Saturday, May 19, 2007
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were motivated in large part by American foreign policy in the Middle East and America's unwavering support for Israel.
American politicians are woefully ignorant of the history, divisions, fractures, schisms, and other problems of the Middle East. These problems extend far back into history and will not be understood, much less solved by uninformed, short-term thinking politicians.
The current generation of Americans have inherited many wonderful liberties and freedoms. However, the problem is that Americans are so radically divorced from any substantive knowledge of the history of America's founding that Americans have no idea how these liberties and freedoms were won, much less the context of their genesis.
My presupposition is that liberty and freedom in America have worked because of Christianity. It is Christianity that has given the West stability, the rule of law, political liberty, and economic freedom.
As I said above, Americans have inherited these wonderful gifts. And America quite naturally wants the rest of the world to enjoy them. However, several generations of government (public) schooling have birthed a generation of confident incompetents...a generation so dumbed down that Americans for the most part they have no idea how these gifts were won.
My observation is that many American politicians think that the rest of the world needs to have these liberties and freedoms and that they will be naturally embraced by the peoples of the world.
In reality, I presuppose that people generally like slavery. People like being told what to do, how to think, etc. Slavery is the natural state of sinful mankind.
So American foreign policy becomes bungled, foolish, incompetent, unwise, and dangerous when it proposes to force political freedom on a people.
When six or seven generations of Iraqis have been Christianized and the reformed faith runs deep in the heart of Iraqis, then I think political liberty and economic freedom will quite naturally flow forth.
America should fully embrace diplomatic relations, trade, exchange, and friendship, shining forth like a city on a hill; but the entangling alliances and wars that America so easily entangles herself should be rejected.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Ron Paul Said It. - Ron is such a wonderful person that I'm sorry that he had to be the one to tell the truth. One could sense in the debate that he was making an enormous sacrifice here. After Giuliani spoke, the red-state fascists in the audience all started whooping up the bloodlust that the politicians have been encouraging for the last six years – a mindless display of Nazi-like nationalism that would cause the founding fathers to shudder with fear of what we've become. These people are frantic about terrorism and extremism abroad, but they need to take a good hard look in the mirror.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Last week, the House of Representatives acted with disdain for the Constitution and individual liberty by passing HR 1592, a bill creating new federal programs to combat so-called “hate crimes.” The legislation defines a hate crime as an act of violence committed against an individual because of the victim’s race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Federal hate crime laws violate the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on federal power. Hate crime laws may also violate the First Amendment guaranteed freedom of speech and religion by criminalizing speech federal bureaucrats define as “hateful.”
There is no evidence that local governments are failing to apprehend and prosecute criminals motivated by prejudice, in comparison to the apprehension and conviction rates of other crimes. Therefore, new hate crime laws will not significantly reduce crime. Instead of increasing the effectiveness of law enforcement, hate crime laws undermine equal justice under the law by requiring law enforcement and judicial system officers to give priority to investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. Of course, all decent people should condemn criminal acts motivated by prejudice. But why should an assault victim be treated by the legal system as a second-class citizen because his assailant was motivated by greed instead of hate?
HR 1592, like all hate crime laws, imposes a longer sentence on a criminal motivated by hate than on someone who commits the same crime with a different motivation. Increasing sentences because of motivation goes beyond criminalizing acts; it makes it a crime to think certain thoughts. Criminalizing even the vilest hateful thoughts--as opposed to willful criminal acts--is inconsistent with a free society.
HR 1592 could lead to federal censorship of religious or political speech on the grounds that the speech incites hate. Hate crime laws have been used to silence free speech and even the free exercise of religion. For example, a Pennsylvania hate crime law has been used to prosecute peaceful religious demonstrators on the grounds that their public Bible readings could incite violence. One of HR 1592’s supporters admitted that this legislation could allow the government to silence a preacher if one of the preacher’s parishioners commits a hate crime. More evidence that hate crime laws lead to censorship came recently when one member of Congress suggested that the Federal Communications Commission ban hate speech from the airwaves.
Hate crime laws not only violate the First Amendment, they also violate the Tenth Amendment. Under the United States Constitution, there are only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are left to the individual states. Any federal legislation dealing with criminal matters not related to these three issues usurps state authority over criminal law and takes a step toward turning the states into mere administrative units of the federal government.
Because federal hate crime laws criminalize thoughts, they are incompatible with a free society. Fortunately, President Bush has pledged to veto HR 1592. Of course, I would vote to uphold the president’s veto.