European Enlightenment. In the new grand strategy to defeat Islamic jihadism, America must campaign, through its scholars and theologians if appropriate, to encourage and facilitate imams and other Islamic religious authority figures to reform Islam in a forward direction, one that breaks from the past and encourages tolerance, the rule of law, free inquiry, and free markets. Imams who support, either passively or actively, jihadism should be undermined and exposed.

How should the United States revitalize its strategy? At home, the U.S. government must better educate and explain the conflict to the general audience. Education at all levels should inculcate U.S. citizens in the history, philosophy, mechanics, virtues, responsibilities, and achievements of the Western approach to freedom, liberty, and the free market. Tolerance and diversity need not mean acceptance of oppression and tyranny. Such an effort would entail reinstalling this subject matter into the curricula of public schools. The strategic leadership of the nation should drive the public education effort, much as the founders did in the eighteenth century. The Federalist Papers, generally attributed to James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, are prototypical examples of effective strategic communications that aimed, among other things, to create a government strong enough to defend itself against the Barbary pirates.

Internationally, U.S. foreign policy should reflect U.S. national values and long-term objectives rather than near-term expediencies devoid of the principles enumerated by the founding fathers. U.S. foreign aid programs need reform.[41] Washington should set a visible standard by supporting non-corrupt democracies, rather than funding kleptocracies. Rather than fund short-term stability in regimes where power is centrally concentrated, Washington should promote trade and development in Islamic nations supporting the rule of law, tolerance, and democracy. Trade and development in these nations empowers people and entrepreneurs, catalyzes economic progress, and decentralizes power in a culture that has deep tendencies toward autocracy.[42]

The half-century-long policy of supporting Arab state stability regardless of its governance is a relic of the Cold War. In order to defeat jihadism, U.S. foreign policy should marginalize Muslim nations that are not supportive of the development of the rule of law, tolerance, and democracy. Washington should not apologize for supporting regional countries that seek peace, prosperity, and the improved well-being of their citizens. To do otherwise fuels jihadi rhetoric that the U.S. government seeks to oppress Muslims throughout the world.

Another requirement is for the West to embark on a radical program to redefine how its economies obtain and distribute energy. Former director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey argues that denying jihadis the use of oil as a weapon against the United States and the West should be Washington's highest priority.[43]

Finally, the history of U.S. interaction with Muslim polities shows that "diplomacy backed by force" is the only effective approach to relations with them.[44] Diplomacy is essential to ensure intentions are understood. Consistent diplomacy is essential to build the trust that majority Muslim countries need to support U.S. aims to advance Enlightenment ideals. Military weakness and the inability to project U.S. power have consistently led jihadis and Muslim kleptocrats to launch attacks against U.S. interests.

by Melvin E. Lee

--------------------------

Melvin E. Lee is a sea captain and a nuclear engineer in the United States Navy. He serves as special operations officer for the commander, U.S. Naval Forces Europe, and commander, U.S. 6th Fleet. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of the Department of the Navy or U.S. government.

---------------------------

[1] Ussama Makdisi, "‘Anti-Americanism' in the Arab World: An Interpretation of a Brief History," Journal of American History, Sept. 2002, p. 546.
[2] David Fromkin, A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East (New York: Henry Holt, 1989), pp. 23-62.
[3] Robert Fisk, The Great War for Civilization: The Conquest of the Middle East (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), pp. 305-15.
[4] Michael Oren, Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).
[5] Frank Lambert, The Barbary Wars: American Independence in the Atlantic World (New York: Hill and Wang, 2005), pp. 106-9.
[6] Richard B. Parker, Uncle Sam in Barbary: A Diplomatic History (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2004), pp. 103-30; Lambert, The Barbary Wars, pp. 49-78.
[7] Kevin Baker, "The Shores of Tripoli," American Heritage, Feb./Mar. 2002, p. 21.
[8] James A. Field, "Novus Ordo Seclorum," America and the Mediterranean World, 1776-1882 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), pp. 3-26; Lambert, The Barbary Wars, pp. 15-28.
[9] Lambert, The Barbary Wars, pp. 106, 112-4.
[10] Ibid., pp. 110, 123.
[11] Thomas Jefferson, "‘The American Commissioners' Report to John Jay," in Paul L. Ford, ed., The Works of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 9 (New York and London: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1904-5), p. 358; quoted in Lambert, The Barbary Wars, p. 116.
[12] Thomas Jefferson, "The American Commissioners' Report to John Jay," p. 358; quoted in Lambert, The Barbary Wars, p. 117.
[13] Lambert, The Barbary Wars, p. 110-1.
[14] Bernard Lewis, The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2,000 Years (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995), p. 175.
[15] "The Truce with Tunis," Naval Documents Related to the United States Wars with the Barbary Powers, vol. 1 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1939), pp. 158-9; quoted in Lambert, The Barbary Wars, p. 117.
[16] Field, America and the Mediterranean World, pp. 133-40.
[17] Parker, Uncle Sam in Barbary, pp. 134-5.
[18] Field, America and the Mediterranean World, p. 209.
[19] Ibid., pp. 345-73.
[20] Ahmad Dallal, "The Origins and Objectives of Islamic Revivalist Thought, 1750-1850," Journal of the American Oriental Society, July-Sept. 1993, p. 352.
[21] Field, America and the Mediterranean World, pp. 345-73.
[22] Ibid., pp. 368-70.
[23] Ibid., pp. 445-7.
[24] Anne Cipriano Venzon, "Gunboat Diplomacy in the Med," Proceedings of the U.S. Naval Institute, Apr. 1985, pp. 26-31.
[25] Fromkin, A Peace to End All Peace, pp. 259-60.
[26] Bernard Lewis, The Crisis of Islam, Holy War and Unholy Terror (New York: Random House, 2003), pp. 126-8.
[27] Dean Acheson, "Internal Correspondence of the U. S. Department of State, January 1945," quoted in Robert Baer, Sleeping with the Devil (New York: Crown, 2003), p. 79.
[28] Barry Rubin, "The Real Roots of Arab Anti-Americanism," Foreign Affairs, Nov.-Dec. 2002, p. 75.
[29] R. James Woolsey, "Grand Strategy in the Middle East: The Long War of the 21st Century," in K. M. Campbell, ed., An American Grand Strategy for the Middle East (Washington, D.C.: Aspen Institute, 2004), p. 37.
[30] Richard W. Bulliet, "The Crisis within Islam," The Wilson Quarterly, Winter 2002, p. 15.
[31] Mary R. Habeck, Knowing the Enemy: Jihadi Ideology and the War on Terror (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), p. 12.
[32] Michael G. Knapp, "The Concept and Practice of Jihad in Islam," Parameters, Spring 2003, p. 92.
[33] Reza Aslan, No God but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam (New York: Random House, 2005), p. 138; Habeck, Knowing the Enemy, p. 162; Lewis, The Crisis of Islam, p. 159.
[34] Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees, CNN, Sept. 7, 2007; United Press International, Sept. 7, 2007.
[35] Muhammad Khatami, "Islamic Civil Society," speech to the eighth session of the Islamic Summit Conference, Tehran, Radio Islam, Dec. 9, 1997.
[36] Lewis, The Crisis of Islam, p. 114.
[37] James Gwartney, Robert Lawson, and William Easterly, Economic Freedom of the World, 2006 Annual Report (Vancouver: Fraser Institute, 2006), p. 39.
[38] Lewis, The Crisis of Islam, p. 113-9.
[39] Thomas L. Friedman, The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2005), pp. 470-9.
[40] "Assessing the Islamist Threat, Circa 1946," Middle East Quarterly, Summer 2006, pp. 76-82.
[41] Alberto Alesina and Beatrice Weder, "Do Corrupt Governments Receive Less Foreign Aid?," American Economic Review, Sept. 2002, pp. 1126-38.
[42] Iqbal Z. Quadir, "The Bottleneck Is at the Top of the Bottle," The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, Summer/Fall 2002, pp. 86-8.
[43] Woolsey, "Grand Strategy in the Middle East," pp. 33-4.
[44] Parker, Uncle Sam in Barbary, p. 160.

This item is available on the Middle East Forum website, at http://www.meforum.org/article/1830

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

Twenty years later, Mbembe was walking through the Chicago Zoo with his teenage son. As they approached the elephant enclosure, one of the creatures turned and walked to where Mbembe and his son Tapu were standing. The large bull elephant stared at Mbembe, lifted its front foot off the ground, and then put it down. The elephant did that several times and then trumpeted loudly, all the while staring at the man.

Remembering the encounter in 1986, Mbembe couldn't help wondering if this was the same elephant. Mbembe summoned up his courage, climbed over the railing and made his way into the enclosure. He walked right up to the elephant and stared back in wonder. The elephant trumpeted again, wrapped its trunk around one of Mbembe's legs and slammed him against the railing, killing him instantly. It is probably safe to conclude it wasn't the same elephant....

The lesson we can take away from this interesting and heartwarming story is one of statistical probability, bordering on certainty. A similar sequence of events will likely occur as the current crop of political candidates seek to befriend a nation of injured conservative elephants, many of whose youth have been sacrificed to open borders, drugs and Islamic terrorists. The election outcome experienced by incumbent Republicans and Democrats in the 2008 election at the hands of voters is likely to be painfully similar to Mbembe. At least I hope it is.

Red State Patriot

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

In the second voting category, the delegates were able to vote for more than one candidate as unacceptable. In the Unacceptable Category, 427 out of 721 (59%) of the delegates declared McCain as one of their unacceptable candidates. The tallies were:
427 McCain
396 Paul
357 Giuliani (withdrawn)
340 Huckabee
156 Hunter (withdrawn)
152 Thompson (withdrawn)
121 Romney

In the third category, the delegates were able to vote for more than one candidate as acceptable. Those results were as follows:
370 Thompson (withdrawn)
358 Hunter (withdrawn)
356 Romney
235 Giuliani (withdrawn)
207 Huckabee
135 McCain
120 Paul

These issues were rated by the delegates as the most important for the presidential candidates to address:

643 STOP ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
552 WIN WAR AGAINST TERROR
518 REDUCE GOV'T SPENDING
406 LOWER TAXES
390 SUPREME COURT APPOINTMENTS
271 PRO-LIFE
226 CITIZEN'S GUN RIGHTS
196 DOMESTIC OIL PRODUCTION
106 CHOICE OF PRIVATE SS ACCOUNTS

Senator John McCain, you can run from your constituency, but you cannot hide.

Red State Patriot

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

A key step in the development of Second Amendment jurisprudence was the Bush Administration’s decision to adopt the “individual rights” theory of the Second Amendment. This theory holds that the Supreme Court’s Miller decision was, in essence, incorrect, and that the right to keep in bear arms means what it says -- that an individual has a right to own guns. The Department of Justice in 2001 reversed the Clinton Administration’s previous position on the right to bear arms, setting off a firestorm of criticism. Yet for the past seven years, the Administration has stood its ground and consistently instructed its United States Attorneys to argue for the individual right to bear arms, if they could given the law of their Circuit.

So it came as an absolute shock to many supporters of an individual right to keep and bear arms when the Solicitor General filed a brief in the Heller matter opposing the plaintiffs’ claims. This remarkable brief brings back memories of the Administration’s position in the Grutter and Gratz cases, where the Administration argued that, while the schools’ affirmative action policies were unconstitutional, the rationale behind them was not.

The Solicitor General’s brief in Heller similarly tries to split the baby. It argues, strenuously, that the Constitution does protect and individual’s right to bear arms. It also argues that, like other rights in the Bill of Rights, the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited. It then suggests a more restrictive test for the right than that used by the Court of Appeals: that a court should consider the practical impact of the regulation on the right to bear arms and the
government’s interest in the enforcement of the regulation, rather than the Court of Appeals’ more categorical approach to regulations of “Arms.” In other words, it argues for a kind of intermediate scrutiny. The Solicitor General suggests that the Court adopt a different test than that used by the Court of Appeals, and then remand the case for further review.

Which raises the question: What the heck was the Bush Administration thinking? For decades, a critical component of the Republican coalition has been working class gun owners who are bothered by the Democrats’ embrace of gun control. Republicans actually seem to have won that battle, with Democrats backing off of gun control legislation in the recent Congress. Why after enduring so much hostile press would the Bush Administration sell out the NRA at this critical juncture? And why make the reversal in a difficult election year, when the support of gun control opponents will be so critical to Republican fortunes?

There are two potential answers. The generous answer lies in the composition of the Court. It is thought that the four “conservative” Justices -- Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito -- are sympathetic to the individual right to bear arms. The four “liberal” Justices -- Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer and Souter -- may be more hostile. This leaves Justice Kennedy as the swing vote. Kennedy is notoriously difficult to predict, especially on high-profile “social issues.” It is also true that within the next few years, Justices Stevens and Ginsburg will be replaced, possibly with a Republican President. So the Solicitor General may be gambling that Justice Kennedy will be easier to persuade with a lower standard, or that if the plaintiffs get a remand, the Court may be more conservative when the case comes back up, and more likely to win in the long run.

The less generous answer lies in the reality of the Bush Administration. Contrary to the caricatures painted by liberals, there are precious few issues that the Administration has not sold the Right out on. No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug benefit, monstrous budget deficits, McCain-Feingold, Patient’s Bill of Rights . . . all of these issues cross the gamut of modern politics, and all of them are issues where the Bush Administration’s Rovian plotting has placed it at loggerheads with standard conservatism. Even on judges, where the Administration usually wins plaudits, conservatives forget Harriet Miers, and forget that two of Bush’s first ten Court of Appeals
appointments were Clinton appointees. Is it really that hard to believe that the Administration would lurch to the left on the issue of guns?

Regardless, this issue is in the Supreme Court of the United States. Its decisions are not easily overruled once they are handed down. Even if one gives the Administration the benefit of the doubt, it has made an awful error here by siding against the District’s citizens. The job of a conservative administration is to attempt to persuade the Court to
adopt conservative views, not to attempt to play politics or split the baby. It has foregone an opportunity to write a brief that could persuade the Justices to adopt a view of the Second Amendment that assigned scrutiny commensurate with those of other guarantees of the Bill of Rights. Moreover, in a high stakes election, which is likely to be a tough one for the Republican, the Administration has risked alienating a substantial portion of the Republican base, who are understandably incensed with the Administration, and will be apoplectic if the Court does not affirm the Court of Appeals.

The Administration seems to be playing a game of high stakes poker with an incendiary issue in an election year. One can only hope it does not get us all burned.

by Sean P. Trende
01/22/2008

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

Because I am a contrarian, and cynical of human behavior (derived from three decades in federal law enforcement, and another decade on Arizona streets as a police officer, and repeated disappointments as a political observer in Washington, D.C.), it is a huge cause for concern when normally conservative and articulate Internet commentators appear desperate to find the smallest crumb of hope from Congress. While some sense of desperation from the rule-of-law contingent is understandable, considering the war zone on the borders, the question still remains: Why are so many people blindly embracing the SAVE Act as if it were the Holy Grail of immigration reform?

Think like a contrarian. What might be missing from this picture? What remains unsaid?

It is important that every citizen recognize at the outset of any discussion of immigration that the phrases "immigration reform," and particularly “comprehensive immigration reform,” represent ‘code words’ that mean only one thing – a consistent and defiant refusal by Congress and the Bush Administration to enforce existing laws.

The congressional solution to "open borders" and epidemic illegal alien lawlessness across the United States, and the threat of mind-boggling terrorism, is not enforcement of existing laws, but to rewrite immigration law turning previously lawless behavior retroactively into legal behavior - with amnesty given for the crimes committed by millions of illegal alien migrants.

The Bush Administration is either oblivious and insensitive to life and death on the streets of our cities, and along our dangerous border, or it is literally refusing to defend the country in a war being waged by Mexico against the United States. The latter suggestion begs the question, "Is the Bush Administration, in concert with Congress, consciously aiding a self-declared enemy to defeat the United States of America?" What other choices are there?

As for amnesty for illegal aliens in the United States, arguably it would be less of an atrocity, but equally insane, to grant amnesty to the September 11th Islamic highjackers since they've killed less than five percent of the number of United States citizens that have died at the hands of illegal aliens during the last two decades. Both ideas are beyond delusional and are equally insane - except to the politician who is willing to sell their soul.

Pause and reflect on a sobering fact. The United States Congress, and the Bush Administration, and many who aspire to become President of the United States of America, absolutely refuse to enforce the law – and not just immigration laws, but any laws. As a direct result of failed leadership and vacant moral values, lawless behavior now permeates political behavior from the President, down through the federal government’s administrative agencies (DHS, CIA, State Department) to Congress, to Governors, to state legislatures, to mayors, to police chiefs, to homeowners associations, and riddles the courts. Endemic lawlessness has ravaged the illegal alien community.

There exists no apparent respect for the law - all the way from the top of our national political and law enforcement structure, to the bottom. It follows logically that there will be less and less adherence to any rules of law at lower influence and income levels of society, and particularly in minority/illegal alien communities. At some point, laws that exist on paper will become meaningless from Massachusetts to California. We seem perilously close to going over that national cultural precipice today.

Justifiably, why should any United States citizen believe - ever again - that ANY law, whether newly crafted or already ‘on the books’ will be enforced, except for when it serves the agenda of ‘the government,’ or a special interest group or a minority interest?

From the perspective of a citizen soldier who has served in the trenches on the front lines in Southern Arizona, it appears far more likely to this observer that the SAVE Act is a giant Trojan Horse, intended from the outset to be a lethal strike against the combined efforts of all citizen border-enforcement advocates. Incredibly, this legislation is being willfully perpetrated by a dangerous coalition of some of the most corrupt and the most ignorant in Congress.

Let’s begin making the case with a quote from the Eagle Forum email:

“Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC) introduced the Secure America with Verification and Enforcement (SAVE) Act, H.R. 4088, and it already has over 100 cosponsors. The Senate version, S. 2368, was introduced by Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) and it is identical to the House bill. The SAVE Act tackles illegal immigration from three different directions: First, it increases technological surveillance and the number of Border Patrol agents. Second, it requires employers to use the E-verify program so they can be assured they are not hiring illegal aliens. Third, it will give the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) greater resources to strictly enforce current immigration laws and to better facilitate deportation when necessary.

How the SAVE Act Increases Border Security and Internal Enforcement:
• Increases the number of Border Patrol agents by 8,000 over five years.
• Employs the newest technology available, including satellite communication and aerial surveillance.
• Expands and mandates the use of E-verify, a free and effective program administered by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) so employers can confirm the legal status of their workers. The bill will phase in all employers over four years.
• Allows for information sharing between DHS and the Social Security Administration so as to close the loophole of mismatch letters going unresolved.
• Expands detention capacity and resources for ICE.
• Increases the number of Federal District Court Judges so as to expedite deportation hearings.

The SAVE Act is a great piece of bipartisan legislation ….”

There were currently 133 cosponsors of the SAVE Act at last count. The list of names is too long to reprint here. Many of the names of the cosponsors would cause any reasonable political observer to question whether the co-sponsors had actually read the proposed legislation and comprehend the unintended consequences – but that’s nothing new.

In a vain attempt to keep this critique reasonably short and to the point, permit me to point out the obvious. Every illegal alien currently in the United States, whether for the first time, or after repeated deportations and re-entry, is a serial criminal, many of whom are guilty of multiple unconscionable violent crimes, over fifty percent of all property crimes over the previous two decades, drug importation, human trafficking, domestic violence, gang affiliation and associated criminal behavior, document and identity fraud, and disorderly conduct in every conceivable manner.

If that were not enough, add vehicular mayhem on United States highways as illegal aliens operate motor vehicles within our nation’s borders with reckless abandon, without driving privileges, and most without valid registration or insurance (quaint requirements in state law applicable only to United States citizens).

The Department of Homeland Security and the State of Arizona have recently gotten together and chosen a novel way to facilitate the unlawful transportation needs of millions of illegal aliens who commute to illegal jobs – jobs that United States citizens once held. With DHS sanction, Governor Napolitano of Arizona plans to begin issuing legal identification in the form of federally-sanctioned driver’s licenses with radio identification chips. These legal documents will be issued to alien migrants (from anywhere in the world) without proof of United States citizenship, legal immigrant status, and/or even a fraudulent birth certificate.

Since the public outcry was so great when New York attempted to issue driver’s licenses and other forms of legal identification to illegal aliens, the innovative “work around” solution now is that the illegal alien driver’s license will be a federal identification, and only the administration of the program and distribution of the driver's licenses delegated to the states. The clever scheme has all the appearances of the same game, same objective, same deceit, and same amnesty – just a different day.

Governor Napolitano and the Department of Homeland Security envision that a driver’s license should be accepted in lieu of, and will suffice for, a passport at the U.S.-Mexico border. Subsequently, these same driver’s licenses will be used to convey legal work eligibility because those who possess the federally-sanctioned driver’s licenses would be presumed to be in the country legally for employment purposes. Ask yourself, why would the Governor of the State of Arizona issue driver’s licenses to illegal aliens (which becomes a form of legal identification and a government sanction to use United States roadways to commute to jobs - jobs they are not legally entitled to have)? The SAVE Act and Governor Napolitano’s issuing of driver’s licenses to illegal aliens seems to be the groundwork for permanent legal residency, nothing less.

Governor Napolitano signed the agreement regarding driver’s licenses with Homeland Security Department Secretary Michael Chertoff on December 6, 2007. Apparently she did so without consultation with the Arizona State Legislature. Does Governor Napolitano have the authority to bind the State of Arizona in a federal agreement that violates federal immigration laws, contains state obligations to the federal government and relinquishes state sovereignty? Doubtfully, but we have yet to hear that the Arizona Legislature intends to repudiate the agreement.

Illegal alien's recklessly ricochet around the State of Arizona, and the country for that matter, committing a laundry list of crimes, both felonies and misdemeanors. When finally caught, refusing to be identified by using a myriad of Hispanic surnames, the combination of police, courts and detention facilities simply send them home to Mexico or Central America.

The SAVE Act does nothing to change any of that. In fact, the SAVE Act ups the ante in favor of the illegal aliens. To make the point crystal clear, when an illegal alien returns to the United States, aided by the Mexican government or MS-13, and is unfortunate or reckless enough to be apprehended for the umpteenth time, experience has taught the illegal aliens (and US citizens) that the Border Patrol/ICE will simply package them up and ship them home again at taxpayer expense, often in a luxurious bus or aircraft. Who pays for the deportation costs? Who pays for the carnage left behind from crimes committed and crimes yet undetected? Not the illegal alien, not the U.S. taxpayer-funded lawyers, and not the Mexican government.

How many lawyers will it take to represent 20 million illegal aliens? Who will be expected to pick up that tab?

If you have any doubts, read the legislation yourself, H.R. 4088, The SAVE Act of 2007 (Secure America with Verification and Enforcement). While it 'sounds good on paper,' the SAVE Act requires ONLY the development of a national strategy to secure the borders and all ports of entry to the United States by December 31, 2010. Specifically, the hypothetical strategy must: assess unspecified future terrorist threats years in advance without creditable intelligence; make risk assessment at ports of entry; address staffing needs; describe border security roles between federal, state, and local government; assess existing efforts and border technologies; ensure free flow of lawful travel; assess the need for additional detention facilities and beds; outline performance metrics to ensure accountability, and schedule implementation of the strategy’s objectives. That’s the SAVE Act in a nutshell.

In the meantime, sanctuary cities such of New York City, Phoenix and Houston continue to be a safe haven, a secure base from which illegal aliens can commit all forms of mindless violent and property crimes with seeming impunity. United States citizens and businesses continue to face withering accusations of racism as illegal aliens defiantly demand from city government’s to be insulated as a protected class of miscreants from all community responsibilities or criminal accountability.

At the state level, governors and courts are actively protecting illegal aliens by stalemating citizen initiatives or legislation that would curtail illegal alien social benefits or limit cross-border migration. At the municipal level, mayors and chiefs of police are actively providing physical, economic and criminal sanctuary to illegal aliens at the brutal expense of lawful United States citizens and business owners.

Unfortunately for U.S. citizens, Hispanic and Muslim activists and their checkbooks have undue policy influence because politicians are amazingly competent in selling their votes - if nothing else in life! Wise men have always understood that everything has a price. It would appear that politicians have been having an integrity fire sale and patriotism melt-down for decades. Bottom line: with very few exceptions, your elected congressmen are selling out your country.

In recent years, Congress has knowingly gone so far afield as to vote to fund an assortment of anti-American special interest groups. One example will suffice, i.e., the funding of La Raza by Congress with over a million dollars of taxpayer money. LaRaza, an admittedly racist Hispanic-supremacy organization, reportedly is subsidized not only by the Mexican government and the U.S. Congress, but by criminal enterprises with funding that flows through legally constituted special interest groups.

Enforce the laws? Sure, whatever you say. And Americans should believe the SAVE Act will be an exception. Forget the SAVE Act. Enforce existing immigration laws. Legislation that purports to do anything else is a sham.

After all is said and done, state and federal immigration policy for twenty years has been and continues to be, regardless of protestations to the contrary, "catch and release" – not enforcement. Enforcement implies accountability for crimes, and clearly there is NO accountability of any consequence.

Just how ridiculous is the SAVE Act? The SAVE Act clearly proposes to add additional layers of border bureaucracy, but what will it ultimately accomplish? Maybe a metaphor will help. With 8,000 new border agents and more taxpayer money for technology, the SAVE Act “pretends” to be putting more fishermen on the pond and more high-tech fish sensors on the boat. The premise is that more fishermen and better technology will catch more fish. But the problem is that we don’t want any more fish. This business of illegal alien migration isn’t a sport and it isn’t funny. In fact, we don’t want ANY illegal fish in our pond. The illegal fish are destroying the natural habitat of the native fish. The solution is to remove the illegal fish from the pond, by incentive preferably but by force if necessary, in order to preserve the beautiful natural habitat – and not to introduce more illegal fish and then hire more anglers (agents) at taxpayer expense and issue more fishing licenses.

Congress has betrayed the trust of so many Americans so often for so long, how can there ever be trust in legislation like the SAVE Act? How many instances of political infidelity for how many years by how many congressmen must Americans suffer before citizens throw the bums out of the ‘house’ into the street? These elite bullies have garnered their power and influence, passed laws to protect their position, surrounded themselves with law enforcement agencies for their own protection, voted themselves a king’s ransom of a retirement system and benefits, and now they’re laughing in our face! They’re literally challenging you and me! What are we going to do about it? It's not Left v. Right anymore, it's the State v. you.

In the vernacular, a schmuck is a stupid person, a jerk, a fool, or a gullible dolt - at the very least. We are perceived as schmucks by our elected representatives in Congress, and worse by an assortment of Mexicans, Europeans and Muslims, all of whom are gaming the “democratic system” and our naivety to further their own self-interests. The abuse of United States citizens has got to stop, both by Congress and by illegal aliens.

And so the cycle repeats, and the SAVE Act stands as credible evidence that politicians intend that the cycle of abuse will repeat endlessly. Sadistically, it also appears to be the wizard’s (President Bush’s) intent. Careful reading of the SAVE Act provides more than an ample justification to speculate that the real intention of the SAVE Act is to make it impossible to remove illegal aliens from the United States. If there was any intention – ever - to enforce immigration laws and deport illegal aliens, then just enforce the current laws and eliminate access to the taxpayer-funded social benefits. No SAVE Act would be needed.

So let’s agree up front that there is still no intention to enforce immigration laws regardless of new legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the president. Its simply another fraud, not unlike a shell game or 3-card Monte. When you encounter such games on the street, you would probably be unaware that most of the persons standing around a game are in league with the operator. The cosponsors of the SAVE Act are also in league, make no mistake.

Possibly the one aspect of the SAVE Act that should worry citizens the most is that the DHS seeks by this legislation to broadly expand their authority, power and reach. The SAVE Act authorizes the federal government to permanently seize substantial sovereign power from the States just when power should be flowing in the other direction.

United States citizens find themselves in quite a bind because Congress’ votes have been bought and paid for by foreign and domestic special interests. Regular old fashioned law abiding patriotic play-by-the-rules United States citizens, having elected their representatives in good faith, now realize they’re going to have to compete with special interests and well-funded activists and try to buy representation from their own representatives.

Has anybody stopped to consider that none of the top-tier candidates for President of the United States in 2008, in either party, has gone on record regarding what they would do with the 20-40 million illegal aliens currently in the United States, or whether they would build the double-layer border fence, or whether they would continue to extend unearned taxpayer-funded medical care, education and social benefits to non-citizens and their children? Duncan Hunter was on public record claiming he will build the fence, however candidate Huckabee has changed direction so many times even he must feel dizzy. No current candidate has said he will enforce existing immigration laws. Not one Republican or Democrat candidate has said they will actively prosecute those responsible for identity theft or fraudulent use of Social Security numbers.

With the SAVE Act, policing social security fraud permanently becomes the function of the Homeland Security Department. The criminal misuse of Social Security numbers by illegal aliens, and employers who accept, utilize and report fraudulent Social Security earnings is already a secret held more closely than nuclear technology. Identity theft remains a serious, pervasive and unresolved problem. What person is typically victimized by identity theft? Who in many cases is financially devastated? Not the illegal alien. When was the last time you heard of the prosecution of anyone for fraudulent use of a Social Security number to illegally obtain employment?

It’s time for some serious sole-searching. Are you finally willing to acknowledge, based on past performance, that the status quo suits Congress just fine, otherwise Congress would have stopped the social security fraud? Are you finally willing to acknowledge, based on past performance, that the status quo in illegal alien migration also suits Congress just fine, otherwise Congress and/or the Bush Administration would stopped it long ago? Does anybody seriously think Congress or the Bush Administration have had an epiphany and the SAVE Act somehow represents a “compassionate” change of conservative heart?

Here is another sobering thought: Has anybody stopped to ponder that the only people in the entire world who do NOT benefit from paying United States income taxes are the people who pay them? If all men were created equal, why are so many people, both in foreign countries and in the United States, still on some form of U.S. welfare and more illegal aliens are applying for benefits daily?

Moving on, what about the touted E-verify system of work eligibility? Consider for a moment that businesses are incorporated in a particular state and function according to the state laws in which they conduct business. While we would hope that employers would not hire illegal aliens, any decisions to limit employment eligibility reside in the sole jurisdiction of the individual state. If the state legislature and governor want to mandate use of a federal E-verification system as a prerequisite to hiring in Arizona, so be it, but nobody in Washington, D.C. has the constitutional jurisdiction or authority to mandate the E-verify program contained in the SAVE Act. E-verify may become a welcome adjunct to business law at the state level, but not immigration law at the federal level. Who is offered or denied employment in the State of Arizona is no business of any administrative agency, politician or civil service employee in Washington, D.C.

Do you really want a United States government administrative agency to begin deciding who gets a job and who doesn’t? Be very, very careful what you wish for because the day will soon come when United States citizens who fail to curry liberal favor begin to find their name on the “no-job” list – without recourse – or on the “no-fly” list or “no-gun” list, both of which already exist.

As for lists, you’ve probably heard about the government’s terrorism watch list … the list they won’t tell you who’s on, who’s not, how they got there or how to get off. The government’s terrorism watch list grew by 200,000 people in 2006 to more than 750,000 names. There are terrorists in this country, without a doubt because of open borders and lax enforcement, but does anyone really believe there are three-quarters of a million terrorists in this country?

If that were not enough, Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey is relentlessly pushing legislation that would terminate a citizen’s 2nd Amendment gun rights if their name just magically happened to turn up on that terrorism list. If you think it couldn’t happen, the history course(s) were lacking or non-existent in the public school indoctrination curriculum you experienced. Disarming citizens has always been the first priority of every eventual tyrant or ruling class throughout recorded human history.

We learned from the Washington Post in the week before Christmas, 2007 that the Department of Homeland Security (FBI) is embarking on a $1 billion effort to build the world's largest computer database of peoples' characteristics, a project that would give the government unprecedented abilities to identify individuals in the United States and abroad.

One more time for emphasis - please be very, very careful what you wish for. The Department of Homeland Security has no right under the Constitution or law to access Social Security records. There is no justification for such a massive invasion and probable future misuse of personal information. Arguably, we have in the making an American version of the infamous Soviet KGB, an intelligence organization that will keep a detailed computer database dossier on every aspect of the life of every United States citizen – from medical records to parking tickets. If you want to live in a political system that resembles the defunct Soviet Union, why not just move to Russia – but be sure to take your passport and a copy of George Orwell’s novel, ‘1984’.

Back to the point - because the unshakeable intent of Congress is now, and always has been, to grant amnesty to tens of millions of illegal aliens in exchange for campaign contributions, and the “Hispanic vote” to shore up the dwindling demographics of the liberal establishment, it is unlikely that Congress will make any effort to save United States citizens from the SAVE Act. As if more proof were needed, without any explanation, Congress has already stripped away the $3 billion in funds intended to build the double-layer border fence that was approved last year. Without telling the public, Congress pulled the plug on the U.S.-Mexico Border Fence that it voted to build with such enthusiasm and grandstanding (just before they asked voters to re-elect them). So what is the point of the SAVE Act except to try to scam the American public for the twentieth time into accepting the existence of an ever increasing number of illegal aliens in the United States? Many of these very same congressmen that defunded the border fence are touting the SAVE Act?

There is still one more small nagging detail. What about justice for past or present criminal acts committed by illegal aliens, criminal acts that accumulate year after year without justice? What about all the past deportations that were simply ignored or never enforced? What happened when the alien returned defiantly and reentered the United States? Where is the accountability for repeatedly crossing the border illegally, not to mention the crimes recklessly committed while in the United States?

Is there anybody (that is both awake and conscious) that does not believe that United States citizens deserve justice for what they have had to suffer - for the fraud, the violent crimes, deaths at the hands of illegal aliens that continue at the rate of 5,000 citizens per year, human trafficking, drug importation and property crimes – all facilitated for 20 years by elected representatives, such as Senator John McCain who is chief among men who seek to rule rather than govern, i.e., to become Caesar. If John McCain is unresponsive to 80-90 percent of his own state’s registered voters who want illegal alien migration into Arizona stopped, and has done nothing but pander to special interests for 20 years, is John McCain participating in governing as a representative of Arizona, or attempting to rule?

Maybe justice should begin with our elected representatives. Maybe Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano should be named as an unindicted co-conspirator on every homicide committed by an illegal alien in the State of Arizona.

Maybe Senator John McCain can explain why his refusal to enforce existing immigration laws is not a form of gross malfeasance in public office, and why facilitating illegal alien migration is not a cruel form of torture on every United States citizen?

Have you ever asked yourself, “How many United States crime victims at the hands of illegal aliens will finally be too many, even for a heartless politician?” Will 1,000,000 be too many? That sad milestone was passed a long time ago. Maybe Arizona Senator Jon Kyl has the answer? What are his “reasonable carnage” limits – otherwise known as acceptable collateral damage? If one rape in Iraq is too many, how many thousands of rapes of our cherished wives and daughters should be acceptable?

It should not be lost on voters that Senator Jon Kyl has just been promoted to the #2 position of Senate Republican leadership responsibility (Asst. Minority Whip) by his peers. This is the man who voted for construction of the border wall before he voted against funding it. Clearly, Republicans who voted for Senator Kyl to become Asst. Minority Whip proudly share his vacant value system – a belief system that says there are no limits on collateral damage suffered by citizens at the hands of illegal aliens in the United States. These are the very same men and women who are now among the 133 sponsors of the SAVE Act.

It may be a novel concept to liberals, including Democrats and liberal Republicans, but when someone says “enforce the laws,” THAT INCLUDES ACCOUNTABILITY, not just picking up illegal aliens off the street, filling out the paperwork and putting the alien on a bus back to Mexico. Enforcement includes accountability - or it is not enforcement. What part of ILLEGAL don’t American liberals and illegal aliens understand? Are we to assume that liberals in general and illegal aliens in particular will pick and choose which laws, if any, are applicable to them? So much for the SAVE Act.

United States citizens (except female teachers who rape young male students) are usually held accountable for crimes committed under state and federal laws. They do hard time. They are taken off the streets for extended periods of time both to protect society and to create a deterrent. They don’t get celebrity status and a “get-out-of-jail-free card” simply because they’re illegally in the United States. They’re not deported to their homes in a neighboring state or foreign country. They can't flee across an imaginary border to escape prosecution. Why should illegal aliens and potential terrorists be too good for the Rule of Law? Why not ask your congressman for an explanation why the potential Mexican votes are more important than those of United States citizens?

You already know the cynical answer. Hispanic activists, corporate interests, attorneys, and those who profit from the criminal enterprise of illegal alien migration, are buying congressional votes. You’re not. Pushing the SAVE Act through Congress is akin to putting more Congressmen in Washington, D.C. as if more congressmen will somehow lessen the political corruption.

There is only one thing that will ever stop illegal alien migration into the United States. Do you want the migration of illegal aliens to stop, or don't you?

Illegal aliens just like every other human being, including and exemplified by United States politicians, act with few exceptions in their own self-interest. Illegal aliens cross the border for only one reason – self interest. Illegal aliens must be made to fervently believe that they do not want to endure what they are going to find in the United States if they are found to have committed a crime as an illegal alien.

Besides, what illegal alien would want to come to the United States if there were no jobs readily available or social benefits waiting for them? Think about it; only a terrorist or a serial criminal would enter the United States illegally in the face of probable hardship.

The only solution to illegal alien migration, assuming that United States citizens have both the desire and the stomach to make it stop, is to create a credible disincentive to “illegal” migration - to make it socially and economically painful to be an illegal alien in the United States – of any ethnic origin or religious affiliation. If we as a nation (our congressmen) are not willing to strip away the taxpayer funded benefits lavished on illegal aliens, and protect United States jobs, American culture and the environment, why not just start printing and distributing engraved invitations?

Maybe we are all missing the point. Maybe Governor Napolitano’s DHS-sanctioned illegal alien radio-chip driver’s licenses are intended as an engraved invitation.

For those who are advocates of “hate crime” legislation, why not talk about the epitome of hate crimes? How about an illegal alien victimizing a United States citizen? If that crime scenario is not a hate crime, both against the United States and the citizen, nothing is. Men and women serving in uniform will tell you that desecrating the United States flag by flying it upside down subservient to the Mexican flag is among the worst of hate crimes.

For those who are environmental advocates, why not talk about the relentless destruction of the natural environment in the Southwest United States by illegal aliens, and their reckless consumption of valuable natural resources? Why should United States citizens, for example, have to subsidize the price of gasoline, and then be denied the supply of 50 million gallons of automobile gasoline required every day to transport illegal aliens to and from social services, education, medical care and illegal jobs?

The unfortunate reality is that sanctuary cities are still open for business, welcoming illegal aliens with chain migration, anchor baby citizenship, medical care, day labor centers and taxpayer-funded education. Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon and Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris are among the nation’s most notorious illegal alien enablers. Advocates of the SAVE Act don't care. What Rule of Law?

What about the border fence? Listen carefully. If you want a nation tomorrow, build the border fence today, and the converse applies. If you don’t care, so be it. The wall is the most effective and least expensive of all options – no exceptions – no debate. Doing nothing is likely to be the most expensive option in the long term, both in carnage and squandered tax dollars.

Do not allow yourself to be confused. Do you want a United States of America to exist or not? We are standing on the edge of a proverbial cliff and the advocates of illegal alien migration (and a North American Union) want us to jump off - voluntarily. They think we are that stupid. They think our patriotism, flag-flying, churchgoing, marriage, having children, owning a gun and driving an SUV is stupid. They think the goodness of America and its founding principles are stupid, particularly the part about private property and individual liberty. They think they're superior to 'We the People' and rest assured they intend to decide the future of our nation, or our city, or our homeowners association, because their brilliance is to be presumed, never challenged and without question. We love America and put our hand over our heart when the National Anthem is played (some congressmen don't). We proudly recite the Pledge of Allegiance (some candidates for president don't).

The issues of national sovereignty, free trade and the Rule of Law are not complicated. However, with each passing day that there is not a double-layer border fence, we lose a little more of the dwindling opportunity to regain control of our national sovereignty. Each day without decisive action to close the borders makes it more difficult to restore what was once the most successful culture in the history of mankind. The movement toward a collectivist hemispheric or world government already has considerable momentum. The important point to remember is that national borders are at the heart of the issue!

Opponents say that a double-layer border fence would be ineffective as a barrier to illegal aliens since the incentives to cross the border are simply too strong. The claim is that illegal aliens would only find another way – over, under or around. Why is it not logical to extrapolate using a little common sense? How can any number of border agents (standing shoulder to shoulder if necessary, 24/7, resembling a wall), including those authorized in the SAVE Act, ever hope to compete with the same social incentives that illegal alien activists say would defeat a rigid double-layer border fence?

Expensive technology (if it is not routinely vandalized) would be useful in telling us where and when illegal aliens are crossing the border, but technology is not going to stop the intruders, or apprehend them, or hold them accountable for their criminal activity, or most importantly, provide any disincentives to crossing the border.

Just as it is not in your best interests to unlawfully try to enter my house, illegal aliens from Mexico, or traversing Mexico, must be made to feel just as passionately as their American neighbors to the North that it is NOT in their best interests to illegally cross the United States/Mexico border. Nothing in the SAVE Act will lessen the current incentives to cross illegally, so what is the point of the SAVE Act? Everything in the SAVE Act intentionally avoids dealing with the incentives that attract illegal aliens into the United States. Nothing in the SAVE Act is designed to stem the illegal alien migration tsunami.

The actual point of the SAVE Act legislation may be insidious, i.e., to give every illegal alien some form of “a legal status” and identification that will entitle apprehended illegal aliens access to the United States judicial system, and appeals to higher courts, before their eventual deportation. As long as illegal aliens have some form of Congressionally mandated legal status, they are not illegal aliens under immigration law, just undocumented workers – people like you and me that have rights in United States courts and now have the legal sanction to remain on the streets of the United States until their immigration case is resolved, regardless of how long millions of such cases will take. If there are no illegal aliens, only undocumented workers, problem solved.

Do you recognize a pattern at work across the entire nation? Elected politicians at every level of government are simply ignoring existing laws. As long as the smorgasbord of social incentives for illegal aliens remains on the table, border agents might as well be standing in front of a runaway bus. Regardless of the numbers of new agents the SAVE Act would authorize, border agents have about the same chance of stopping a runaway bus as they do stopping illegal alien migration and drug trafficking without someone getting hurt or killed. If the border agent is lucky enough to survive an armed encounter with illegal aliens, it is probable the border agent will be prosecuted for violating the imaginary rights of the illegal alien and then inhumanely incarcerated.

The North Vietnamese imprisoned John McCain for attacking their country. We’ve imprisoned several of our own Border Patrol agents for defending our country. John McCain was tortured by his captors. Our Border Patrol agents have been brutally beaten in prison. Doesn’t it make you just swell up with pride?

United States citizens who care about the future of their nation are in a literal tug-of-war with their elected representatives, i.e., people who by their actions show they care nothing about anything but self-interest. Recognize that the U.S. Senate is absolutely defiant in their refusal to enforce all existing laws, not just immigration laws. Almost to the man and woman, Congress collectively remains determined to disregard the best interests of the United States and refuses to protect the nation’s borders from all enemies foreign and domestic.

The SAVE Act appears to be just another move in the open borders chess game, another shuffle of the cards, another variation of the shell-game we’ve become accustomed to – the con-job known as “comprehensive immigration reform.”

Red State Patriot

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

Storming the Courts is a fast read - and an advertisement for the fun one can have by going to law school. This resonated with me, since my current job involves promoting the role of lawyers in national security. Still, I found myself getting annoyed by some of the ideological protagonists, like a student referred to as "Lisa Do-Good."

Lisa has never had a job in her life and cries when she hears about the employment offers received by her classmates. Adult employment, it seems requires and certain amount of nuance and subtlety, not something she has in large quantities. To young Lisa, the government's policy on the Haitians was "f----- racist," pure and simple. She spends hours on the computer, reading cases that might stoke the revolution. She even makes Koh weary by her constant harping. She eventually turns on her Haitian clients, saying "I've been killing myself for these people and they don't even give a damn." Welcome to the life of law, Lisa.

When Clinton is elected near the end of the book, Lisa and her classmates allow themselves the hope that the incoming administration will eliminate the Department of Justice's Office of Immigration Litigation (OIL), because its lawyers have the audacity to defend immigration judge rulings to assure that the American borders are not porous.

To these students, OIL is an "insular group with a fanatically anti-immigrant culture." Of course, Janet Reno saw things differently as did her boss, who suffered the political blowback of mass refugee populations of the type depicted in Brian DePalma's Scarface being housed into Arkansas.

I would have liked Storming the Courts better if Koh and his students took up the cause of women who are relegated to slave-like status in the Muslim world, forced to undergo a gruesome medical procedure to assure that they will never enjoy sexual intercourse. Of course, that would require these students to embrace a cause they would rather ignore, because it is championed by right-wingers they likely despise.

Koh and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), which is also featured in the book, have done some good work over the years. I find myself cheering for them as they sue Latin American dictators and death squads and oil companies whose commercial activity leads to violent repression of native populations in Africa and Asia. To me, these cases represent American law at its best. I tend to cringe whenever one of them is thwarted by the appearance of the United States, as when the Justice Department - my employer over the past two decades - files "statements of interest" to stay to litigation against international villains in the name of foreign policy. Alas, my respect for CCR is unrequited. In a March 2007 Legal Times article, Michael Ratner publicly doubted that anyone likes me. I can take that, if that's the worst he can say about me.

Why am I such unlikeable person? For Ratner, it is because I have suggested that there is an unscrupulous form of lawfare. This is a shame, since I am enthusiastic about lawfare in general. It's only the bad form of it that frustrates me, because it makes my profession look ridiculous. This is not a distinction CCR understands.

Lawfare (efforts to achieve of military objectives through legal tools) has developed an unfortunate derogatory connotation, to describe the work of unscrupulous practitioners using legal institutions to thwart otherwise legal U.S. military operations. The problem is that war fighting is governed by international law, and its practitioners are hardly lawless. People who wrongly accuse the U.S. of war crimes are represented by lawyers who need a refresher course in legal ethics, and in what constitutes frivolous litigation.

These practitioners, I believe, deserve the criticism they get. I prefer to label what they do "bad lawfare" or "unscrupulous lawfare," thereby leaving open a form of the term that should be promoted. This distinction has not prevented a group of conservative legal commentators like Andrew McCarthy and Jack Goldsmith from sneering at the term itself, without the necessary qualification that I urge, nor has it prevented people from thinking that I invoke lawfare to condemn it in all forms. It's my goal to steal the term back from them.

I have written about this issue in FindLaw, an online legal magazine. The first of my lawfare articles introduced the concept (which, contrary to popular belief I did not coin), and suggested that lawyers have a vital role to play in counterterrorism, if for no other reason that they control certain levers of statecraft that are sometimes the only counterterrorism option. My second FindLaw article went further, arguing that the American legal community needs to look inward if we ever to take the term lawfare back from its derogatory connotation.

I wrote that there are anecdotal signs that certain American lawyers are practicing the odious form of lawfare, as when they use legal proceedings for their pet political causes or try to impose absurd legal requirements that would prevent the U.S. from fighting wars in a way that conforms with the Law of Armed Conflict. These efforts play into the hands of people who think that lawyers should be eliminated from U.S. national security decision making altogether. I maintain it is an obligation of lawyers to assess costs within our profession, to keep it clear of the taint of those who are inclined to dislike us. Of course I was not speaking on behalf of the United States. I was writing as a licensed lawyer, about an important matter to my profession

The second article apparently hit some FindLaw readers close to home. Over the weekend, I received a bunch of angry e-mails, mainly from human rights practitioners in Scandinavia and radical New York lawyers, who expressed chagrin in my comments.

I responded to all of them. This was easy, for they generally misunderstood my argument to say that lawyers should not be involved in counterterrorism or in seeking to enforce that the U.S. government act in a legal way. In fact, that was the exactly opposite of what I was saying. I made no apologies. Then, about a week later, I learned that Legal Times was planning an article on the controversy I had stoked, which would include suggestions that I had somehow violated ethics rules and should be fired from federal employment.

What an ironic way for lawyers to react, I thought, to a message with which they happen to disagree. Moreover, I was arguing in favor of lawfare, and limited my condemnation to the type of lawfare that gives lawyers a bad name. Since when is that a firing offense?

At the urging of the Department of Justice's Public Affairs Office, I spoke to the Legal Times reporter, explained my position, and pointed her to other articles I had written on the subject. She took it all in. The resulting piece was far more balanced than her initial inquires seemed to portend, though she included that quote from Michael Ratner that I am not a likeable person. Surely he was speculating, for we have never met. Still, that's fair. I don't much like Lisa Do-Gooder, though I've never met her.

The latest form of bad lawfare is exemplified by the absurd lawsuit CCR recently fired against Professor John Yoo. His crime was giving advice to his superiors when he was employed by the government. This advice included whether it was okay to hold Jose Padilla after he was arrested in the United States on his way to do something bad on behalf of al Qaeda.

Of course, we all know that Jose Padilla is being held incommunicado, deprived of the ability to see a lawyer. However, I seem to recall that the Supreme Court issued an opinion on Padilla's detention, which means that perhaps he did have a lawyer. I also heard a rumor that he had a trial, overseen by federal judge Marcia Cooke, and it involved a jury. I seem to recall that Padilla was convicted, and that there was something called a "sentencing hearing" this past week in Miami. At least that's what the newspapers say.

Given these rumors, what is it CCR alleges John You to have done? He spoke words to his supervisors. He even wrote words on papers that were routed to them. Now I seem to remember something about "sticks and stones," and how they might be contrasted with words, in terms of their ability to hurt. That may be just a rumor as well.

Of course, CCR believes that money - which can buy sticks and stone, as well as bombs and bullets - qualifies as something that can never cause harm. That is why they have argued that the United States cannot constitutionally criminalize the act of giving money to foreign terrorist groups, and that private lawyers suing on behalf of victims of Hamas terrorism cannot collect against those who gave Hamas money, even if the government has announced that it is foreseeable that all money sent to Hamas will help it wage its campaign of indiscriminate violence.

How would CCR feel about American manufacturing companies that sell some of its lawful products to the Israeli military? Is that unreachable? Hardly. Jennifer Green of CCR, who filed a lawsuit against Caterpillar for its acts of selling bulldozers to the Israeli government, stated "[I] imposing liability for knowingly providing substantial assistance in the commission of internationally wrongful conduct requires no revolutionary insight. It only requires faithful adherence to the understanding of the [American law] at its inception and the application of modern common law principles." Banks providing financial service to the South Africa Apartheid regime? Also fair game to CCR.

I see. So to CCR, it all depends on the identity of the defendant. If they have done something that CCR does not like, they can be sued. If not, such lawsuits are unconstitutional.

This makes likeability legally actionable. John Yoo's problem, like mine, is that he is not liked, at least to CCR. If CCR has its way, perhaps people will think twice before joining the McCain or Romney Administration. After all, there are a group of young lawyers and law students lying in wait, ready to storm the courts. Indeed, law can be fun.

By Jeff Breinholt
January 24, 2008

The original article can be found at http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/

« Close It

If a picture is worth a 1,000 words, this one speaks volumes.

Monday night news (January 21, 2008) featured coverage from the Martin Luther King Day parade on Channel 3 News, Corpus Christi, Texas.

Maybe the time has come to return the responsibility of educating our youth to the states!

Can anybody hear me? Does anybody care about the future of the United States of America?

Red State Patriot

« Close It

Before anyone waxes stupid, please don't tell me that all generalizations are invalid because not every member of the given group will conform to a generalization. Intelligent people understand that legitimate generalizations are statements about a group's general characteristics, not individuals' specific ones. For example, if I say that men are taller than women, I don't mean that every man towers over every woman; nevertheless, it is an accurate relation of a general difference between the groups.

This brings us to an important point: While we must judge everyone as an individual, there are differences within groups but also differences among them. Thus, it makes no more sense to paint every group with the same brush than it does to pain every individual with the same brush.

My response to those who cannot or will not accept this is that if they can't understand commentary written for adults, they shouldn't read it. Besides, not all generalizations can be invalid simply because the statement that all generalizations are invalid is itself is a generalization.

Modern dogma holds that diversity is one of the greatest qualities a society can enjoy, that it bestows many advantages. But what does this imply? Well, by definition "diversity" refers to differences among groups. Now, not only is it illogical to assume that every one of these differences will be flattering, the supposition that diversity is beneficial implies otherwise. After all, if diversity is beneficial, it is only because certain groups bring qualities or strengths to the table that others do not. And, if a given group possesses a certain unique strength, then other groups are wanting in that area relative to it.

Any which way you care to slice it, this is a corollary of diversity dogma.

So, ironically, despite the fact that the diversity dogmatists would eschew stereotyping, a version of it imbues their ideology. So it's not that they don't have biases relating to generalizations, only that their understanding of group differences is clumsy and primitive, sort of like Archie Bunker but with advanced degrees, the illusion of intellectualism and the inability to be honest with themselves and others. So let's be honest now.

Stereotypes often arise because they have a basis in reality.


For example, often it has been remarked that Irishmen liked to drink. Once again, intelligent people know this doesn't mean that every Irishman is a drunkard, but informed people might know something else: Ireland ranks number two in the world in per capita alcohol consumption next to Luxemburg.

Another difference among groups is that some are more patriarchal than others. We know that Moslem societies are quite so, as women are usually afforded fewer legal rights. In fact, Westerners will often emphasize and lament this difference as a way to burnish their credentials as believers in women's liberation.

In light of this, let's now analyze the MSP's statement that "Hispanic males are raised to be MACHO and brave, while females are raised to be subservient." Since some groups are more patriarchal than others, this can be true; and I venture to say that anyone who has had great contact with Hispanic people and possesses eyes and common sense will know it's often enough true compared to, say, Swedes

As to these matters, Raul Caetano, Catherine L. Clark and Tammy Tam, three Ph.Ds who received a government grant to study common sense, implicitly vindicate two of the MSP's assertions. They write in their paper, Alcohol Consumption Among Racial/Ethnic Minorities:

"One traditional explanation for heavy drinking patterns among Hispanic men, particularly Mexican-Americans, is the concept of ‘exaggerated machismo.'"

While these researchers didn't accept or reject this explanation, they didn't question the suppositions that Hispanic men drink too much and are "macho." So then why are the Maryland State Police probably going to have to pay money for saying what these academics got paid money to say? Well, it neither serves the left's agenda to sue a few eggheads nor can cash be extracted from them.

Besides, there is another factor: If a truth hurts, since you can't destroy the Truth, you destroy the truth-teller.

And here is another truth. I have only one thing to say about the idea that Hispanics are reluctant to learn English: I've never been asked if I wanted to press two for German.

Stereotypes aren't just woven into flawed leftist ideology (please forgive the redundancy) and million-dollar research substitutes for common sense; they also appear in entertainment. Just think about all the times that whites are characterized as nerdy, lacking rhythm or liking mayonnaise (as to this, watch the movie Undercover Brother or Al Yankovic's music video "White & Nerdy"). Yet, golfer Fuzzy Zoeller was practically clubbed to death for quipping that Tiger Woods shouldn't request fried chicken or collard greens after the latter's record-setting performance at the 1997 Masters tournament. (I was "startled" myself; since Woods' mother hails from Thailand, I would have thrown in phat gapow). Seriously, though -- or almost seriously -- if whites can be smeared with mayonnaise, other groups can be coddled with their cuisines.

This isn't to say that every stereotype or generalization -- or what is known as a "profile" in the realm of law enforcement -- is completely accurate. But when one is found wanting, it simply warrants the alteration of its flawed elements, not the throwing out of the baby with the bath water. If a difference is frivolous and fun, it should be a source of mirth; if it indicates greater ability, it should be applauded; and if the difference is damning, remedy should be sought.

But this standard won't be embraced until we accept what is perhaps the most valid generalization of all: The leftist thought police are a menace to civilization and free speech. They are turning us into an ideological state, a place where ideology isn't rejected when it departs from truth but truth is rejected when it departs from ideology.

As for remedy, the best antidote to political correctness is its opposite. We don't have to speak and joke and talk and think in a way that pleases those who prove that infantilism doesn't always peak in infancy. Instead, we should stand up for truth - be it in the form of wit, policy or paradigm - and those who speak it. Do this en masse and "startle" those thought police enough, and we just might be rid of them after all. That is, if they actually do have hearts.

by Selwyn Duke
November 13, 2007

Selwyn Duke may be contacted at selwynduke@optonline.net

From: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/stereotyping_101.html

« Close It

The question came with these background facts: The physician will pay approximately the same $190,000 in public education taxes over his lifetime as my wife and I will pay. But he will get about $360,000 in education services in return (the school district’s cost of educating each of his children for 12 years) and we will get no direct benefit in return. In a real sense, the difference of $170,000 between what he pays and receives will be picked up by my wife and me.

I don’t know about you, but $170,000 isn’t chump change to Kim and me.

A typical answer to the question in bold above is that “Public education taxes are for the common good.”

Beware of abstractions like the 'common good'. It’s an historical fact that such abstractions have been used to justify putting people in railroad cars for delivery to the gulag or showers. Invariably, some people are excluded from the common good, such as peasants under Stalin, Jews under Hitler, and, by no means even close in evil to these two examples, people who have their money taken in a liberal democracy for other people under the pretense of the common good.

But even if someone buys into the rationale about the common good, how does it help the common good for the physician to be subsidized by Kim and me? After all, because he would educate his kids without the subsidy, the subsidy does not result in a net gain to the common good. It’s a net gain to the physician, but not to the common good. It might be a different matter if the subsidy only went to the poor, but that’s not the case with public education taxes or most other collectivist programs.

For the record, my family subsidizes the education and living expenses of an orphan at a Catholic orphanage in southern Mexico. But we do so voluntarily and not through coercion. I’ll use that fact as a segue to the next point.

Another typical answer to the question in bold is that because I have chosen to send my kid to private school, I shouldn’t complain about being coerced to pay public education taxes. That’s like saying that Russian peasants shouldn’t have complained about having their land expropriated by the Bolsheviks, because they chose to own private land instead of joining the collective. Using that logic, if the US government were to nationalize the food industry and collect taxes for government commissaries, people shouldn’t complain about paying extra to shop in private supermarkets, because that would be their choice. The same with nationalized healthcare: If American healthcare were to be nationalized, people shouldn’t complain about paying extra to see a physician outside of the nationalized system.

Still another typical answer is that if it were not for public education, children would not be educated and taught to be good Americans. Sigh. First, that is not an answer to the question in bold. Second, it’s hogwash.

What kind of thinking is behind such answers? A cynic might say that the answers are driven by self-interest--that people like the retired public school teacher at the beginning of this article are on the receiving end of the subsidy but don’t want to admit their self-interest, choosing instead to hide it behind lofty rhetoric about the common good or personal attacks against me.

A cynic might also say that most people don’t question the status quo or think philosophically. They accept what exists because it has always existed in their lifetime. And since 90 percent of Americans have been taught in government schools, they have not been encouraged to think differently about government schools or other forms of collectivism.

But after years of being attacked for my belief in individualism and opposition to collectivism, and after seeing the leading presidential candidates be cheered by the masses for proposing more collectivism, I believe that the reason for the prevailing thinking is more basic: that people are hardwired for collectivism. As such, when the idea of individualism is inserted into their mental cage, they respond with the civilized equivalent of barred teeth, screams, somersaults and hair standing on their backs. “Destroy the threat” is their programmed response.

The blessings of industrialization, the division of labor and the Enlightenment are too recent to have changed the hardwiring that developed from a million years of living in hunter-gatherer tribes, or collectives. Clearly, my different hardwiring is due to a genetic mutation.

As such, it would be wise for me to stay away from chimpanzee cages.

By Craig J. Cantoni
Jan. 24, 2008
________________

An author and columnist, Mr. Cantoni can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

McCain angrily denounces the suggestion that his "comprehensive immigration reform" constituted "amnesty" -- on the ludicrous grounds that it included a small fine. Even the guy who graduated fifth from the bottom of his class at the U.S. Naval Academy didn't fall for this a few years ago.

In 2003, McCain told The Tucson Citizen that "amnesty has to be an important part" of any immigration reform. He also rolled out the old chestnut about America's need for illegals, who do "jobs that American workers simply won't do."

McCain's amnesty bill would have immediately granted millions of newly legalized immigrants Social Security benefits. He even supported allowing work performed as an illegal to count toward Social Security benefits as recently as a vote in 2006 -- now adamantly denied by Mr. Straight Talk.

McCain keeps boasting that he was "the only one" of the Republican presidential candidates who supported the surge in Iraq.

What is he talking about? All Republicans supported the surge -- including Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. The only ones who didn't support it were McCain pals like Sen. Chuck Hagel. Indeed, the surge is the first part of the war on terrorism that caused McCain to break from Hagel in order to support the president.

True, McCain voted for the war. So did Hillary Clinton. Like her, he then immediately started attacking every other aspect of the war on terrorism. (The only difference was, he threw in frequent references to his experience as a POW, which currently outnumber John Kerry's references to being a Vietnam vet.)

Thus, McCain joined with the Democrats in demanding O.J. trials for terrorists at Guantanamo, including his demand that the terrorists have full access to the intelligence files being used to prosecute them.

These days, McCain gives swashbuckling speeches about the terrorists who "will follow us home." But he still opposes dripping water down their noses. He was a POW, you know. Also a member of the Keating 5 scandal, which you probably don't know, and won't -- until he becomes the Republican nominee.

Though McCain was far from the only Republican to support the surge, he does have the distinction of being the only Republican who voted against the Bush tax cuts. (Also the little lamented Sen. Lincoln Chafee, who later left the Republican Party.) Now McCain claims he opposed the tax cuts because they didn't include enough spending cuts. But that wasn't what he said at the time.

To the contrary, in 2001, McCain said he was voting against Bush's tax cuts based on the idiotic talking point of the Democrats. "I cannot in good conscience," McCain said, "support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief."

McCain started and fanned the vicious anti-Bush myth that, before the 2000 South Carolina primary, the Bush campaign made phone calls to voters calling McCain a "liar, cheat and a fraud" and accusing him of having an illegitimate black child.

On the thin reed of a hearsay account, McCain immediately blamed the calls on Bush. "I'm calling on my good friend George Bush," McCain said, "to stop this now. He comes from a better family. He knows better than this."

Bush denied that his campaign had anything to do with the alleged calls and, in a stunningly magnanimous act, ordered his campaign to release the script of the calls being made in South Carolina.

Bush asked McCain to do the same for his calls implying that Bush was an anti-Catholic bigot, but McCain refused. Instead, McCain responded with a campaign commercial calling Bush a liar on the order of Bill Clinton:

MCCAIN: His ad twists the truth like Clinton. We're all pretty tired of that.

ANNOUNCER: Do we really want another politician in the White House America can't trust?

After massive investigations by the Los Angeles Times and investigative reporter Byron York, among others, it turned out that neither of the alleged calls had ever been made by the Bush campaign -- nor, it appeared, by anyone else. There was no evidence that any such calls had ever been made, which is unheard of when hundreds of thousands of "robo-calls" are being left on answering machines across the state.

And yet, to this day, the media weep with McCain over Bush's underhanded tactics in the 2000 South Carolina primary.

In fact, the most vicious attack in the 2000 South Carolina primary came from McCain -- and not against his opponent.

Seeking even more favorable press from The New York Times, McCain launched an unprovoked attack against the Rev. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, calling them "agents of intolerance." Unlike the phantom "black love child" calls, there's documentary evidence of this smear campaign.

To ensure he would get full media coverage for that little gem, McCain alerted the networks in advance that he planned to attack their favorite whipping boys. Newspaper editors across the country stood in awe of McCain's raw bravery. The New York Times praised him in an editorial that said the Republican Party "has for too long been tied to the cramped ideology of the Falwells and the Robertsons."

Though McCain generally votes pro-life -- as his Arizona constituency requires -- he embraces the loony lingo of the pro-abortion set, repeatedly assuring his pals in the media that he opposes the repeal of Roe v. Wade because it would force women to undergo "illegal and dangerous operations."

Come to think of it, Dole is a million times better than McCain. Why not run him again?

by Ann Coulter

See article at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24635

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

We had a total trade deficit of $764 billion in 2006 — a new record. With China, the trade deficit was $233 billion — the largest ever with a single country. For the last five years, the U.S. trade deficit with China has increased by 20 percent each year.

Trade is necessary for America to prosper, but it must be balanced trade. Our total national debt is $9 trillion. About $5 trillion is owed to foreign countries and $1.3 trillion of that to China. All three numbers are pointing to economic crises.

The United States is living beyond its means — borrowing $2 billion a day from foreign countries to maintain our standard of living.

A nation with a large trade deficit is similar to a person living above his means. If you have a successful career but lose your source of income, you still may have credit available on credit cards and ownership in your home and car. Thus, you can continue to maintain your standard of living for a while by increasing debt on your credit card or refinancing or selling your home and car.

But just as a person cannot continually increase debt, neither can a nation. The key difference between a nation and a person is that a nation can print money and delay the day of reckoning. Eventually, foreign countries will not accept pieces of paper with pictures of our past presidents on them of decreasing value for their products or in payment of debt.

The U.S. dollar in the last seven years has lost 50 percent of its value in relation to the euro and will continue to decline in value. At some point, the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency will be replaced.

In addition to the $5 trillion we owe foreign countries, they also own or control more than 8,000 U.S. companies with a value of $8 trillion. Many of these companies were bought with the intent of gaining global control of key technologies and raw materials needed to produce advanced weapons, such as airplanes, computers, satellites and intercontinental ballistic missiles.

When blindly following the ideology of free trade, many Americans fail to see the connection and damage caused by the predatory trade policies that result in huge trade deficits and a huge national debt — a portion of which is owed to foreign countries.

Most Americans believe we are a superpower. It is only our military that is a superpower. Our economy is second- or third-world class. Most Americans don’t see or understand the emerging economic disaster.

Our government officials continue to encourage companies to offshore research and development, engineering and manufacturing.

The Wall Street Journal reported on Dec. 20 that the U.S. Treasury Department once again declined to designate China as a currency manipulator. All of the numbers indicate the yuan is 20 percent to 50 percent lower than its true market value when compared to the U.S. dollar. This is no accident. The Chinese are currency manipulators. This provides exports from China with large price advantages when competing with U.S. companies. This causes many U.S. companies to fail or be so weakened they permit foreign companies to buy them at a large discount.

China also promotes exports and discourages imports. It keeps wages low, rebates value-added taxes on its exports and charges value-added taxes on imports. It counterfeits and steals copyrights, trademarks and patents. It provides domestic industries with local tax incentives, offers special financing and charges tariffs on imports. It targets specific industries to monopolize.

No U.S. company can compete with these predatory practices. All of the above violate the World Trade Organization regulations. Even with what appears to be numerous violations, the U.S. Treasury and Commerce departments fail to take action against China.

American politicians made a terrible mistake in 1996 when they voted to join the WTO. They gave Third World country bureaucrats control of U.S. international commerce.

It is very difficult for the United States to win a case at the WTO. Most foreign Third World country bureaucrats dislike the United States. Also, many are as corruptible as the bureaucrats at the United Nations have proven to be. The chances of the U.S. getting fair treatment at the WTO are remote.

The U.S. Constitution states: “Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations.” But Congress gave control of foreign commerce to the WTO. Congress must do what the people elected its members to do, and what they were sworn to do — “regulate commerce with foreign nations.”

Congress must immediately cancel U.S. membership in the WTO. If it doesn’t, Asian countries will continue their predatory trade practices, continue destroying or buying U.S. companies, continue financing our debt, and continue buying our country. They will do this until we have nothing left to sell — no industries, no real estate and no natural resources.

The U.S. government will then have additional trillions of dollars of debt. If a government could be bankrupt, it would be. Social Security, Medicare and pensions will be without funds. All of our wealth-producing industries, mines and farms will be foreign-owned. The government’s ability to tax will be significantly reduced along with its ability to defend our country.

The career politicians we sent to Washington still don’t see or understand the coming economic crisis. None of the leading presidential candidates from either party seems to be aware of the coming economic crisis.

Wake up America, our day of reckoning is coming.

Jack Davis is the founder and owner ofI Squared R Element Co., the largestU.S. manufacturer of heating elements.He has 53 years of experience in manufacturingand foreign commerce.

Find this article at:
http://www.buffalonews.com/248/story/250576.html

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

Excuse No. 2: “Immigration laws are complex.”

Immigration is no more “complex” than tax laws, divorce laws, custody laws and criminal laws. That’s why lawyers specialize.

Past “kid-glove” handling of immigration law violations were due to political correctness and pandering, not complexity or public safety principles. Immigration violations should be treated like any other crime and its violators like any other lawbreakers.

Excuse No. 3: “It’s a federal law.”

So are bank robbery and kidnapping, yet the Phoenix Police Department doesn’t tell callers, “We don’t handle federal crimes, you’ll have to call the FBI.”

Excuse No. 4: “Too time-consuming.”

Bureaucrat Phil Gordon claimed the Phoenix police can’t do immigration checks during routine encounters: “If we start down that road, our chief, and I concur with him, believes that’s all our officers will be doing, they’ll be tied up doing this.”

Translation: “The illegal alien numbers have increased so much during 20 years of sanctuary that we now have too many to arrest.”

Gordon and Harris don’t claim “there are too many drug dealers to arrest,” or “there are too many child molesters for us to lock up,” or “there are so many drunk drivers for us to get off the road.”

Excuse No. 5: “Officers will be 'waiting around’ for Immigration & Customs Enforcement.”

Police are primary responders (first on the scene and last to leave) and routinely “wait around” for auxiliary services like fire, paramedics, ambulance and bomb squad. After everyone else leaves a traffic accident, officers remove highway debris. Do officers radio for help, tell the citizen “the bomb squad is on the way,” and take off?

What is Operations Order 1.4.3?

We’ve heard it’s a “sanctuary” order, but what does that mean?

Phoenix Police are forbidden to call “immigration” on illegal aliens for felonies like reckless endangerment, homicide, DUI, hit and run, aggravated assault, armed robbery, rape, forgery, fraudulent schemes, lewd behavior, extortion, identity theft, breaking and entering, kidnapping, burglary, robbery, manslaughter, hostage-taking, child molestation, public drunkenness, assault and battery, assault with a deadly weapon, except under Arizona’s new human smuggling law.

Upon printing this crime list in the Ahwatukee Foothills News Nov. 14, the intent was for Jack Harris to correct a hoped “misinterpretation.” Since then, Harris hasn’t even sent a card. The obvious conclusion is that the Nov. 14 interpretation is 100 percent correct.

Misdemeanors give the illegal alien an even better deal. No call to immigration and they’re generally released after promising to appear in court. Many then promptly go AWOL.

Ops 1.4.3 “Services” for illegals:

• Phoenix police officers can send illegal aliens to Chicanos por la Causa and Friendly House for help with immigration, housing and social services. Both agencies receive funding from public taxes and the United Way.

• Phoenix detectives will help illegal aliens, claiming “I’m a crime victim”, get a U-Visa for themselves and family members to remain in the U.S.

Tell Councilman Greg Stanton your opinion on this vital Phoenix issue at (602) 262-7491 or greg.stanton@phoenix.gov.
_______________

A computer analyst for 27 years, Sandra Miller moved to Ahwatukee Foothills 14 years ago and served as a director of the Mountain Park Ranch Homeowners Association. In 2004 she was a supporter of Proposition 200, which required proof of citizenship to register or vote.

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

Published at http://www.ahwatukee.com/articles/police_2124___article.html/immigration_excuse.html
Reprinted with permission of the author.

« Close It

Okay, insults or not, the facts are still the facts. And the facts are as follows:

A. Total government spending (federal, state, local) has increased from 6.9% of Gross Domestic Product in 1902 to an estimated 34.6% in 2008.

This fact alone does not prove that government spending will increase from one year to the next, because spending as a percent of GDP has fluctuated widely from one year to the next, especially in years in which the nation went from peace to war and from war to peace. For example, the figure increased from 9.8% in 1915 to 22.1% in 1918. Conversely, it decreased from 35.9% in 1946 to 23.9% in 1950

However, if the year-to-year fluctuations are smoothed by drawing a regression line through the data for the last 100 years, the slope of the line is positive. There is no reason to expect that the slope will change, especially considering other facts that we will turn to momentarily.

Notes:
(1) For annual GDP and spending numbers from 1902 to today, go to http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/index.php.
(2) Some economists believe that national income is a better denominator than GDP in determining government’s share of the economy. If national income is used instead of GDP, the government’s share of the economy climbs to 44%, as shown at http://mwhodges.home.att.net/piechart.htm.

B. The unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare are over $60 trillion, according to reliable estimates.

To put the $60 trillion in perspective, this staggering number is over four times the estimated economic output of the country for 2008. And the number does not include the unfunded liabilities for state and local pensions, most of which are significantly under funded, due to dishonest government bookkeeping that makes Enron’s bookkeeping look saintly by comparison. These liabilities are not reflected in current deficit numbers.

C. The cost of complying with government regulations is estimated to be 14% of national income and growing.

My 1992 book on bureaucracy detailed the natural tendency of all bureaucrats and bureaucracies. The tendency, of course, is to increase their power. And an increase in power means an increase in the compliance costs inflicted on others.

As an example, the US General Accounting Office estimated in 1994 that state education agencies had to hire 13,400 employees to administer federal education diktats. Another example: According to the US Office of Management and Budget, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 burdened state and local education agencies/districts with 6.6 million hours of paperwork.

(see http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/wm1406.cfm)

I posit that if the federal bureaucracy were reduced to one bureaucrat, that one bureaucrat could destroy the economy single-handedly if he were given unrestrained authority to issue diktats to other government agencies and to industry. For this reason, the size of the government workforce is less important than the authority given to it. There are approximately 23 million federal, state and local employees. It would be less costly if the 23 million had no authority than if the government workforce were shrunk to one bureaucrat with total authority.

An anecdote: When Bill Bradley was a U.S. Senator and testified with me before a congressional committee, he said that if he were to decide to leave government, a primary reason would be that even a Senator was powerless to control the federal bureaucracy.

A rant: The ignoramuses in the mainstream media blabber about the loss of manufacturing employment but say nothing about the growth in government employment.

D. Over half of Americans are dependent on the government.

Over half of Americans are either dependent on entitlements, on welfare, or on subsidies; or they work for the government or make a living administering government regulations. Many of them are self-described conservatives who rail against big government, but they are not about to vote in the privacy of a voting booth to do away with their government rice bowl. The cold reality is that we’ve passed the tipping point. It’s now politically impossible to right the teeter-totter.

E. Since 1990, the number of federal subsidy programs has grown 44%.

The US Department of Agriculture had the largest increase in subsidy programs: 78. (See the Cato Institute’s “Tax & Budget Bulletin No. 41)

Have the presidential candidates been asked if they would end farm subsidies? Have they been asked if it is morally right for a fat-cat on Park Ave. to invest in a farm in order to receive a subsidy that comes at the expense of poor people who have to pay more for groceries? Well, no. Tellingly, they really aren’t asked any tough questions about our culture of kleptocracy. Why? Because such questions aren’t asked in a culture of kleptocracy.

The truth is that whoever ends up in the Oval Office, the new president will be powerless to end farm subsidies. Yet many Americans believe that their favorite presidential candidate will be able to fix more complicated problems and save the nation from decline. Ha!

Subsidies prove the political science theory of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs. That is, those who receive a subsidy will be better organized and more politically influential than those who foot the bill, although those who foot the bill vastly outnumber those who receive the benefit. This is the fatal flaw of those democracies that allow some people to receive government loot at the expense of everyone else. The United States has the fatal flaw.

F. Ninety percent of Americans are educated in government schools, and teacher unions and the rest of the public education establishment comprise the most powerful lobby in state legislatures.

Next to their families, impressionable children spend most of their time in their formative years in government schools. We can debate the value of that education, but one thing is not debatable: It is not in the self-interest of government schools and their minions to teach that big government is bad. In my experience, Americans who have come to that conclusion have had an epiphany outside of the classroom.

In closing, you can ignore these facts and call me a selfish, mean-spirited jerk, cynic and defeatist. But your insults won’t change either the facts or my prediction. Happy New Year!

By Craig J. Cantoni
Jan. 2, 2008

Mr. Cantoni is an author, columnist and founder of Honest Americans Against Legal Theft (HAALT.org). He can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
__________________

Addendum from the author: I found a supporting study in the current issue of Reason Magazine, which is retyped below. It supports my contention that government will grow, regardless of tax cuts and changes in tax methods, as long as the root problem isn't solved--namely, Americans thinking it's okay to use government coercion to take money from their neighbors for themselves.
__________________

The beast still eats
Cut Taxes and Spend
Brian Doherty

Reason Magazine
February 2008

From Milton Friedman to Ronald Reagan, fiscal conservatives have hoped tax cuts could keep government from overspending by denying it revenues--a theory dubbed "starving the beast." A new study by University of California at Berkeley economists Christina D. Romer and David H. Romber, published by the national Bureau of Economic Research, indicates that the beast is thriving despite the tax cuts of the last three decades. Government spending seems to march on regardless of revenue or tax rates.

The economists studied the effects of four major legislated changes in U.S. tax rates and policy since World War II, choosing episodes where the "starve the beast" motivation was most conspicuous. After looking at the data every which way, with multiple regressions and time lags, and accounting for wars and military spending, they found that the one thing most clearly connected to tax cuts was not spending cuts but future tax increases.

"Although a tax cut leads to a sharp fall in revenues in the short run, it does not have any clear impact on revenues at horizons beyond about two years," the economists write. "Between one-half and four-fifths of the tax cut is offset by legislated tax increases over the next several years."

And spending cuts? "In no episode [of postwar American tax cuts] was there a discernible slowdown in spending following the tax cut," the economists conclude. "Indeed, in all of the episodes, there was an acceleration of spending." The beast finds its food, no matter what.

« Close It

“But what about discovery rules?” I asked. He told me that if there were documents of which we were aware that hurt our client’s case, we have not only the right but the responsibility to destroy them, so the other side cannot see them and use them against us. When I pointed out that the statutes forbid this, he said “Laws are made to be broken. When our clients’ goals are at stake, we cannot afford to be fastidious with observing the rules.”

He went on to tell me that some people should not be entitled to the same rights we enjoy under the law, in any event. Some, he told me, subscribe to philosophies that we just should not approve of and it is entirely appropriate to fine them for that, forbid their discussing their discredited ideas and charge them a special tax for believing as they do. “What about the First Amendment?” I asked. He said the First Amendment is not absolute and as far as he is concerned it protects only “right” ideas, not all ideas. It would be absurd, he observed, to think that this society, or any society, should tolerate ideas so contrary to its values.

I was horrified and did not hire him. But did I have the right to discriminate against him on the basis of his ideas? He had clearly thought them through but it seemed to me that they were so contrary to what we stand for as lawyers devoted to the rule of law (not to mention the fundamental basis in individual freedom that defines us as a nation), I simply could not hire him when his views were so contrary to my own and what I perceive to be the nature and purpose of law. It seemed to me likely that he would undermine what we stand for and the work we do.

If you think I was right in refusing to hire someone whose ideas strike at the very heart of American justice, would your answer be different if I were to tell you that his views were tenets of his religion? We have laws that prohibit discrimination against people on the basis of religion. So, how can we square our horror at the views of a person that are so anathema to the fundamental philosophical foundations of our nation with the prohibition against discriminating against him on the basis of those views? Must I receive into my life and business people who seek to destroy what I hold dear, much less provide them with the resources with which to do so?

It is no mistake that the first freedom protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution is freedom of worship. That reflects not only the huge place religion, primarily the Christian religion, occupied in the minds of the Framers, but demonstrates the extent to which protection of religious freedom was the very object of the founding. From the earliest days of colonial America until the recent past, we have observed a deference to religion and religious belief that is unequaled anywhere else. Religious values, we believe, are those most deeply held. If religion means anything, it is as a guide to our lives and conduct, and informs and defines our very purpose. If religion is something to be compartmentalized and observed mainly on the Sabbath in houses of worship, and otherwise ignored during the rest of the week in the conduct of our lives, it has little value and does not hold the importance most people of faith believe it does.

So it is that the Constitution prohibits “religious tests” for holding public office and protects the free exercise of our various religious faiths. So it is that the first anti-discrimination laws were directed toward the protection of citizens from discrimination on the basis of religion. So it is that even now, we instinctively shrink from harsh judgment on the basis of religion and religious views. That is, in part, why this nation has avoided the sectarian conflicts that have torn others apart, even in the modern age: think of Ireland as a First World country, and India as a Third World nation.

But if religion informs the conduct of its adherents, it follows that one may judge the likely acts of a religious person by reference to his religion. There was no applicant to my law firm such as I have described here. But what if there had been? All of the views I set forth for my mythical applicant were consistent with Islamic teaching and the treatment of non-Muslims in Islamic countries. The views I described are contrary to the obligations we undertake as lawyers when we take our oaths of office to stand for the rule of law and zealously protect the integrity of the system of justice. How, then, could anyone give a lawyer who has those views a job which would require that he either violate the tenets of his faith or conduct his law practice in an unethical manner; thwarting, in the bargain, justice as we have defined it?

In pointing out the sacred place religion occupied in the minds of the Framers, I observed, advisedly, that their main object was the protection of the various sects of Christianity. I anticipated that some readers might be offended by that observation, even though it is true, but it was made to make the point that the Framers did not, could not, have anticipated that there might some day arrive on our shores a religion that preaches a body of thought that runs so completely counter to the very fundamental ideas that define this nation. Even as late as the 20th Century, Islam was virtually unknown to Americans and ill-understood by those with a passing familiarity with it. What was never clear was the extent to which fundamentalist Islam strikes at the heart of the notion of American liberty.

Perhaps, then, it is time to revisit our reluctance to judge and our prohibition of discrimination on the basis of religion. If religion governs ideas and ideas govern conduct, it might be time to refine our deference to religious impulses. Perhaps it is time to be more precise with what is protected. A good start would be for courts to begin to recognize that the free exercise of religion is no more absolute than freedom of speech and the press. There are times when speech may be stilled; when presses may be stopped. When religion becomes ideology or, worse, an anti-social movement of civil mayhem, it must lose the protection the Framers so lovingly conferred on that institution they held most dear. There is, after all, no prohibition against discrimination on the basis of political views. Charles Willis Manson devised a religion of sorts for his followers and got them to follow his murderous orders on the basis that, as he put it: “Charles’ will is man’s son.” Is our society constitutionally bound to tolerate the practice of that religion? What about Jim Jones’ religion? The answer is an emphatic “no.”

That is why constitutional analysis now must account for the existence of political/social movements cast as religion by more carefully reviewing what religious exercises must be tolerated and which need not be. Free speech jurisprudence allows the prohibition or punishment of defamation, “fighting words” and the disclosure of state secrets, among other things. Current jurisprudence allows for the prohibition of the use of certain drugs in religious observances. Legislators must now courageously consider what conduct, irrespective of religious basis, can, and must, be prohibited, and courts must not shrink from sustaining such laws on the basis of a broad reading of the constitutional protection of the free exercise of religion.

No one should be forced to support someone whose views are so anathema to him as to constitute an assault on his very being. So, perhaps now is the time to revisit our prohibition against religious discrimination on an individual basis. If my apocryphal applicant had truly sought work at my firm, I could never, in good conscience, have extended an offer to him and I should not be made to suffer for that discrimination against ideas. Religion is not, as race or gender, an immutable characteristic. It is a body of ideas one voluntarily assumes. And certainly, we may, and should, make judgments about people on the basis of their ideas.

This issue, as we have seen in the current presidential race, has broader implications. There are those who refuse to vote for Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon. I frankly know nothing of Mormonism, but my experience with dozens of Mormon friends over the years has been that they are honest, hard-working people of great integrity and traditional values for the most part consistent with my own. But what if a candidate for office embraced a religion that endorsed the ideas I put in the mouth of my mythical applicant? What then?

It is not enough to assure us that his religion would not affect his conduct in office. We have already seen many examples of religion’s actually having done so. Former Gov. Mike Huckabee, by many accounts, freed dangerous convicts on the basis of his religious conviction of Christian redemption. President Bush has forbidden federal funding of stem cell research and the use of federal funds for abortion on the basis of his religious belief in the sanctity of life and the immorality of abortion. Public policy has been governed by the religious views of public officials from the very beginning of the republic.

Because religion is a choice and a non-immutable adoption of a body of ideas, the embracement of one is a voluntary act upon which we may properly judge. Because religious conviction is that we hold most deeply, for the most part, and more thoroughly informs our behavior than any other set of ideas, it certainly must be a guide for predicting the conduct of its adherents. It is altogether legitimate, therefore, for a voter to consider the religion of a candidate, among other characteristics, such as his political views. If the candidate’s religion embraces ideas the voter believes may result in official conduct of which he would disapprove, there is nothing illegitimate in discriminating against that candidate on the basis of his ideas, irrespective of whether or not they are religiously based. To do otherwise would be to ignore what is probably the greatest single factor governing the candidate’s conduct.

Anticipating that someone will protest that my view in this regard violates the “no religious test” prohibition in the Constitution, I point out only that that prohibition is against government discrimination, not individual discrimination. In voting, the choice is entirely that of the voter. And the voter’s greatest obligation is to vote his conscience.

John W. Howard practices business and commercial law in the state of California.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/homeland.php?id=1386071

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It