"Fighting Words," Blasphemy, and Freedom of Speech

As reported by both Breitbart and Hot Air, the destructive behavior of a Muslim activist has been rewarded by the New York City Transit Authority. In short, the activist attempted to deface a pro-Israel ad at a subway station, but a subway rider stepped in front of the poster. The activist became irate and shouted profanities, and nearly assaulted the woman who tried to stop her before NYPD officers stepped in. However, as a result of the incident, the Transit Authority has decided to ban advertisements that it "reasonably foresees would imminently incite or provoke violence or other immediate breach of the peace." In other words, if your viewpoint is likely to cause someone to react violently, then you are not allowed to voice it. And, since the only people who regularly react violently to others' opinions seem to be Muslims and leftists, these rules will almost certainly only be used to stifle speech that is critical of Islam and/or Progressivism. This action follows a nearly three week period in which government officials at the national level have demonized anyone who dares criticize Islam, and have even subjected some individuals to official persecution.

As I have written before, prohibitions against incitement to violence can only legitimately be used to prevent inciting people that you agree with to violence, because to do otherwise effectively gives a political or ideological opponent the ability to silence your speech, simply by claiming that what you are saying makes them so angry that they want to punch you.

There is another problem here, as well. Part of orthodox Christian doctrine is the belief in the trinity - the concept that the Father, Son, and Spirit are all divine (three separate persons, one divine being). However, this belief, which equates Jesus Christ with God, is seen by Muslims as commission of the sin of shirk, which at least some Muslims view as a capital offense. Therefore, a Christian who is professing his religious beliefs could, under this system, be guilty of incitement to violence, since his beliefs could cause Muslims to kill him. In other words, if this foolishness is allowed, the practice of orthodox Christianity would be illegal, since it causes Muslims to fly into an irrational murder-rage. So not only are we violating freedom of speech, but of religion as well.

While this attempt to effectively grant Islam special legal protection is clearly illegal and immoral, it is not without precedent. In 1918, during WWI, Congress outlawed political speech that criticized the government or the war effort. Their justification? Since violent mobs were angrily attacking war dissenters, the proper thing to do was to outlaw war dissent, so the violent mobs wouldn't be forced to attack people. Absurd as the line of reasoning is, and as unconstitutional as prohibiting political speech is, the law was upheld by the Supreme Court in Abrams v. United States.

Our government has demonstrated once again that it is uninterested in keeping to the principles and laws upon which it was founded and is a threat to liberty, not its champion.

Prohibition, the War on Drugs, and Creating a Culture of Violence

Voters in Colorado, Oregon, and Washington are preparing to vote on the decriminalization of marijuana, not just for medicinal purposes, but for recreational use. Such ballot measures raise a number of issues and concerns, including the relationship between the drug industry and violent crime, and the legality of states decriminalizing a substance that the national government prohibits.

Proponents of marijuana prohibition argue that there is a direct correlation between the accessibility of drugs and violent crime. Allowing medicinal and recreational marijuana use would lead to an increase in crime, and therefore, for public safety reasons, marijuana must continue to be prohibited, and growers, sellers, and users must continue to be actively tracked down and prosecuted.

Unfortunately for proponents of this line of argument, the facts don't seem to support the claim. As Brad Schlesinger points out in an article on IVN, studies conducted following the legalization of medicinal marijuana in California have shown no direct correlation between the availability of marijuana and violent crime rates.

In fact, an argument can be made that drug prohibition actually increases violent crime. Evidence for this can be seen in Juarez, Mexico, which is a primary pipeline for drug smuggling into the United States, and has one of the highest murder rates in the world, due primarily to drug cartel-related violence.

There is also historical support for the claim that substance criminalization leads to violent crime. In 1920, the  manufacture, transportation, and sale of alcohol was prohibited, based on "public good" arguments similar to those used to justify drug prohibition. As a result, violent crime skyrocketed, as criminal enterprises sprang up to fill the void once occupied by legitimate alcohol producers. In a very real sense, the prevalence in organized crime in the United States owes its existence to prohibition.

The problem with the "public good" argument is twofold; first, as is pointed out by the CA marijuana studies, the initial claims of a correlation between availability of a substance and violent crime are tenuous at best. Second, what proponents of prohibition always fail to take into account is that making a substance or activity illegal does not eliminate the desire for said activity or substance. As a result, criminal enterprises will fill the void once filled by legitimate suppliers, and those criminal enterprises are typically not concerned about the morality of using violence to protect their business interests. Therefore, even if some public good could be quantified by resorting to prohibition, it would have to be weighed against the consequences. By taking only one side of the equation into account, prohibitionists are presenting a false picture.

With regards to the legality of state decriminalization, Schlesinger claims that "...state ratification is irrelevant, as federal law preempts state law and marijuana remains criminalized at the federal level." This is simply not the case. Federal law only preempts state law when the federal law is made pursuant to the enumerated powers granted by the Constitution, as outlined in Article VI, and reinforced by the 10th Amendment. Since the Constitution does not give the national government the authority to ban substances (except through the amendment process, as occurred with alcohol prohibition), ruling on the legality of marijuana is a state issue. The fact that Congress saw the amendment process as a necessity with alcohol prohibition demonstrates this to be true.

If drug criminalization actually leads to more crime and is an illegitimate exercise in federal authority, why do we have a War on Drugs? Unfortunately, as with most things, it likely boils down to money and power. Fighting drug crime is a huge industry, one that justifies thousands of law enforcement jobs, billions in government budget dollars, and millions more in asset seizures every year. And as I have pointed out before, the DEA seems to have no problem getting civilians killed and destroying private property in pursuit of its drug war.

Restricting individuals' freedom (even when that freedom is personally damaging) in order to increase government power and enrich public coffers is the precise opposite of the legitimate purpose of government.

Fundamentally Unserious

First it was an interview with Entertainment Tonight. Now it's The View.

I can only assume that the next stop is a cameo on Saturday Night Live. Or maybe a guest host gig on Dancing With the Stars.

An old saying about fiddling while Rome burns comes to mind.

Circular Reasoning

"The Bible is God's Word."
"How do you know?"
"God said so."
"Where?"
"In the Bible, stupid!"

***

"The Supreme Court has the authority to determine if something is Constitutional."
"Where do you get that from?"
"The Constitution"
"I've read the Constitution, and I don't remember seeing that anywhere."
"It's in there. The Supreme Court said so."

The Bible conversation is used frequently (and justifiably) as an example of circular reasoning (sometimes referred to as begging the question). If one wants to assert that the Bible is in fact the Word of God, it needs to be established using outside verification. This seems fairly obvious.

Why, then, do so many people who would reject the first example accept the second?

Rand Paul vs. Lindsey Graham

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), has placed a filibuster on nominations for Ambassadors to both Pakistan and Iraq, demanding that a proposed amendment, which would cut foreign aid to Pakistan, Egypt, and Libya, receive a vote on the Senate floor. Paul has threatened to stall further Senate business, should the current filibuster be unsuccessful.

In response, fellow Senate Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina slammed Paul during a Politico event yesterday, saying that Paul is ignorant of the consequences of such an action and that cutting aid to those nations would result in a threat to U.S. national security:

"Rand Paul is one nice fellow, but I bet you he's never talked with CIA Director General Petraeus about what would happen if we cut our aid off to Pakistan," said Graham at a Politico event at the Newseum. "It's 90 percent popular, but I can show you things in history that were 100 percent popular that were really bad ideas."

"Here's what I convey to my colleagues: don't be indifferent: the people I want to give the aid to and support to are the ones that I have some hope that I can live with in peace," Graham said. "The radical Islamists know that they cannot win if we stay in the region."

 As I wrote a few days ago, more than three decades of United States meddling in the region has gotten us exactly nowhere. Sen. Graham claims that the "Islamists know that they cannot win if we stay in the region?" My response to such utter ignorance of history would be to point out that violent, militant Islam has held the region since Muhammad founded the religion and used it for wars of conquest in the 7th Century. Militant Islam is an ideology of conquest and hate, and United States involvement in the region has not and will not do anything to change that. Furthermore, paying bribe money we do not have to people in an attempt to get them to hate us less is not only pathetic, but in the case of Pakistan, it is demonstrably ineffective, since, while the government provides pro-U.S. lip-service, their inner security workings actively plot and act against us.

Graham also took the time to cry about upcoming sequestration, the process whereby mandatory budget cuts will go into effect if Congress and the White House cannot come up with a budget agreement by the end of the year:

"Why don't we have a deal to avoid sequestration? I think there are a lot on the left who really are reluctant to embrace entitlement reform and people on our side reluctant to embrace revenue generation."

The irony of this statement is that Graham specifically neglects to mention his reluctance to cut defense spending. He is perfectly willing to concede to tax increases, as long as it means that the military-industrial monster is properly fed.

In his brief tenure in the Senate, Paul has demonstrated that he is willing to go out on a limb to expose government bullying, take a stand for liberty and fiscal responsibility, and put his principles ahead of personal popularity. Graham, on the other hand, is a big-government, authoritarian hack who never met a military conflict he didn't like. In any ideological conflict between the two, I'll pick Paul and his ideals of personal liberty every time.

Facebook and Politics

Here's a bit of frivolity to lighten the mood - A template for every awful Facebook discussion you've ever witnessed:

I will admit that I have been known to play The Troublemaker from time to time...

What Comes First, Property or the State?

On Twitter yesterday, leftist commentator Matt Yglesias made the following claim:

According to Mr. Yglesias, the existence of the state precedes the existence of property. In other words, we have property because the state allows us to have property, and therefore it can be taken by the state at will for reallocation. The #mythofownership tag is a cute addition, too - we get it, Matt; we don't own anything, it all flows from the all powerful state.

The problem is that according to the United States' founding principles, Yglesias couldn't be more wrong if he tried. The principles that ground the American experiment aren't a secret; they lie in the writings of John Locke, the 17th Century political philosopher. Thomas Jefferson cribbed much of the Declaration of Independence directly from Locke's greatest work, Two Treatises of Government, and Jefferson once wrote that Locke was one of the three greatest men who ever lived.

So what did Locke have to say about property and government? In his opinion, private property was one of the natural rights given to man by God Himself, and that government's sole legitimate role was the protection of that which man already owned. From Two Treatises of Government:

“To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.”

In Common Sense, Thomas Paine echoes these sentiments:

“Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz. freedom and security. And however our eyes may be dazzled with show, or our ears deceived by sound; however prejudice may warp our wills, or interest darken our understanding, the simple voice of nature and of reason will say, it is right.”

It is important to understand that in historical context, when Paine refers to security, he is referring to security in one's possessions, rather than the idea of physical security, which is how the term is commonly understood today.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution also implies that ownership is a fundamental right, and one that government cannot simply violate:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Yglesias is incorrect: people institute governments in order to protect their property, at least in a free society. What Yglesias is describing, and even advocating, is despotism - a system where the state owns all, and doles it out (and takes it back) at the tyrant sees fit. His position is an ignorant, immoral, and dangerous one.

Unfortunately, it is a position shared by all too many in power.

The Feds Control Your Student's Lunch

Students in Mukwonago, Wisconsin, have gone on a school lunch strike in protest of a new federal law which places an 850 calorie limit on school lunches:

By 7 a.m. Monday, senior Nick Blohm already had burned about 250 calories in the Mukwonago High School weight room.

He grabbed a bagel and a Gatorade afterward; if he eats before lifting, he gets sick.
That was followed by eight periods in the classroom, and then three hours of football practice. By the time he headed home, he had burned upward of 3,000 calories - his coach thinks the number is even higher.

But the calorie cap for his school lunch? 850 calories.

"A lot of us are starting to get hungry even before the practice begins," Blohm said. "Our metabolisms are all sped up."

And the name of the law that leaves Blohm, a 6-foot-3-inch, 210 pound linebacker hungry? The Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010, a law championed by First Lady Michelle Obama. I'm pretty sure irony just took out a restraining order against the First Lady, citing abuse as the justification.

It bears noting that the national government has no jurisdiction when it comes to school lunches. Control of education and food are something not given to the general government in the Constitution, and therefore these regulations are not only stupid, but illegal, and the state of Wisconsin would be well within its rights to simply ignore them. They are also a perfect example of the failure of centralization - the idea that Washington can effectively craft one-size-fits-all laws governing 320,000,000 people is absurd, and one of the reasons that the American founders rejected the idea.

Perhaps Thomas Jefferson said it best when he opined that "Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread."

Constitution Day

Today marks 225 years since the Constitutional Convention adjourned, and September 17 has been recognized as Constitution Day since 2004. The Senate website has a brief writeup on the homepage recognizing today's significance, but it appears that both the White House and House of Representatives have forgotten, as neither website makes mention of today's significance. This really should come as no surprise; the national government has long exceeded its constitutional authority,  and today the Constitution has, unfortunately, become little more than an historical anachronism. Therefore, our government's failure to recognize the day fits in perfectly with its practice of ignoring the document itself.

There were founders who recognized this eventuality. Chief among them was Patrick Henry, who boycotted the Constitutional Convention because he saw the creation of a strong national government as a threat to state sovereignty and individual liberty. For 23 days he argued passionately against ratification in Virginia, but was eventually outvoted. Fellow Virginian George Mason did attend the convention, but refused to sign the document, for reasons he outlined and distributed among other delegates before leaving the convention. Among the reasons he gave for his refusal to sign were failure to include a bill of rights and a failure to ban the slave trade. The general consensus among those who opposed the Constitution was that a strong national government would grow out of control, and that it would eventually come to resemble the monarchy that they had fought a revolution to rid themselves of.

As I outline in my book, From Liberty to Tyranny: How Expansion, Warfare, Economic Crisis, and Entitlements Threaten Personal Liberty in the United States, those who opposed the Constitution have been proven correct. Beginning almost immediately, the national government began to assert power that was not given it in the Constitution, and in many cases is explicitly forbidden. Among these breaches of contract are:

• The creation of federal labor and wage laws. This is not a power delegated to the national government, and therefore belongs to the states, per the 10th Amendment.
• The Sedition Act of 1918, which made politically-inconvenient speech illegal, in violation of the First Amendment.
• The internment of United States citizens during WWII without charge or trial, in violation of both Article I, Section 9 and the Fifth Amendment.
• The creation of federal welfare programs, which is a power not delegated to the national government. Even the authors of the Social Security Act believed it to be unconstitutional.
• Government-mandated security screenings at airports conducted by government agents, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which requires probable cause before a search.

In addition, our national government no longer functions within itself as constitutionally required. Many of the powers given to Congress have been overtaken by the Executive branch. Executive agencies routinely create legislation (under the euphemism of "regulation"), and presidents have, on at least two occasions (Truman and Obama) gone to war without Congressional approval. Both of these are violations of Article I, Section 8, which gives these authorities to Congress alone. This is just a small sampling of the ways that our government has abandoned the Constitution; if you want to see more, I suggest that you buy my book, which chronicles the deterioration of our republic.

The Constitution, if it were followed, is not a bad document. However, as Patrick Henry predicted, it contained within itself the seeds of its own destruction. By creating a strong national government, it virtually ensured that power would be centralized, and people's liberties would shrink. On Constitution Day, let's remember the principles upon which this nation was founded and reflect upon how we can return to a society that values liberty.

Chicago Teacher's Strike Increases Appeal of Charter Schools

As CNS News reported on Friday, the ongoing strike of the Chicago Public Schools teachers union has increased interest in the city's 110 privately operated charter schools, which are still in session because the schools are privately operated and the teachers are not union members. According to Andrew Broy, Illinois Network of Charter Schools president, there is now a long waiting list for charter school openings:

“We’ve got 19,000 students on wait lists in the city of Chicago,” he said. “We are seeing an increase in parent demand over the past two months generally, but in the past two days as the strike has been going on, a huge spike in calls to our office from parents seeking options.”

“I think what’s happening is that parents of regular public school students are seeing their neighbors and their colleagues send children to charter schools and because of that are now looking for options for themselves,” Broy said.

Karen Lewis, a teacher in Chicago and president of the Chicago Teachers Union, has taken exception to Broy's claim. In a response that is loaded with faulty reasoning and rhetorical fallacy, Lewis implies that the claim of a 19,000 student long waiting list, a statistic repeated by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, is a lie:

The mayor loves to tout unsubstantiated statistics about how popular charter schools are among Chicago parents. On Wednesday, he used a new number: now apparently the waiting list is whopping 19,000 students. Wow — that’s a lot of children who were “so unfortunate” to not get a seat at a coveted charter school.

She uses the following statement to 'refute' this claim:

Really? Then why did only a few hundred families show up at last year’s New School Expo, even though Chicago’s corporate elite spent so much money on promotional advertisements and even provided a free shuttle bus to Soldier Field. Why did Andrew Broy of the Illinois Network of Charter Schools say this week that there are 2,000 to 3,000 slots still available at charter schools for parents who didn’t want to wait out the strike?

Lewis' argument begins with a version of the red herring fallacy, which occurs when someone uses irrelevant information to try and obfuscate an issue. In this case, Lewis takes a claim - there are now (as in today) 19,000 students on charter school waiting lists, and then refutes it by making reference to attendance at an educational expo that occurred last year. Now, there may be a correlation between attendance at an education expo and enrollment at a charter school, but such a correlation is obviously not necessary, and the inclusion of the expo's attendance is ultimately irrelevant. The second claim, that Andrew Broy said there were 2,000 to 3,000 openings is directly contradicted by Broy's own words above, in which he confirms the 19,000 number, and explains why the charter schools are now over capacity - over the course of two days, parents in Chicago have been crawling all over each other to get their students enrolled at the schools that are still open. Lewis' own actions as the president of the teacher's union have caused the jump in charter school enrollment, a fact that I would hope she grasps.

Lewis then offers the following "argument" against charter schools:

Chicagoans need to understand what is happening to our school system. The mayor and his hedge fund allies are going to replace our democratically-controlled public schools with privately-run charter schools. This will have disastrous results and people need to rise up and refuse. As a parent, do you really want your child wearing a three-piece polyester suit every day to school and pay a fine every time your child’s tie isn’t on straight?

This paragraph is also full of nonsense and poor argumentation. There is an appeal to fear (loss of democratic control of schools to "hedge fund allies" resulting in "disaster"), appeal to ridicule (making fun of school uniforms), and a second appeal to fear (you'll be fined because your kid's tie isn't straight). Of course, all of these stupid claims make up yet another red herring, because the issue is whether charter schools are being sought out by parents, and whether those schools provide an effective education, not whether the uniforms are ugly.

When she does get around to discussing the performance of charter schools vs. Chicago Public Schools, the statistics and facts are few and far between, but the rhetorical fallacies continue. Consider the following statement regarding her claim that charter schools have to experiment with educational styles while their students suffer:

This is what we want for our children? Parents don’t want their kindergartner, fifth-grader or ninth-grader acting as guinea pigs for a charter school that might eventually become a good school.

Contained in this statement is an Argumentum ad Populum fallacy (people don't want it, therefore it is bad), but more importantly, the argument also assumes facts that not only aren't in evidence, but seem to be contradicted by the evidence. After all, you can't argue that people don't want something when there is a 19,000 long waiting list for it.

Furthermore, this paragraph demonstrates the arrogance at the heart of progressive thought: the idea that we should restrict people's choices because we know what is best for them. Ms. Lewis, like all progressives, wants to limit choices and freedom rather than rely on her claims that CPS produces a superior product. My guess is that she knows how bad competition would be for her monopoly on education, and that this is far less about education quality and far more about the power she currently wields.

So, are Chicago charter schools better or worse than Chicago public schools? I have no idea, but I know that opening a market (in this case education) to competition always improves the efficiency and quality of the product. It also gives people more freedom. I also know that for the past week, the education provided by the charter schools has been superior, since they are the only ones making an attempt to teach children at all. Finally, I have learned that Ms. Lewis is not particularly skilled at presenting well-reasoned arguments, which gives me cause for concern regarding her ability to pass knowledge on to students.

White House: Rain Not Wet, Sun Not Hot, Bears Don't Shit in the Woods

According to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, the protests throughout the middle east, including an attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya, are not directed at the United States, but are completely motivated by an anti-Muslim film:

CARNEY: We also need to understand that this is a fairly volatile situation and it is in response not to United States policy, and not to, obviously, the administration, or the American people, but it is in response to a video, a film that we have judged to be be reprehensible and disgusting. That in no way justifies any violent reaction to it, but this is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy, this is in response to a video that is offensive to Muslims.

This claim is such obvious bullshit that the only reason Carney can say it with a straight face is that he is clearly either completely divorced from reality or a complete sociopath. Even Libyan officials admit that the film protests were a cover:

Heavily armed militants used a protest of an anti-Islam film as a cover and may have had help from inside Libyan security in their deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate, a senior Libyan official said Thursday. (emphasis added)

Militant Islamists hate America. They have always hated America, and they always will hate America. The film was just the latest excuse for their murder-rage. If it hadn't been that, it would have been something else. To claim otherwise is either dangerously naive, transparently dishonest, or both. In the case of this epic failure of an administration, I'm going with both.

The Arab Spring

So, to recap:

During the 1980's, the United States provides weapons to the mujahideen in Afghanistan, a group of Islamic freedom fighters who are battling Soviet invaders. One of the groups that formed the mujahideen became the Taliban, which provided safe haven and support for al-Qaeda. In 2001, the U.S. ends up fighting an (ongoing) 11-year war and occupation of Afghanistan following terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.

Also during the 1980's, the United States provided support for Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein against the anti-U.S. Islamic government of Iran. The U.S. then ends up fighting the U.S. trained and supplied Iraqi army in both 1990-1991 and 2004. The U.S. stays in Iraq until 2009 fighting foreign-supplied Islamic insurgents.

The United States hails the "democratic" revolution in Egypt in 2011, which results in an Islamist government. Despite our support, the same group that started the demonstrations storms the U.S. embassy in Cairo and burns the American flag.

The United States, in an unconstitutional action by President Obama, provides unapproved military support for a similar revolution in Libya, which results in an Islamist government. A year later in Benghazi, the source of the revolution, terrorists kill the U.S. Ambassador to Libya along with three other staff members.

Always ready to double down on a bad investment, as long as military action is involved, Senators John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and Lindsay Graham issue a statement following the incidents in Egypt and Libya supporting the "Arab Spring" and claiming that the movement has simply been hijacked by "small groups of violent extremists."

Also following the attacks this week, Lynn Grassmeyer, a self-described "humanitarian of Syrian-Palestinian descent" writes in The Tennessean that the United States has an obligation to step in and help rid Syria of its current dictator, Bashar Assad, and that the events in Egypt and Libya should not deter us from doing so.

Yet, in today's news, al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri is asking Islamic extremists to do the exact same thing. So, if we step in in Syria, we either end up fighting alongside a brutal dictator against al Qaeda or alongside al Qaeda against a brutal dictator. And, when one of them loses, the other steps in to fill the void, meaning we are either left with a brutal, violent anti-American dictator, or a brutal, violent anti-American murder cult.

Take a look up at the history. Then take a look at what our so-called "leaders" are wanting to do now. A famous quote, usually attributed to Albert Einstein, is that insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Our attempts to manage, direct, and "democratize" the middle east have been a miserable failure. Furthermore, taking sides in their internal squabbles and revolutions is always a loss, because, and follow me here, in almost every case, both sides are the "bad" guys.

It's time to cut our losses in the Islamic world and leave it to rot. To do otherwise would be to do the same thing yet again with expectations of a different result.

How Should We Respond to the 9/11 Embassy Attacks?

Yesterday, on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11/01 attacks, Muslims in Egypt and Libya stormed the U.S. embassy in Cairo and the U.S. Consulate building in Benghazi. In Cairo, the American flag at the embassy was taken down and burned in an anti-American protest, while the Benghazi attack was more serious; the Ambassador to Libya, along with three other embassy staff, were killed in a rocket attack there.

Both incidents were clearly religiously motivated; in Egypt, a flag with the phrase "There is no god but God and Muhammad is his prophet," was raised in place of the American flag. According to reports, both attacks were triggered by a pair of U.S.-made films which depict the Muslim prophet Muhammad in an unflattering light. Ironically, in the case of the incident in Egypt, the perpetrators were affiliated with the same group that started a successful revolt against Egyptian President Mubarak last year; a revolt that the United States supported. And, since the Libyan revolt that toppled Muammar Qaddafi began in Benghazi, it's also highly likely that the people we provided military assistance to in that country last year are the same group that killed our ambassador.

In response, President Obama has issued a statement condemning the attacks. It is unclear what other actions, if any, will be taken by the United States. The real question, in my mind, is what should our response be? One of the regular writers for Ace of Spades, a popular right-wing blog, asks the question "So, when do the airstrikes start?" The comments in the post generally seem in favor; with one commenter suggesting that we "Pick the worst sack of shit, nothing to offer islamic country (I know, that's a long list to pick from) and nuke the ever loving shit out of it." But is such a response appropriate?

First, we need to acknowledge that the attacks themselves were unjustified, and that Islamic violence is a very real problem. We can try to be politically correct all day, but the tendency of Muslims to fly into a barbaric murder-rage every time someone insults their religion is at this point well established. For what a rational response to someone mocking your religion looks like, see this response to the LDS-mocking (and critically-acclaimed) musical "The Book of Mormon," written by Michael Otterson, the Head of Public Affairs of the Mormon church.

With that out of the way, does it really make sense to rain hellfire and damnation down on Egypt and Libya? It would certainly be cathartic, and to a certain extent we may even be able to rationalize it, but I think that a more muted approach may be better. Certainly, the perpetrators of the assassination in Benghazi should be located and dealt with, but rather than carpet-bombing an entire city, perhaps more strategic and precision means could be employed. And maybe we should take this opportunity to give these barbarians what they claim to want: an end to U.S. intervention. Close the embassies, cut off all foreign aid to the region, and let them find someone else to focus their rage against. Meddling in the affairs of other nations is partly what got us into this mess; maybe we should take this as an opportunity to let the rest of the world handle its own business for a change.

Failure of Leadership or of Philosophy?

On "Meet the Press" Sunday, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told interviewer David Gregory that there are "A number of things" about the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) that he likes, and that he has no intention of attempting to totally overturn the law. Among the things he would like to keep are regulations requiring insurers to cover individuals with pre-existing conditions and requirements that allow children to remain on parents' plans well into their 20's.

So, to all of the Republicans out there who insist to libertarians and independents that we simply must vote Republican in part to get rid of Obamacare, I offer this as a rebuttal. Obamacare, or some version of federally-managed healthcare is here to stay. Republicans as a whole have zero intention of scaling back the federal government; they just want to be the ones in charge.

I'd also like to point out a few statements from this interview. First, Romney states "Well, I'm not getting rid of all of healthcare reform," and then later in the interview reiterates this comment with an assertion that he wants to replace Obamacare with his own plan. This is irksome because, as I have pointed out before, the President is not a legislator. His Constitutional duty is to enforce the Constitutional legislation passed by the Congress. Over the past hundred years, we have allowed far too much power to shift to the Executive branch, and now when a presidential candidate talks about all of the legislating he is going to do, we just accept it. Such a role is unconstitutional and invests far too much power in a single executive. Our founders knew of this danger, but it is a lesson that we have forgotten.

This discussion can be used to make a larger point as well. Many pundits have spoken of Obama's failed leadership, be it in job creation, debt, foreign affairs, or domestic policy. And while I agree that our current President is severely lacking when it comes to leadership ability, I do not think that this personal failure is the real reason for his failure as a president - the real failure is the failure of Obama's political philosophy, which is the philosophy of more centralized government. Unfortunately, Mitt Romney seems to share much of this philosophy, he just thinks that things will be better under his leadership. And on the surface, he is probably correct; as an effective businessman, Romney possesses the managerial skills to make some improvements to the economy, which is forefront in everyone's mind. Unfortunately, without a serious change in philosophy, those effects will not be as significant or as long-lasting as they could be. The bottom line is that it is the philosophy of central planning and big government that is the failure, not just the current occupant of the White House. Every day, Mitt Romney finds a way to remind me that this is not a concept that he grasps, and in so doing, he gives me less hope for a significant change should he win in November.

John Kerry, Foreign Policy, and Four More Years of Having Killed Bin Laden

For his speech to the Democratic National Convention last night, failed presidential candidate and Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry prepared remarks dealing primarily with President Obama's foreign policy record. Although there is no mention of Obama's many gaffes with foreign leaders (such as the DVD set given to British PM Gordon Brown that would only play in the US, or the "reset" button given to Russia that was misspelled), they do highlight some of Obama's other, more military actions.

With regards to the U.S.-led airstrikes which helped to topple Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi, Kerry's remarks state that "When a brutal dictator promised to kill his own people ‘like dogs', President Obama enlisted our allies, built the coalition, shared the burden -- so that today, without a single American casualty -- Muammar Qaddafi is gone and Libya is free." What Kerry does not mention is that the airstrikes were ordered without Congressional authorization, a violation of U.S. law. So when Obama "enlisted our allies" and "built the coalition" he failed to enlist the approval and support of the only people that legally matter.

Kerry also refers to Obama as "a commander in chief who gives our troops the tools and training they need in war -- the honor and help they've earned when they come home. A man who will never ask other men and women to fight a war without a plan to win the peace." (emphasis added). And yet, as I have highlighted here on several occasions, there is a general consensus among military leaders that the current campaign in Afghanistan has no real objective, and in a very real sense has been more or less forgotten. The war in Afghanistan may be Bush's war, but since he has chosen to extend it, Obama is, in fact, "ask[ing] other men and women to fight in a war without a plan to win the peace."

And finally, what would a foreign policy speech be without yet another reference to bin Laden's death? According to Kerry, we should "Ask Osama Bin Laden if he's better off now than he was four years ago!" We get it, John - Osama bin Laden is dead. We also know that senior adviser Valerie Jarrett nixed the operation at least three times, and that in the end, then-CIA Director Leon Panetta had to issue the kill order because Obama wouldn't commit. The bin Laden raid was conducted in spite of Obama's leadership, not because of it. Furthermore, while I'm glad bin Laden is dead, what does that matter in terms of Obama's re-election? Is he going to kill the guy again if he wins a second term? By dancing in the end zone over this, Obama has become the high-school jock with exactly one successful play who thinks it should set him for life. Sorry, Barry, but being president means more than assassinating a guy. My question isn't whether or not bin Laden is better off than he was four years ago, but whether my 320,000,000 fellow Americans are better off. And the answer to that question is a resounding no.

But I Thought Photo ID Was an Undue Burden

Last week, I wrote about a federal court striking down a Texas voter identification law, and highlighted that the two Constitutional amendments dealing with voting rights, the 15th and 19th, do not allow the general government to strike down voting laws for any reason that they wish, only those that abridge the right to vote based on race, gender, or status as a former slave.

Since most challenges to voter ID laws come from those affiliated with the Democratic party, many have pointed out the hypocrisy that the DNC has demonstrated in fighting against voter ID requirements while requiring a photo ID in order to enter their convention this week. I think this line of reasoning is certainly valid; after all, isn't the security of an election at least as important as the security of a gathering of politicians?

Yesterday, I went by my optometrist's office to pick up some paperwork. On the reception window was a sign notifying patients that photo ID was required in order to be seen by the doctor. The sign further explained that the requirement was intended to comply with federal regulations. Curious, I decided to check out the requirement, and found the following story online:

Walking into the doctor’s office, I was surprised to see a new sign in front of the receptionist, which read:

“Red Flag Identity Theft Rule We are now required by law to ask for a Photo ID at the time of each visit. Please have your Photo ID ready for the receptionist to scan.”

As an avid bicyclist, I wasn’t carrying a driver’s license.

“I’m sorry, we’ll have to reschedule you,” said the receptionist. “We need to scan your ID before we can see you. It’s a new law.”

“No, I really don’t have one. I bicycle everywhere. I don’t even know where my old license is any more.”

She looked me in the eye and said, “Sorry. I suggest you get a photo ID. You need to have one to be seen.”

“What if I’m paying for my own visit, and not using health insurance?”

“We need to scan your ID and have it in your file or we can’t see you.”

“I don’t think it’s right to deny care to patients who don’t have a Photo ID,” I said.

The irony here is that the same government which claims that requiring an ID in order to vote places "strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor," sees no problem requiring doctors to check ID in order to see patients, meaning that if you are poor, apparently you should be denied medical care. And yet, the group that rails against voter ID laws tends to be the same group that classifies medical care as a basic human right. The cognitive dissonance is astounding.

It's almost like they are against voter ID laws for some other reason...

Democrats Place Taxpayer-Funded Abortions in Party Platform

According to the 2012 Democratic National Convention's official platform, not only are women entitled to the right to an abortion, but they shouldn't have to pay for it - even if the procedure is elective and not undertaken due to health risk. According to the official platform:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. (emphasis added)

I've been fairly open here about my pro-life position; I believe that the unborn are humans and are therefore entitled to the same kinds of protection afforded to those of us located outside of the womb. I also recognize that there are many who disagree with this position. What I cannot fathom, however, is the position that my money (that's right, it's mine. I earned it) should be confiscated at the point of the government's gun in order to pay for a woman's elective abortion. If you want to kill your unborn child, and claim that it's none of my business, fine. But to expect me to pay for something that I have a moral objection to under threat of force is criminal.

Ironically, the platform goes on to state:

We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. (emphasis added)

There is no place for government to get in the way. According to the Democratic Party, politicians need to get their hands out of a woman's uterus, but put them into your wallet, so that you can pay for what goes on in her uterus. It really is staggering.

Story via The Weekly Standard.