Why They Hate Us

1. We refused to surrender (submission/Islam) after Muslim armies conquered 2/3 of Christendom from 632-770 AD.
2. We beat them at the Battle of Tours - 732 AD.
3. We briefly recovered portions of Christian territory during the Crusades 1095-1291 AD.
4. We defeated the fleet of the Sultan Ali Pasha at the Battle of Lepanto - 1571 AD.
5. We defeated Turkish forces at the Battle of Vienna - 1683.
6. We became much more technologically, economically, socially, and culturally advanced than them - 1492 AD to the present.
7. We refuse to return Al-Andalus (Spain).
8. And most of all -- We refuse to sumit to the will of God/Allah.
   

If the World Trade Center...

If these buildings:














Had had some of these:






















Phalanx CIWS (Close-in weapon system)



They would be alive today!

Foreign Law

I wonder if Justices Breyer and Kennedy will apply this foreign law:

Germany to monitor Madonna show: German prosecutors are to monitor Madonna's concert to determine whether a mock crucifixion could be construed as insulting religious beliefs.

Superiority of Exorcism to Psychiatry

How is exorcism superior to psychiatry?

Unless he works on patients involuntarily committed to his care by the state, a shrink needs the patient's permission to cure him.

In the case of driving out devils, the exorcist doesn't generally need the patient's permission because he's not treating the patient he's expelling a tresspasser. He's working on another entity that lacks the protections of natural law.

The Day They Took the Times and the Post

The current contretemps on treason in the MSM reminded me of the following scene in Allen Drury's 1973 novel Come Ninevah, Come Tyre. In the novel (one of two alternate endings to the string of novels beginning with 1959's Advise and Consent), a Soviet dupe has become president of the United States and "bad things" are happening. After initially supporting good liberal President Edward Montoya Jason, the Times, the Post, and columnist Walter Dobius (Walter Lippmann) publish editorials and news stories designed to expose his complicity in murder and treason. Then:

It might have been entitled, had there been a wry historian to record it, "The Day They Took the Times and the Post"; and it posed for many Americans--who did not then have, and would never again have, the opportunity to answer them--many questions:

How would you react, for instance, if you were walking down a street in New York or a street in Washington, and suddenly you saw some sort of disturbance going on at the doors of two distinguished newspapers? Not a big disturbance, you understand, just a minor sort of scuffling, a quick coming and going, a few frightened people, a flurry, a fuss?

Just the sudden arrival at the doors at the same moment in each city, of a couple of police vans . . . the sudden entry into both buildings of small groups of armed and uniformed men . . . a pause of perhaps ten minutes . . . and then the emergence of the uniformed men, hustling along between them a handful of other men, handcuffed or with guns at their backs, obviously angry, terrified, protesting, some dressed in business suits, some with coats off and sleeves rolled up, some, perhaps, crying with a bitter irony, "But this is the Times! (or the Post!) You can't do this to us!" . . . and then a swift clanging and locking of doors, a sudden roaring of engines, a sudden disappearance down the crowded street . . . and then, just visible from the sidewalks, a momentary cluster and swirl of frantic people inside . . . and then their abrupt, hurried, almost furtive dispersal, so that all is quiet again . . . and the streets returning immediately to their normal hustle and bustle, the uncaring rush and hurry of life, after an elapsed time of perhaps a quarter of an hour. . . .

Just exactly what would you do, in such a circumstance? Would you shout out frantically to your fellow passers-by, "Help! Help! They're taking the Times! (or the Post!) Help, citizens! Help, freedom lovers! Help, fellow believers in American democracy! They're taking--they're taking--they're taking-the press?"
Would you immediately leap forward, in company with all your fellow citizens, alerted and made knowledgeable by your cry, a great, angry, overwhelming mass, noble and not to be denied, to rescue in savage scuffle, yourselves unarmed against armed and ruthless men, the once arrogant but now wan and horrified souls being dragged off to--who knows what?

Would you, if rescue failed, throw yourselves heroically in front of the vans, the sheer weight of your massed bodies stopping their escaping surge with a sickening and bloody crunch?

Would you cry havoc and let slip the dogs of civil rebellion to save your free press?

Why, no, of course you wouldn't.

In the first place, two thirds of you wouldn't even glance up from your busy scurrying down the streets on your own private affairs.

And of the third of you who did notice, perhaps only a handful would be informed enough and sophisticated enough to have an inkling of what was going on.
And of that handful, half would think, very quickly, Well, it's none of my affair, I'd better get on by just as fast as I can and forget about it, I can't afford to get involved.

And half again would think, Oh dear, they can't do that, but how can I stop them, oh, dear, I might get hurt, I guess I'd better not try to do anything, oh, dear.

And of the three or four left, perhaps one or two of you might half start forward--and then as abruptly stop, appalled by the unbelievable occasion, paralyzed by the knowledge of your own unarmed vulnerability, aware that you were almost entirely alone, aware that you might very well be instantly shot down. . . .

And so they would take the Times and the Post, and any others across the country they might want to take, in exactly the same way . . . and in the offices so swiftly and smoothly made vacant, other men would suddenly appear, from outside, perhaps, but more likely from other editorial desks, or from obscure offices on other floors, rising from their places in the composing room, or converging swiftly from the library stacks, or entering from the business department--just as they actually have in so many other newsrooms in so many other doomed lands . . . and presently, without the world being aware of even a pause or a hitch, the presses would roll again . . . and next day, just as always in the world where the Times and the Post and their sister publications are such permanent, immutable and reassuring fixtures, the regular editions would appear, containing editorials, headlines and news stories fervently praising the President of the United States, hailing his Administration and all its works, endorsing his policies in every phase--praising, praising, praising, praising the Russians for their forbearance and cooperation--urging, urging, urging the people of the United States to accept with a docile and unprotesting compliance the yoke so shrewdly, cleverly and unanswerably prepared. . . .

20 CFR 404.1035

20 CFR 404.1035

§404.1035 Work for a communist organization.

If you work as an employee of an organization which is registered, or which is required by a final order of the Subversive Activities Control Board to register under the Internal Security Act of 1950 as a communist action, communist-front, or communist-infiltrated organization, your work is excluded from employment. The exclusion is effective with the calendar year in which the organization is registered or the final order is in effect.

You probably have to pay income and SS taxes. But such work doesn't count towards your SS qualification.

Unconcealed Carry

So you live in a commie state that hasn't enacted concealed carry laws. Or you don't like to apply for a license even in a concealed carry state. Or you lack the funds necessary to obtain a suitable firearm. Does your state or nation restrict purchases of edged weapons?

Not to worry. Thanks to the power of the Internet you can still obtain the deadliest personal weapon that does not involve gunpowder or sharp edges.



The Quarterstaff.

Â?The short staff or half pike, forest bill, partisan, or glaive, or such like weapons of perfect length, have the advantage against the battle axe, the halberd, the black bill, the two handed sword, the sword and target, and are too hard for two swords and daggers, or two rapier and poniards with gauntlets, and for the long staff and morris pike.."
George Silver
Paradoxes of Defence, 1599

Buy a nice hickory one here. Learn how to use it here. Great exercise.

Democratic Torture?

A constitutional democracy that practices torture is an oxymoron.

Surely one could imagine a national constitution that permitted torture as well as a democratic majority that approved of it so it can't be an oxymoron. Andrew Sullivan may be trying to say that torture violates natural rights/natural law but is uncomfortable with the baggage attached to those concepts.

CATO Institute Advocates State Licensure!

Dale Carpenter has a new CATO paper out opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment.

In it he discusses various legal and constitutional issues involving the FMA but he doesn't analyze it from a libertarian perspective. Peculiar for a libertarian writing for a libertarian think tank.

The FMA would seem to prevent states from licensing same sex marriages (SSM). Isn't the prevention or elimination or government licensing generally the libertarian position?

It sounds to me like the FMA is promoting the libertarian position on Dom Rel law. It prevents the states from regulating SSM. SSM's can still be established by the parties. All they have to do is find a church or jump a broomstick.

Now all libertarians have to do is find out a way to prevent state regulation of OSM and the rest of us can be freed from state oppression.

Return Dom Rel law to private institutions like the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the Coven, etc.

Here's an "inside baseball" question to Dale and other libertarians who support state licensure of SSM:

Suppose that I'm a massage therapist in a state that does not license massage therapy. I organize a group of my fellows to petition the state to license massage therapists. We are seeking to increase the professionalism of massage therapy and restrict entry so that we can increase our incomes (in other words gain all the benefits that the other licensed professions have.

So what would be the libertarian position on this proposal? Do libertarians generally support or oppose the extension of licensure to new professions? Or do they favor ending the licensure of existing licensed professions? Isn't the answer obvious?

How is the licensing of private sexual unions different from the licensing of professions (save that such licensure would seem to be much more invasive of personal life)?

I know. Without state licensure of sexual congress you can't receive the 1001 benefits.

What became of the lost libertarianism of my youth...?

Dodging Immigration's Truths

Dodging Immigration's Truths: "On the one side will be older baby boomers demanding all their federal retirement benefits. On the other will be an expanding population of younger and poorer Hispanics -- immigrants, their children and grandchildren -- increasingly resentful of their rising taxes that subsidize often-wealthier and unrelated baby boomers."

Samuelson in USN&WR.

If immigation of Mexican hordes will lead to a tax revolt, it sounds like a great idea. Somehow, however, I doubt it. I would guess that it will lead to higher taxes (like everything else).

Republicans with Gay Children

David Boaz on Dick and Mary:

"Dick Cheney is not the only leading conservative with a gay child, though he is certainly the most prominent. The disconnection between their personal relationships and their political stance must be taking a toll on some of them."

Andrew Sullivan on Dick and Mary:

"And yet, at the same time he heads a party that would strip his daughter and her girlfriend of all legal rights."

Suppose that a libertarian anarchist has a child who takes a job with the IRS. Is there any requirement in libertarian theory that he remain close to or distant from this child? Is there any requirement in libertarian theory that he change his views on the morality of taxation because of the choice made by his child? If a child becomes a Democract, does that require his parents to start voting for Democrats?

I didn't think so.

What's so hard to understand? One is not required to change one's views because of something one's child does.

I would also guess that Mary and Heather retain a few legal rights. The Supremes said they can fornicate and lewdly cohabit. They can vote, hold public office, make contracts, etc. You can't shoot them without justificaion.

Don't credit anyone who claims someone has been deprived of all legal rights. We've never practiced outlawry.

Note the same overblown rhetoric in immigration discussions. Illegal aliens retain plenty of rights in America.

Start Beating Your Kids

If you want to help your children, I recommend poverty, divorce, and child abuse -- but just for their own good.

"Yes Ossifer, I'm an abusive parent. I beat my wife and kids daily, I quit work to provide my family with a poverty-stricken existence, and I intend to desert them ASAP. But I'm not a bad person. I'm doing it for their own protection.

Someday, through no fault of his own, my son may fall in with bad companions, join an international terrorist conspiracy, and be found guilty of an historic mass killing for which he faces the death penalty. If I treat him properly and responsibly now, he may well receive the death penalty but if I abuse him, he has a good shot at life imprisonment.

What else could a responsible parent do?

Where's my belt?"

Traditional Views of Immigration

Leviticus, Chapter 19, Verses 33 and 34:

33: And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him.

34: But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

The Magna Carta:

(41) All merchants may enter or leave England unharmed and without fear, and may stay or travel within it, by land or water, for purposes of trade, free from all illegal exactions, in accordance with ancient and lawful customs.

The Declaration of Independence:

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

Modern Lit

W.H. Auden 1, "The Pristine Words Only Academy" 0:

Jacob Behymer-Smith is a ninth-grader at the Coral Academy of Science, a public charter school in Nevada. He's participating in the Poetry Out Loud contest, which is run by the National Endowment for the Arts and the Poetry Foundation, and in which high school students compete at reciting a great poem that they've memorized. Behymer-Smith chose W.H. Auden's The More Loving One; so far, he's progressed from his school competition to a district-wide competition, in which he placed first. On April 22, he'll be competing in the Nevada statewide competition. You'd think that the Coral Academy's officials would be happy for him, and would be trying to support him.

You'd be mistaken, because -- horror of horrors -- Auden's poem, it turns out, contains unspeakable vulgarities. To be precise, it contains the words "hell" ("Looking up at the stars, I know quite well / That, for all they care, I can go to hell") and "damn" ("Admirer as I think I am / Of stars that do not give a damn"). That, the Dean of Students at the Coral Academy opined, is "inappropriate language," as opposed to the "pristine language" (her words) that she thinks ought to be presented to the school's students.

And because of this, the school insisted on April 7, Jacob couldn't perform his poem.

Since almost all literature published since 1922 (the same date the Copyright Act is currently locked on) is garbage anyway, and since we have more lit than anyone could read in a lifetime available for free, it would be no loss if one read nothing published after 1921.

Applying for an SS card in 1968

In the '60s, most Americans who got SS cards did so for one of two reasons --  they were entering the work force or taking the SAT test.

Not being an early member of the work force, I had no SSN in 1968 and got one so I could take the SAT.

It was a relatively simple process.  My mom drove me down to Richards Street (?) in downtown Honolulu to the SS office.  I had my birth certificate with me.  The birth certificate was to establish birth date and, hence, age.  Identity was not an issue.  The process resembles the application for a Taxpayer ID Number (TIN) for a business, trust, or estate today.  The number was merely designed to distinguish one taxpayer from another.

The SS office was right off the street with no security of course.  No security in those days.  I walked in, filled out a short form at a stand-up table.  This was the same basic form used since the program's origins in 1936: Name, Address, Employer, DOB, Place of Birth, Parent's Names. 

I handed my SS-5 form and birth certificate to a clerk seated at a desk with a typewriter -- minimal or no barrier.  She rolled a strip of SS cards into her typewriter and typed my name in the blank, tore it off, and handed it to me for my signature.  Although I don't remember, she would also have used a mechanical  number stamp to put the number on my SS-5 form to make sure that it was connected to the right number.

Like all SS cards of that era, it read: For Social Security and Tax Purposes--Not for Identification.

Boy, he sure got that right!

A prediction of what would become of the District of Columbia:

Thomas Tredwell, New York Ratifying Convention

2 July 1788Elliot 2:402

The plan of the federal city, sir, departs from every principle of freedom, as far as the distance of the two polar stars from each other; for, subjecting the inhabitants of that district to the exclusive legislation of Congress, in whose appointment they have no share or vote, is laying a foundation on which may be erected as complete a tyranny as can be found in the Eastern world. Nor do I see how this evil can possibly be prevented, without razing the foundation of this happy place, where men are to live, without labor, upon the fruit of the labors of others; this political hive, where all the drones in the society are to be collected to feed on the honey of the land. How dangerous this city may be, and what its operation on the general liberties of this country, time alone must discover; but I pray God, it may not prove to this western world what the city of Rome, enjoying a similar constitution, did to the eastern.

Rehnquist on the Visual Depiction of the Prophet

Here is another caricature of Mohamet:

It is on the frieze of the North wall of the Supreme Court's courtroom.

"Muhammad (c. 570-632) The Prophet of Islam. He is depicted holding the Qur'an. The Qur'an provides the primary source of Islamic Law. Prophet Muhammad's teachings explain and implement Qur'anic principles. The figure above is a well-intentioned attempt by the sculptor, Adolph Weinman, to honor Muhammad and it bears no resemblance to Muhammad. Muslims generally have a strong aversion to sculptured or pictured representations of their Prophet."

I guess so.

There have been complaints:

"United States Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist recently rejected complaints by a coalition of Muslim groups offended by a frieze, depicting the Prophet Muhammad, and turned down their plea that the marble sculpture in the Supreme Court's chamber be removed or altered. He disagreed the sculpture was a sacrilegious "form of idol worship" and drew attention to the rich symbolism of the Qur'anic motifs and Islamic beliefs. It is true that in Islam the depiction of the Prophet is considered a form of apostasy, because it may encourage believers to worship someone other than Allah. The friezes though, carved of Spanish marble and in place since the Court building opened in 1935, show allegorical figures and a process of eighteen great lawgivers. Muhammad is included among other historical figures including Confucius, Moses, Napoleon and Charlemagne. The bearded Muhammad is shown clutching a scimitar in his right hand and the Qur'an in his left hand. The coalition had also complained that the curved oriental sword in the Prophet's right hand "reflects long-held stereotypes of Muslims as intolerant conquerors." Furthermore, the protesters said, Supreme Court literature about the frieze incorrectly identifies Muhammad as the "founder of Islam," when he is in fact recognized as "the last in line of prophets that includes Abraham, Moses and Jesus." Rehnquist replied that the depiction of Muhammad "was intended only to recognize him, among many other lawgivers, as an important figure in the history of law; it [was] not intended as a form of idol worship," and that "[a]ltering the depiction of Mohammed would impair the artistic integrity of the whole." Rehnquist also dismissed the objection to the curved sword in the marble Muhammad's hand as reinforcing the stereotypical image of Muslims as intolerant conquerors: "I would point out that swords are used throughout the Court's architecture as a symbol of justice and that nearly a dozen swords appear in the courtroom friezes alone." Rehnquist said the description and literature, however, would be changed to identify Muhammad as a "Prophet of Islam," and not "Founder of Islam." The rewording, based upon "input of numerous Muslim groups," would also say that the figure "is a well-intentioned attempt by the sculptor Adolph Weinman to honor Mohammed, and it bears no resemblance to Mohammed." Aziz Haniffa, Religion: Court Rejects Plea to Deface Figure, INDIA ABROAD (New York), Mar. 21, 1997, at 38."

Thanks to Andrew Sullivan and Joshua Micha Marshall for pointers.

Spielberg and Munich

The Volokh Conspiracy - Spielberg and Munich:: Yes. In the poster’s world, the filmmaker does have an obligation to praise the current administration.

Let's look at the theatrical films on the Arab-Israeli conflict in the last 40 years:

Cast a Giant Shadow (1966).

Little Drummer Girl (1984).

Munich (2005).

The first film is pro-Israel, the last two are anti-Israel. That's not very many films for such an inherently photogenic topic. One wonders why.

Critics of the contemporary cinema (or to identify it properly, the contemporary left-wing cinema) are merely suggesting that its prejudices should be highlighted as an analytical tool. Since Hollyweird obviously seeks the deconstruction of the US and Western Civilization and its replacement with Godess knows what, it is perfectly appropriate to point out the race, gender, affectional preference, and religio-philisophical backstory of film production.

What's sauce for feminist and queer theorists is sauce for the gander.

I'm shopping this screenplay about a world-girding conspiracy of the MLA, MESA, and the Screen Actors Guild to destabilize American society so that it can fall like an overripe fruit into the hands of its enemies. I like Kiefer Sutherland as the lead -- a take-no-prisoners radio talk show host defending traditional American values ('but with a little sex in it', and a little torture)."

Spielberg and Munich:

The Volokh Conspiracy - Spielberg and Munich:: can anyone come up with a single example of when Bush has said that the 'enemies are not human beings?

Evil is a characteristic of volition. Animals or hurricanes can't be described as evil. Humans and other volitional beings, devils, gods, figures of myth, aliens can be described as evil. Thus the use of the term evil as applied to our enemies in WWIV who seek world hegemony, is a statement of their volition, their humanity. Those who would rob them of their capability of being evil are the ones who would rob them of their volition and their humanity.

"We will give them more than they deserve.

We will give them Justice."

The Modern World

So I was reviewing my comments on the Volokh Conspiracy by googling my name within the volokh.com domain. I saw this response to one of my comments:

The Volokh Conspiracy - Column Idea for David Brooks:: "A translation of Beowulf has got to be a lot better than the original. I remember slaving away with that epic in some English class along the way. One of the reasons why I never had any interest in that as a field of endeavor. "

an then recalled that I didn't have Beowulf on my Handspring. I googled beowulf e-book, found it on the Memoware site, clicked download, told it to install directly. Since my Handspring was in its cradle, I hit the button and the short file was in moments later.

Slightly over one minute from desire to fulfillment. "Hwaet! We Garden in geardagum..." Now all I need is the e-book of Sweet's Anglo-Saxon Primer.

Mirror of Justice: Phoning it In

Mirror of Justice: Phoning it In: "is there any evidence that this administration treated the process of deciding to go to war with the moral seriousness required by Catholic teachings? Or did they instead, as the Downing Street Memo said, fix the evidence to reach the policy conclusions they already desired?"

I think there is some evidence. One of the main reasons for resuming the Iraqi war was never mentioned by the Administration (strategic benefit).

After Afghanistan was liberated -- arguably a pure just war as testified to by the presence of Canadian and German troops (after the victory) -- the Admin had to decide what to do next.

It discovered a very convenient target. A nation we were still at war with since the 1991 cease fire, a nation where we had aircraft in the air and advisors on the ground in the North. The continuation of the war was proved by Iraqi threats to our aircraft every few weeks (targeting radar) and US & British destruction of their radar sites every few weeks.

The fact that our war with Iraq had started with the approval of everyone except Jordan and the PLO, was another sweetener. Since the war was already on, and since Gulf War I easily met just war principals, that sort of analysis was minimized. Combined with geography -- a country whose control would isolate both Iran (surrounded except for Russia) and Syria. Split the Middle East, allow us to remove troops from Saudi Arabia and offer the possibility of a more democratic regime...

Note the fact that we didn't even have to meaningfully invade Iraq's sovereignty since we had already impaired it (with full UN approval) via Kurdistan and no-fly zones.

Lots of arguments in favor. Most of those arguments could not be made because they would prove too revealing.