Islam Is A Religion And A Government

Somewhere in the Southwest, in America

Islam is not just a religion. Islam contains in its core teachings the belief that proper government is an Islamic government and that government should be run exclusively by and for Muslims. Islam teaches that government, the Islamic state, a state under Sharia law, should discriminate against non-Muslim Zimmis and force them to pay a tax – the Jizya – for the right to live as a 2nd class citizen with far fewer rights than a Muslim.

Abul A’la Maududi (1903-1979) , a prominent Islamic scholar, wrote:

“An Islamic state is essentially an ideological state, and is thus radically different from a national state.”

“An Islamic state is a Muslim state, but a Muslim state may not be an Islamic state unless and until the Constitution of the state is based on the Qur’an and Sunnah.”

From “Rights of Non-Muslims in an Islamic State” by Samuel Shahid:

According to Muslim jurists, the following legal ordinances must be enforced on Zimmis (Christians and Jews alike) who reside among Muslims:

  • Zimmis are not allowed to build new churches, temples, or synagogues.
  • Zimmis are not allowed to pray or read their sacred books out loud at home or in churches, lest Muslims hear their prayers.
  • Zimmis are not allowed to print their religious books or sell them in public places and markets.
  • Zimmis are not allowed to install the cross on their houses or churches since it is a symbol of infidelity.
  • Zimmis are not permitted to broadcast or display their ceremonial religious rituals on radio or television or to use the media or to publish any picture of their religious ceremonies in newspaper and magazines.
  • Zimmis are not allowed to congregate in the streets during their religious festivals; rather, each must quietly make his way to his church or temple.
  • Zimmis are not allowed to join the army unless there is indispensable need for them in which case they are not allowed to assume leadership positions but are considered mercenaries.

Non-Muslims in western democracies need to fully understand that the ultimate goal of Islam and its followers is not only to make their religion the dominant religion in the world, but also to subjugate anyone who is not a Muslim under Islamic (Sharia) law.

Islam is not just a religion. It is a blueprint for a totalitarian state that allows no criticism or dissent. All authoritative sources in Islam teach that Shariah mandates jihad to subjugate the entire world. Jihad is not just warfare, the barbaric acts of some Muslims that we see constantly in the world today, but jihad is total civilizational warfare – quoting from Chris Gaubatz, author of “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America“:

“Now when I say warfare, I don’t just mean people who are shooting people and blowing things up. While that is horrific and barbaric, that is just one aspect of the war. From a Muslim perspective, from a Shariah perspective, jihad is total warfare. So that’s going to encompass propaganda, media manipulation, political influence operations, subversion, treason, espionage, interfaith dialogue, and yes, the kinetic aspect of the war, the physical aspect of the war, which we normally associate with jihad.”

As Americans who are not Muslims we need realize we are in fact in a real war, not just in Afghanistan or Syria, but right here in America.

Fascism Defined

In Nevada Somewhere In America

Historians seem to have a hard time coming up with a definition of Fascism that they can agree on. My suspicion is that a large part of the problem is that many of them come to the table with their mind already made up as to what they expect to find and are just trying to line up enough facts to superficially justify that conclusion and to hell with any inconvenient facts.

One of the more annoying symptoms of this inability to define Fascism in an objective and historically accurate manner is the chorus from the Left in America today that Conservatives and Republicans are somehow Fascists with a political ideology related in some way  to that of real Fascists like Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini.

As is often the case, especially when dealing with those on the Left, the truth is often just exactly the opposite. Modern day Democrats have far more in common with classical forms of Fascism than do those depicted as being on the right in America.

The terms “right” and “left” in regards to the political spectrum came from the French Revolution. In the National Assembly in France supporters of the king sat to the president’s right. The supporters of the revolution sat on the left. Although these terms are used in America it has little to do with the origin of the term. The American right has never supported a king or an aristocracy of birth.

Historically the American right has supported the traditional constitutional republic established by the Founders in the 18th century, a democratic form of government which now empowers almost all American adults with a say in their government, and most importantly the idea of inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

A really important point that distinguishes the right from the left in America today is that the right believes in a right to pursue happiness and the left believes that government ought to guarantee it. The right believes that it is important to protect the individual freedom to pursue happiness and left seems to believe that individual freedom should take a back seat to government guaranteeing happiness (or equal outcomes).

Individual freedom doesn’t seem very important to the left in America today. They seem more concerned with guaranteeing the outcome they feel is just and they are not in the least afraid to use the brute force of government to bend society to their will. As will see this is exactly what classical Fascists believed.

The secret of Fascism is symbolized in the ancient Roman symbol of the fasces from which the word “Fascism” comes.

Roman Fasces

The fasces is a bundle of sticks bound together around an axe. I wrote about this in “The Fascism of the Left Exposed Through Political Correctness”:

“There are at least two important symbols here. First is the idea that a bundle of sticks bound together is much stronger than the individual sticks by themselves. Like sticks in the bundle, people in the political body must be bound by a common ideology. The second is the ax which represents a powerful central authority.

“Strong central authority and a conformity which tolerates little if any dissent are the foundational principles of Fascism (as they are for all radical Leftist ideologies).”

In the two classical and best known forms of Fascism of the 20th century, the German Fascism or Nazism under Adolph Hitler and the Italian Fascism under Benito Mussolini, strong central authority was wielded under a charismatic and larger-than-life dictator. Many Germans and Italians literally worshipped these men as demigods.

Another relevant fact is that both of these men, Hitler and Mussolini, were clearly men of the Left to any extent that they held any principles at all. Probably their highest principle was that of power. They wanted that more than anything else. It is a fact though that Mussolini was a Socialist before he was a Fascist and the principles of Socialism and the power of the state were at the bedrock of his belief system.

It is less clear with Hitler which was more important, the achieving of a Socialist society or ridding the world of the Jews. National Socialism, or as Nazism as most know it, in German is Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei which translated means National-Socialist German Workers‘ Party. It was many of the ideas of Socialism that was used by the Nazis to rally party members.

In the final analysis the real religion and politics of both Hitler and Mussolini was pure and unadulterated power and they would use whatever means were available to get it. They would compromise with anyone if that led to a path that gave them power. But their rhetoric, their language, the ideals they set before the German and Italian people were ideals of the left and not the right.

Now we perhaps know enough to define Fascism. First and foremost it is a political system of strong central authority where everyone is expected to toe the line of what is politically correct in the regime. Dissent is not tolerated. This correlates very well with the Left in America today which wants a big and powerful state and sanctions on those who use “hate speech” defined as anything disagreeable to the Left, anything politically incorrect.

At this point there is very little difference between Fascism and Communism.

Where Fascism in its classical manifestations differed from Communism was in nationalism and ideas of national destiny. The Communist mindset was more of “workers of the world unite!” One thing is certain about both Soviet Communists and German Nazis. They both were responsible for the deaths of millions of human beings.

Contrary to most propaganda from the left,  racism is not a central characteristic of Fascism. Italian Fascism was not strongly racist. Genocidal racism was largely unique to Germany. The Italians only cooperated at all with the Germans in rounding up Jews after the Germans invaded Italy in 1943 after Mussolini had been deposed.

Nor is racism a characteristic of the right in America.

In America the one political party with the longest history of racism is the Democratic Party, the political party of the Confederacy, the political party of Jim Crow, the political party of the KKK, and now the political party that uses blacks as a political pawn to try to achieve political power.

The Republican Party is the party of Abraham Lincoln and the abolition of slavery. It was votes by Republicans that were crucial to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in America because so many Democrats voted against it.

Republicans and Conservatives do not support any of the ideas of the real Fascists. If in fact there is one political party in America today that most closely resembles Fascists then that is the Democratic Party and Leftists in general. They support silencing those that disagree with them. They support a strong and powerful central government under a charismatic leader. Again the only thing that keeps them from being out and out foaming at the mouth Fascists is their anti-nationalism.

In summary an accurate definition of the characteristics of Fascism would include:

  1. A strong central authority headed by a charismatic leader.
  2. No dissent that would make the “bundle” weaker.
  3. A strong sense of nationalism and national destiny.

At least two of those are characteristics of the left in America. Arguably only nationalism is a characteristic of the right, but in no way the nationalism of the historical Fascists. To love the principles that one’s country was founded on does not make one a Fascist, especially when those principles speak to individual freedom. It may have taken America a few centuries to more fully implement those principles in regards to race and gender, but it did, and that is America’s glory, not its shame.

Is The Real Problem The Guns?

A Farm Somewhere In America
A Farm Somewhere In America

The real problem with guns in America today is not the guns. It is the irrational social policies that foster dependence, drugs, and crime. If there is one single social characteristic that has been most eroded in my lifetime it is that of personal responsibility. Proponents of big government and gun control have two messages they repeat endlessly: “It is not your fault,” and “We will take care of you.

If you want to see how well they will take care of you if you give them responsibility for your life then visit one of the four cities in the table below. They had the distinction of having the highest homicide rates in America in 2016:

Municipality Homicides (2016) Population (2016) Homicides / 100K
St. Louis 188 311,404 60.37
Baltimore 318 621,849 51.14
New Orleans 176 389,617 45.17
Detroit 302 677,116 44.60

Source: Wikipedia

These four cities rank right up there with some of the most violent (top 50) cities in the world. All of these cities have several things in common. First they have been run by Democrats for decades. Secondly they have large populations of blacks who are the most adversely affected by the welfare state and gun control.

Dr. Thomas Sowell put it very well when he said of the black family:

“The black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but it has disintegrated in the wake of the liberals’ expansion of the welfare state.”

“Cities with some of the tightest gun control laws in the nation have murder rates far above the national average.”

“Although gun control is not usually considered a racial issue, a wholly disproportionate number of Americans killed by guns are black. But here, as elsewhere, liberals’ devotion to their ideology greatly exceeds their concern about what actually happens to flesh and blood human beings as a result of their ideology.”

-Liberalism Versus Black

Someone said that, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result.” Democrats are masters of doing the same thing over and over again and being surprised that nothing much changes (unless it is for the worse).

In the final analysis gun control is trying to treat the symptoms of the disease while ignoring the cause. Lots of Americans not living in the welfare state in America own lots of guns and do not kill each other at the high rates we see in these cities run by Democrats. If guns were the cause then Texas would be a bloodbath from one side to the other.


Also see:

Guns Designed To Kill, Or To Save Life?

A Nation of Cowards

 

Guns Designed To Kill, Or To Save Life?

Somewhere in Texas, In America

Those who oppose private ownership of guns often repeat the mantra that “guns are only designed to kill!” The fundamental fact they always ignore is that design and purpose are not necessarily the same thing.

A thing can be designed for one thing, but it may be intended for purposes that are diametrically opposed to its design. Consider nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles. They are obviously designed to kill millions of people and create enormous destruction on population centers.

In my lifetime the designers of nuclear weapons in the United States intended to create objects that could kill millions, but the purpose behind that design was not to kill, but to deter the murderously criminal Soviet Union which had as its goal the enslavement of the entire human race. That is not an exaggeration.

The Soviet Union is gone now, but the existence of totalitarian regimes with nuclear weapons is still a reality we cannot ignore.

So it is with many guns. They are designed to kill, but the purpose of the vast majority of people who buy them for defensive purposes is to deter killers and criminals who live in our midst. In essence these gun-owners bought guns designed to kill for the purpose of saving life, not taking it.

Smith & Wesson revolver useful for concealed carry

There is scientific evidence to back up this claim. Dr. Gary Kleck became famous for his research into the defensive use of guns in the U.S. The important takeaways from that research are:

  • The vast majority of incidents are never reported to the police.
  • The incidence of defensive use of firearms is much higher than official crime statistics indicate.
  • Gun owners rarely need to fire their weapon.

Almost always just showing the bad guy you have gun will do the trick. The bad guy will almost always go somewhere else. Criminals prefer victims who don’t shoot back! If one accepts that the real purpose of an object is what it is primarily used for, then the clear purpose of gun ownership for many is not to take life, but to save life.

Another point that many Americans really don’t seem to get is that the police are not their personal bodyguards. Jeffrey Snyder put this very well in his now classic article, A Nation of Cowards:

“Do You Feel Lucky?”

“In 1991, when then-Attorney General Richard Thornburgh released the FBI’s annual crime statistics, he noted that it is now more likely that a person will be the victim of a violent crime than that he will be in an auto accident. Despite this, most people readily believe that the existence of the police relieves them of the responsibility to take full measures to protect themselves. The police, however, are not personal bodyguards. Rather, they act as a general deterrent to crime, both by their presence and by apprehending criminals after the fact. As numerous courts have held, they have no legal obligation to protect anyone in particular. You cannot sue them for failing to prevent you from being the victim of a crime.

“Insofar as the police deter by their presence, they are very, very good. Criminals take great pains not to commit a crime in front of them. Unfortunately, the corollary is that you can pretty much bet your life (and you are) that they won’t be there at the moment you actually need them.

The violent crime rate started rising in the 1960s, peaked in the 1990s and until recently had fallen back to levels comparable to the 1960s. However in the last couple years that trend has reversed and all indications are that we will see that rate continue to go up in the immediate future.

As an American you have a non-trivial chance of being a victim of violent crime in your lifetime. How you plan to deal with that reality says a lot about who you are. Jeffrey Snyder also covered that in A Nation of Cowards:

““Cowardice” and “self-respect” have largely disappeared from public discourse. In their place we are offered “self-esteem” as the bellwether of success and a proxy for dignity. “Self-respect” implies that one recognizes standards, and judges oneself worthy by the degree to which one lives up to them. “Self-esteem” simply means that one feels good about oneself. “Dignity” used to refer to the self-mastery and fortitude with which a person conducted himself in the face of life’s vicissitudes and the boorish behavior of others. Now, judging by campus speech codes, dignity requires that we never encounter a discouraging word and that others be coerced into acting respectfully, evidently on the assumption that we are powerless to prevent our degradation if exposed to the demeaning behavior of others. These are signposts proclaiming the insubstantiality of our character, the hollowness of our souls.”

A lot of people have strong opinions on the issue of guns and using guns in self defense. I recommend reading Snyder’s article from start to finish. It is a classic.

The trend in America for well over a quarter century is the liberalization of laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed handguns in public. There are millions of responsible citizens who do so today. The predicted blood bath from many never happened. That is not an opinion, it is a fact.

 

The Fascism of the Left Exposed Through Political Correctness

Wheat Fields Somewhere In America

 

What really is Fascism? If you voted for President Trump, refuse to bow down to the dictates of Political Correctness, or don’t agree with a litany of positions of the Left today then you are in danger of being called a Fascist. Antifa  (Anti-Fascist Action) political agitators will feel smugly moral in using violence to intimidate you with the sole purpose of making sure that only their views can be spoken safely in public.

A lot of academia and pundits want to place Fascism on the Right of the political spectrum. That is an illusion. Before WW2 a lot of Leftists showed great admiration for Italian Fascism under Mussolini and often for German Fascism too (while the rest were fawning over Stalin and Soviet Communism).

When the horrors of the Holocaust were revealed at the end of WW2 these same people quickly changed their tune but not their basic principles.  The Left had to find a way to disassociate itself from Auschwitz and Dachau. The perfect ploy was to pretend the Nazis were on the Right side of the political spectrum and the Left has been singing that tune ever since.

They assert that Mussolini and Hitler made themselves enemies of the Socialists and the Communists. Therefore because Socialism and Communism are clearly on the Left, then of course Fascism must be the opposite pole on the Right. Wrong.

Perhaps they don’t know that “Nazi” in German means “National Socialist German Workers’ Party“?

If one creates one’s definitions by focusing on non-essentials and misses the underlying principles then that is understandable. In reality German Fascism, or Nazism, was not a polar opposite to Communism. It was not Left vs. Right. It was Left vs. Left.

Hitler’s antipathy to the Communists did not come from a polar disagreement on the shape of the totalitarian state. Hitler reputedly told Hermann Rauschning:

I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit. I don’t mean their tiresome social doctrine or the materialist conception of history, or their absurd ‘marginal utility’ theories and so on. But I have learnt from their methods. The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into practice what these peddlers and pen-pushers have timidly begun. The whole of National Socialism is based on it.” Quotations on Nazi socialism …

Hitler here stresses that he is more a man of action rather than useless theory. Hitler also thought Marxist Communism was a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world (as he also apparently thought Capitalism was a Jewish conspiracy). In reality Communism and Nazi Fascism came down to to two brutal competing gangs of totalitarian thugs.


To really understand Fascism, and to see how Political Correctness today is just one manifestation of it, you have to look for the uniting principles that all brands of Fascism hold. Those principles come from the ancient symbol of the  fasces from which we get the word “Fascism.”

The Merriam-Webster dictionary dictionary defines “fasces”:

“a bundle of rods and among them an ax with projecting blade borne before ancient Roman magistrates as a badge of authority”  Merriam-Webster

Fasces

There are at least two important symbols here. First is the idea that a bundle of sticks bound together is much stronger than the individual sticks by themselves. Like sticks in the bundle, people in the political body must be bound by a common ideology. The second is the ax which represents a powerful central authority.

Strong central authority and a conformity which tolerates little if any dissent are the foundational principles of Fascism (as they are for all radical Leftist ideologies). The fundamental difference between Communism and Nazi Fascism was that the Nazis also had a strong component of nationalism and racism which Communism mostly did not (at least all the time). Other than that there is little real difference in principle and hardly none in outcome, that is, millions of victims.

The attempt by the Left to define what it is acceptable to think and say, that is Political Correctness, is a strong symptom of the Fascism of the Left in America today. Strong authorities on the Left dictate what is correct to think, and now we have an emerging Antifa movement bent on using force and violence to silence those who resist being bound by their ideology.

That at its core is Fascism, the real thing.

On the other hand Conservatives, Libertarians, and many other members of what is called the Right stand for individual rights, free speech, and the duty to moral dissent based on conscience. All of these are under attack, and more and more often physical attack by the Left. It is becoming more and more dangerous to stand up publicly for these freedoms that Americans have taken for granted for generations.

Antifa Fascists dressed in black with a flag in red, black, and white – favorite colors of the Nazi SS Gestapo

Any familiarity with the history of Fascism and Communism the 20th century should be sufficient evidence that this is not the right path for those who love freedom and democracy.

lwk

Liberal Facism (Book)

Somewhere In Charlotte, N.C. In America

From Amazon:

Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change Paperback – June 2, 2009

 

Liberal Facism

Fierce, funny, and controversial, Jonah Goldberg’s #1 New York Times bestseller traces fascism back to its surprising roots–in liberalism.

“Fascists,” “Brownshirts,” “jackbooted stormtroopers”—such are the insults typically hurled at conservatives by their liberal opponents. Calling someone a fascist is the fastest way to shut them up, defining their views as beyond the political pale. But who are the real fascists in our midst?

Liberal Fascism offers a startling new perspective on the theories and practices that define fascist politics. Replacing conveniently manufactured myths with surprising and enlightening research, Jonah Goldberg reminds us that the original fascists were really on the left, and that liberals from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler’s National Socialism and Mussolini’s Fascism.

Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialism”). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.

Do these striking parallels mean that today’s liberals are genocidal maniacs, intent on conquering the world and imposing a new racial order? Not at all. Yet it is hard to deny that modern progressivism and classical fascism shared the same intellectual roots. We often forget, for example, that Mussolini and Hitler had many admirers in the United States. W.E.B. Du Bois was inspired by Hitler’s Germany, and Irving Berlin praised Mussolini in song. Many fascist tenets were espoused by American progressives like John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson, and FDR incorporated fascist policies in the New Deal.

Fascism was an international movement that appeared in different forms in different countries, depending on the vagaries of national culture and temperament. In Germany, fascism appeared as genocidal racist nationalism. In America, it took a “friendlier,” more liberal form. The modern heirs of this “friendly fascist” tradition include the New York Times, the Democratic Party, the Ivy League professoriate, and the liberals of Hollywood. The quintessential Liberal Fascist isn’t an SS storm trooper; it is a female grade school teacher with an education degree from Brown or Swarthmore.

These assertions may sound strange to modern ears, but that is because we have forgotten what fascism is. In this angry, funny, smart, contentious book, Jonah Goldberg turns our preconceptions inside out and shows us the true meaning of Liberal Fascism.

AVAILABLE ON AMAZON:

Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change Paperback – June 2, 2009

The Fascists of the Liberal Left

Somewhere in California in America

The new face of the liberal left calls their opponents Fascists, but their actions reveal who the true Fascists are. From Breithbart News (4/21/17):

“On Friday’s broadcast of HBO’s “Real Time,” host Bill Maher weighed in on the controversy over author Ann Coulter speaking at UC-Berkeley by declaring, “Berkeley used to be the cradle of free speech, and now it’s just the cradle for f*cking babies.” And “this is the liberals’ version of book burning, and it’s got to stop.”

Breitbart News, Maher: Cancelling Speakers on Campus Is The Liberal ‘Version of Book Burning

Some extreme Leftists are going around claiming they are rioting against Nazis and Fascists, that is, any Conservative they don’t like (which is all of them). Just another symptom of the fact these mostly younger people didn’t pay much attention in history class. If they had they would know that gangs of “Brown Shirts” Nazis did exactly the same thing using violence and intimidation to try to shut up those they didn’t like in Germany before WW2. We all know how that turned out (well at least anyone who paid any attention in their high school history class).

Riot at Berkeley, Feb. 2017

Maher is wrong though in calling them “f*cking babies.” Babies don’t threaten people and beat them up if they disagree on their politics. Thugs do. Speaking of book burning, the Nazis did that too. Quoting from Wikipedia:

“The Nazi book burnings were a campaign conducted by the German Student Union to ceremonially burn books in Nazi Germany and Austria in the 1930s. The books targeted for burning were those viewed as being subversive or as representing ideologies opposed to Nazism. These included books written by Jewish, pacifist, religious, classical liberal, anarchist, socialist, and communist authors, among others.” -Wikipedia

These Fascists of the Liberal Left are demonstrating that they have no good arguments against these Conservative speakers. If they did they wouldn’t have to resort to violence and name calling.

lwk


Article by Allen West:

“I think the American people are repulsed by what they are seeing on these college campuses,” West told WND in an interview this week. “When you have these young people that are wearing masks and things of this nature, there’s no difference between the terrorists we see operating in these other countries and them being terrorists in our country.”
Student mobs killing speech acting like ‘terrorists’

 


Article by Alex Pareene:

“Liberal fascism is alive and well, and seemingly everywhere one looks these days. Not since the dark days of Stalin’s purges have so many so-called progressives exercised so much violent aggression against their enemies. It is indeed a dark time to be considered an enemy of the left-liberal alliance, as so many recent victims can attest.”  Liberal fascism is everywhere: Behold its shocking rise!

Judge Or King?

Somewhere on the Missouri River in America

In the Old Testament (Jewish Tanakh) in 1 Samuel 8 we have the interesting story of how the people of Israel were tired of being ruled by judges and desired to have a king instead:

So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. They said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have.”

[The Lord said to Samuel] “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. … and you yourselves will become his slaves. ...”

And that is kind of what happened. Be careful what you wish for!

In America today it seems like we are teetering between these same two options. On the one hand the office of the President has acquired more and more power to rule by decree (executive orders), and judges have become bolder and bolder in asserting their right to declare just about anything they don’t like as “un-Constitutional,” most recently in the case of President Trump’s executive orders on immigration.

Seems like we are seeing the worst of both worlds at times!

Has everyone forgotten that the original intention was limited government with built-in checks and balances to prevent any of the three branches of government (legislative, executive, and judicial) from becoming too powerful? We are supposed to have a government ruled by written laws. Those laws should be enacted by representatives of the people and only by those representatives. Those representatives are supposed to guard that power jealously, neither allowing presidents nor judges (or bureaucrats) to assume the power to legislate outside the limited powers delegated to them.

Today it seems that regardless of where many sit on the political spectrum they will cheer when the President or a Federal judge rules or orders in a direction they favor with little thought as to whether that person should have the power to do so.

Regardless of your politics, regardless of whether you would like to see tough or lenient immigrations policies, or whatever policies, it is important what means you use to get there. If you are ok with any means and see the law and the Constitution as just impediments to that end, then you, like the ancient Israelites, are asking to be ruled by the arbitrary whims of individuals who in the long run can take away from you as much as they give you. It doesn’t matter whether those men are judges or kings, you will be subjects:

“When any branch of government can exercise powers not authorized by either statutes or the Constitution, “we the people” are no longer free citizens but subjects, and our “public servants” are really our public masters. And America is no longer America. The freedom for which whole generations of Americans have fought and died is gradually but increasingly being taken away from us with smooth and slippery words.”  -Supreme Court Disasters,  Dr. Thomas Sowell

The original architecture was intended to create a new and unique form of government, a government of law and not of men. Neither judges nor presidents were considered entitled to rule by decree. It worked pretty good for a long time. It doesn’t seem to be working very well anymore.

lwk

The Problem of Race Relations

Somewhere in New York City in America

Very good and insightful article on  Race Relations and Law Enforcement by Jason L. Riley. A little biographical information below from the article on Imprimis at Hillsdale College:

“Jason L. Riley is an editorial board member and a senior editorial page writer at the Wall Street Journal, where he writes on politics, economics, education, immigration, and race. He is also a FOX News contributor and appears regularly on Special Report with Bret Baier.”

In Race Relations and Law Enforcement he writes:

“New York City has the largest school system in America. Eighty percent of black kids in New York public schools are performing below grade level. And a big part of the problem is a black subculture that rejects attitudes and behaviors that are conducive to academic success. Black kids read half as many books and watch twice as much television as their white counterparts, for example. In other words, a big part of the problem is a culture that produces little black girls and boys who are already worried about acting and sounding white by the time they are in second grade.”

“Another big part of the problem is a reluctance to speak honestly about these cultural shortcomings. Many whites fear being called racists. And many black leaders have a vested interest in blaming black problems primarily on white racism, so that is the narrative they push regardless of the reality. Racism has become an all-purpose explanation for bad black outcomes, be they social or economic. If you disagree and are white, you’re a bigot. If you disagree and are black, you’re a sell-out.”

“Racism has become an all-purpose
explanation for bad black outcomes …”

“Homicide is the leading cause of death for young black men in the U.S., and around 90 percent of the perpetrators are also black. Yet for months we’ve had protesters nationwide pretending that our morgues are full of young black men because cops are shooting them. Around 98 percent of black shooting deaths do not involve police. In fact, a cop is six times more likely to be shot by someone black than the opposite. The protestors are pushing a false anti-cop narrative, and everyone from the president on down has played along.”

“Any candid debate on race and criminal justice in this country would have to start with the fact that blacks commit an astoundingly disproportionate number of crimes. …”

Read the whole article at Imprimis (link below). It is well worth your time.

Race Relations and Law Enforcement

Jason L. Riley is the author of Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed:

Profiling Is Perfectly Reasonable. In Fact, We All Do It.

Somewhere in the Southwest of America

 

Dr. Walter E. Williams has an interesting article today (April 5, 2017) on profiling. Here is a little biographical info about Dr. Williams:

Dr. Walter E. Williams

Walter Edward Williams (born March 31, 1936) is an American economist, commentator, and academic. He is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University, as well as a syndicated columnist and author known for his classical liberal and libertarian conservative views. His writings frequently appear on Townhall.com, WND, Jewish World Review, and hundreds of newspapers throughout the United States.  –Wikipedia

Dr. Williams writes:

Profiling is needlessly a misunderstood concept. What’s called “profiling” is part of the optimal stock of human behavior and something we all do.

Let’s begin by describing behavior that might come under the heading of profiling.

Prior to making decisions, people seek to gain information. To obtain information is costly, requiring the expenditure of time and/or money. Therefore, people seek to find ways to economize on information costs.

You can continue reading this article (link below) on The Daily Signal:

Profiling Is Perfectly Reasonable. In Fact, We All Do It.

lwk