Oracle of Reason

Faith's empire is the world; its monarch, God; its ministers the priests; its slaves the people

Month: March, 2012

March 31, 2012

ObamaKelo

No one more than I wants to see the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. ObamaCare) struck down or repealed. The whole law itself is an immoral violation of individual rights and a vicious manner to ensure people obtain a service that should be bought and sold on the open market like any other product. The reason why health care costs have skyrocketed is clearly due to government intervention and, consequently, there are fewer choices and depreciated care which will only be made worse with the President’s new health care law.

The deliberations before the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this week, while impressive and heartening, in some ways left me thinking about the possibility of ObamaCare might actually be upheld. Like most other implemented statutes, the Affordable Care Act was enacted with the Commerce Clause cited as it’s justification. The rationale, as articulated by Solicitor General Verrilli, is that the primary method of payment of health care is insurance and Congress is taking action to ensure that people who do not have insurance obtain it since for the uninsured not to have it bears an unfair burden on the insured.

According to the Federalist Papers, the Commerce Clause is the means for Congress to regulate commerce among the several states only in so far as to preventing states from enacting trade restrictions and to restrain state power when it violates liberty. Under the Articles of Confederation, the federal government was so weak that at times states engaged in trade wars levying trade and immigration restrictions with little means to stop them that’s why there are prohibitions on such activities in the Constitution. The Commerce Clause is in place to address instances when states violate individual rights such as if states pass laws restricting the sale and possession of guns Congress can intervene to stop such actions. Thanks to the influence of the Progressive movement, in today’s legal culture the prevailing wisdom is that the Commerce Clause is the framework for justifying just about every act of Congress relating many activities to commercial activity.

The fact remains that in the scheme of the federal government the courts are to be the least politicized branch. Not only are they the one last institution that an individual can petition for redress if their rights have been violated but remain as one of the three branches to interpret the spirit and intent of the Constitution and the law. It would be a mistake to think that politics is the end all be all in terms of the law and legal decisions. The health care market in this country has never been the same since The New Deal. Prior to the event, health care was financed voluntarily where patients oft times would negotiate payments with their doctors and health insurance was usually available to the wealthy.

When the New Deal came about one facet of it was a tax credit enacted in the 1940′s for employers so they could give health insurance to their employees. Then in the 1960′s Medicare and Medicaid were enacted to pay for healthcare and the poor. In 1973 the Health Maintenance Organization Act was passed by Congress with the support of Senator Ted Kennedy at the urging of White House Domestic Affairs Director John Ehrlichman and Kaiser Permanente owner Edgar Kaiser in which the bill was signed into law by President Nixon.

The HMO Act not only mandated the fees, structure and coverage HMO’s would provide, but also doled out massive amounts of federal subsidies to insurance companies to provide, start or expand them. The subsidies were given in order to not only compensate insurance providers for the costs of complying with the HMO law but also to help pay for each HMO customer’s healthcare. This law along with the corporate income tax deduction for insurance of the 1940′s, the enactment of Medicare in the 1960′s and the HMO Act of the 1970′s individual choice in health insurance has slowly, but surely, been eliminated. Therefore, it is no surprise that the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) occurred and that during oral arguments that Solicitor General Verrilli argued that since insurance is the main method of paying for health care that the mandate was necessary to bring the uninsured into the market.

As far as the Constitutionality for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act there are grounds for the Court to decide that ObamaCare is valid and, unfortunately, the more I think about it the more I am coming to the realization that PPACA being upheld could be a reality. The best indication of this happening comes not from liberal blogs and news media but from Washington University Law School Professor Orin S. Kerr who used to clerk for Justice Anthony Kennedy.

In his assessment of the case itself, Kerr asserts that not only will Kennedy vote to uphold the mandate due to his concurring opinion in U.S. vs. Lopez but so will Chief Justice Roberts. Roberts subjected the Solicitor General to just as much grilling as his other 4 colleagues yet, oddly enough, he could vote to uphold. The best indication of what he may do comes from a New York Times article published two weeks ago that points out Roberts was very disturbed by the outcry from the court’s Americans United decision that struck down campaign finance rules. The Times points out:

The case will require the chief justice to choose between two competing instincts.

On the one hand, he views himself as a steward of the court’s prestige and authority, and he has called for incremental decisions from large majorities rather than broad but sharply divided rulings….

Chief Justice Roberts has embraced an array of assertive judicial projects that have interpreted the Constitution in ways that have fundamentally reshaped American law. The court he has led since 2005 has cut back on campaign spending limits, gun control laws, procedural protections for criminal defendants and the government’s ability to take account of race in decisions about employment and education.

Roberts’ core philosophy maybe one who tends to shy away from narrow majorities when making decisions favoring consensus ultimately grounded in pragmatism.

Reason Magazine published an interesting article during August of last year that points out that during questioning by the Senate, Roberts is quoted as saying the Court should exercise judicial modesty and may uphold ObamaCare as settled law like he viewed Roe vs. Wade. Like Kerr and the Reason article point out, Roberts embraced a sweeping view of the Necessary and Proper Clause in the U.S. vs. Comstock case involving the incarceration of sexually dangerous persons can remain incarcerated even after their sentences conclude.

I heard Rush Limbaugh this afternoon in which he thrashed a Washington Post opinion piece which made the case as to how ObamaCare could be upheld with the help of not only Justices Roberts and Kennedy but also Scalia too. Not only does the WaPo commentary author come to similar conclusions as I about Kennedy and Roberts he also mentions a point Limbaugh failed to mention. As it turns out, there is a lower court case headed by former Justice Antonin Scalia clerk Judge Jeffrey Sutton cited by the Administration 21 times in which Sutton’s appellate court decision was one of two that upheld the law.

If the Supreme Court does uphold ObamaCare I think it will be by a 6 to 3 vote with Roberts and Kennedy joining Court liberals. Though there have been studies done outlining that in the majority of cases where the side who was posed the most questions was the party that lost, I am having my doubts it will be that way this time. If ObamaCare is struck down, so much the better. But if it does survive that will actually turn out to be a good thing. If ObamaCare is upheld there will be a backlash the magnitude of what happened after the Court rendered its Kelo vs. City of New London decision.

With Obamacare declared Constitutional those on the Right will have the momentum to not only elect a Republican President but also elect a Republican Congress the target of such an outcome, of course, is PPACA along with the President’s ruinous economic policies. Ultimately it is unrealistic for anyone to guess the outcome of court cases since courts of law are not necessarily politically driven. None the less, I am confident that whatever the outcome of the challenges to the Affordable Care Act, the side favoring freedom will win.

Since the Administration cites insurance as the primary means of payment as a reason to mandate insurance, there is a segment of the population (albeit small) that negotiates their health care bills. I dated a nurse who did just that and, if a repeal of PPACA does not happen either legislatively or judicially, I look forward to seeing the court challenges brought by those whose ability negotiate their medical bills is now outlawed because of ObamaCare.

Leave a comment
March 29, 2012

Why ObamaCare Matters

It looks like the President’s health care law is getting the treatment it deserves. The 5 member conservative majority on the Supreme Court not only subjected the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. ObamaCare) to scrutiny but asked the necessary hard questions to the U.S. Solicitor General about the constitutionality not only of the penalty someone has to pay if they do not have health coverage but also the logic behind the individual mandate itself.

I got a big kick out of the weakness of Solicitor General Donald Verrilli’s stumbling and stammering throughout the entire cross examination. Justices Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Kennedy literally made mince-meat out of his arguments while Court liberals tried to assist Verilli and simultaneoulsy talk him up in an attempt to defend him.

The issue at hand with the case is not necessarily the constitutionality of the individual mandate and other rules in the health care law or whether or not the penalty for non-converage is a tax but the essential point to the whole case is severability. Each of the 5 conservative justices seem to be in agreement that, in one way or another, the individual penalty and mandate is unconstitutional. When it comes to severability this is where things get interesting.

Usually when Congress passes a law in anticipation of a court challenge the legislative body inserts a severability provision in it asserting that if one section of the law is struck down other parts of it will stand. In the case of the President’s health care law, Congress neglected to put such a provision in it. This being the case my guess is the entire law itself will fall despite the court’s reluctance to do so. One attorney who reviewed Florida Federal Judge Roger Vinson’s opinion striking down Obamacare observed that in Section 1501 of the PPACA the individual mandate is deemed essential to the entire law’s ability to function.

Based on the court’s review today of the severability of the PPACA, I suspect that ultimately the Supreme Court will strike down the law in its entirety. For the court not to invalidate other provisions would mean an escalation in taxes and healthcare costs. I can only imagine the ballooning in insurance premiums if not the outright collapse of the private insurance market if the statute outlawing insurance companies from taking into account pre existing conditions remains.

What is remarkable is that the President has kept a low profile during the deliberations. The fact that the Administration has no back up plan should PPACA be struck down, the law was passed knowing conservatives made up the majority of Justices on the Supreme Court, the lack of a severability clause, and Verilli went into the case so poorly prepared and inarticulate leads me to conclude that the Obama Administration is not and never was serious. It’s obvious that the Democrats enacted this in the shadow of mid-term elections to give people a new entitlement in hopes of fending off Republicans taking over Congress, simultaneously making the case for one-party rule with the end goal to help ensure Obama’s re-election and not out of any conviction to (in their minds) help people who can’t afford health care.

Is it any wonder that Obama’s base is more than upset not only at Verrilli’s conduct but at the President’s overall performance? This goes to show that (rightly so) this Train Wreck will be (figuratively speaking) one more nail in his coffin come November 2012. Obama has done so much to alienate his base the Supreme Court striking down one of Obama’s signature efforts along with sagging economic and poll numbers will literally be a political death blow from which the President will never recover.

I also give an honorable mention for the demise of ObamaCare to libertarian lawyer Randy Barnett. Barnett blogged about PPACA and raised numerous legal problems and constitutional arguments against it on his blog as well as in internet chatrooms beginning before the ink from Obama’s signature on the Affordable Care Act was dry. In less than a year Barnett’s legal theories on the matter ended up in Judicial decisions.

With the demise of ObamaCare the Left will be down but not out. Fortunately, and as one columnist observed, the effects of a decision striking down PPACA will be as such that many other things enacted via the Commerce Clause could come under scrutiny too. The fact that the Justices noted on numerous occasions that the Federal Government is delegated enumerated powers granted by the Constitution I am optimistic that the idea that the laws of the land are limits on government power could make a comeback in a big way. With the demise of such a major piece of legislation the bar for Congress passing new laws citing the Commerce Clause will be much higher and many may not be able withstand court challenges as much as they used to.

However, if there is to be a debate about the future of American health care let it begin here. My mother was a nurse for over 30 years in which during her time in the field she was around before Medicare and Medicaid were enacted. Aside from the fact that insurance was much cheaper before the federal government took up health care for the elderly and poor, there were state and local programs along with private charity hospitals and clinics that gave good quality care to people who needed it and may not have had insurance. When Medicare and Medicaid were implemented, all of those clinics along with state and local programs disappeared. The mechanism used to help others prior to Medicare and Medicaid was perverted from an act of charity into force. This is something my mother would not ever admit and I think most Americans should come to realize that the care of others should be a true act of charity grounded in a personal choice rather than a political act.

1 comment
March 24, 2012

Bill Maher is Right

A few days ago, actor Robert DeNiro made a quip during a campaign fundraiser for President Obama:

Callista Gingrich. Karen Santorum. Ann Romney. Now do you really think our country is ready for a white first lady?

As a result of this joke former House Speaker and Republican Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich criticized DeNiro’s statement. On Piers Morgan’s CNN program, Gingrich noted the hypocrisy of DeNiro’s joke. Newt stated that while the Left and news media jumped all over Rush Limbaugh for calling Reproductive Rights activist and attorney Sandra Fluke a slut but they give DeNiro a pass.

Michelle Obama’s Press Secretary called DeNiro’s remarks inappropriate and Robert DeNiro later apologized.

A few days ago The New York Times published a very thoughtful column by HBO Real Time host Bill Maher making the case that not only for a truce from remarks made by people on the Left and Right but also that each side needs to stop playing tit-for-tat in terms of when someone in the media or entertainment field makes dumb statements.

Rush’s and DeNiro’s statements were inappropriate and Bill Maher has has made his share of dumb remarks too. All three gentlemen were right to apologize but Maher is right in that it’s time for each side to stop playing the Political Correctness game.

An important hallmark of free speech is the right of free discourse and, like Maher points out, we do not want to end up like Canada or have our speech degenerate into Orwellian Doublespeak where people are so afraid to say anything on their minds since it might hurt someone’s sensibilities that free speech in the U.S. is dumbed down to almost nothing.

In short, Bill Maher is (rightly) stating it’s time to grow up.

Leave a comment
March 21, 2012

Rick Santorum: Enemy of Liberty

Despite their riding the waive of unpopularity of the Obama Administration’s economic policies I thought Congressional Republicans forgot the reason why they were put in near control of the U.S. Congress to begin with. In the shadow of the Supreme Court on the verge of taking up the Democrats’ healthcare law, Republicans on the Hill will be taking up repealing all or parts of the Affordable Care Act. While I do not like the timing on this as I would have preferred them taking up the health care issue earlier, however, since the Supreme Court case puts the issue freshly in people’s minds putting off addressing Obamacare until now might help slingshot the issue to the forefront in the Presidential race.

In 2010 it looked as if the Republicans had learned the lessons they from their 1994 Revolution flopping and had grown some backbone. It seemed that the champions of limited government and individual freedom were finally the victors in November. No such luck and with the Republican Presidential nomination race GOP voters feel that not only are all four of the candidates boring and uninspiring but also mealy-mouthed, has-been compromisers who are used to making empty promises and will deliver again once elected.

Former Pennsylvania U.S. Senator Rick Santorum is the second place holder in terms of votes and delegates, demonstrates the kind of candidate the Republican Party should not nominate and is an example of what I mean. He has received considerable attention due to the string of Primary wins he has obtained in the Southern U.S. but also his near victory against Mitt Romney in his home state of Michigan. Party social conservatives are quite happy with Santorum’s record in Congress as well as his focus on issues of importance to them such as banning gay marriage, abortion, and (more recently) pornography.

Since (as Ayn Rand points out) capitalism is the only social system based on the recognition of individual rights, Santorum is, at best, an enemy of liberty because of what he stands for. At first glance he seems to embrace a decent amount of economic freedom. His economic plan calls for enacting more free trade agreements, a host of tax cuts, and entitlement reforms but what I find troubling is his reasoning behind taking such stances.

One section of Santorum’s website states: Senator Santorum believes that at its core, America is a moral enterprise, but that foundation is quickly eroding. As President, Rick Santorum commits to rebuild that foundation and lead the way on restoring traditional American values. It is underneath the section of the website I found this quote that he lists specific proposals grounded in typical social conservatism. Essentially, Rick Santorum wants to maintain the strength and power of the nation in which free enterprise is the means of achieving the ends of a strong economy which will mean a strong people obtained for the common good ultimately through faith.

As a result of his outlook Santorum holds little regard for individual rights and has openly reeled against personal choice on a number of issues. Like any conservative Rick Santorum is anti-abortion and has made some of the most outlandish accusations and comments. For example, in 2003, Santorum compared homosexuals to pedophiles, just recently he compared the dissemination of contraception with promoting sexual promiscuity, and also reeled against the freedom of the internet calling for its regulation.

New York Times columnist David Brooks put the right definition of Santorum’s philosophy in an opinion piece published January of this year. Brooks stated:

Communities breed character. Santorum argues that government cannot be agnostic about the character of its citizens because the less disciplined the people are, the more government must step in to provide order.

The only time it is proper for government to step in to provide order is when government identifies and is called upon to halt threats to the rights of the innocent such as in cases of when criminals burglarize homes, rape innocent women, rob people for money at gun point, or if someone is in the process or on the verge of conducting an act of terrorism. It is not government’s role to play the role of parent in terms of the realm of peaceful, personal, individual choice.

In a 2008 interview, Santorum is quoted as saying:

There is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.

If Santorum understood the nature of rights he would know that rights are an extension of individualism. It took hundreds of years of development in philosophy and law in order for Western societies to have the civilization we have today. Such notions enabled the overthrow of monarchs which rendered much of the decision making on the part of monarchs and nation-states to the governed. The Declaration of Independence is the best expression of such sentiments and established the foundation of the guiding philosophy of the United States which is one based on individual rights.

Since Senator Santorum is against the idea of individualism, any semblance of freedom in conservative thought as well as in the Republican Party, and the influence of the Tea Party it makes sense that he takes the policy stances he does. He may embrace certain issues related to liberty but only because they are viewed by him as a means to an end for the society he envisions.

I suppose the most refreshing thing about the Republican contest for President is that Rick Santorum is still behind Romney in terms of delegate count and Primary Election wins. The disappointing aspect of the race is that Mitt Romney is the victor and his outlook is just as anti-freedom as Santorum. Santorum can still have an impact as being the second highest vote getter but the more I watch Santorum’s campaign the more it reminds me of Pat Buchanan’s 1992 campaign against President George H.W. Bush. If so that means any influence Santorum has in the GOP will quickly disappear because of his losses and, hopefully, spells a potential comeback for Newt Gingrich.

Leave a comment
March 19, 2012

Racism, The Left, and Group Rights

There has been a storm of controversy over a 5 day old exchange between CNN correspondent Soledad O’Brien and Breitbart.com’s Joel Pollack. Joel Pollack appeared on a panel discussion show on CNN to field questions about a 1991 video his company uncovered where Barack Obama who was a law student at the time in which Obama introduced and then embraced Harvard Law School Professor Derrick Bell.

This video is the result of Andrew Breitbart who (before his tragic death earlier this month) announced at a national conference last year that his company had obtained videos that would expose the hard-left ideology of the President. Breitbart felt it was important at the time because he felt the news media did not do a proper investigation of Barack Obama and felt it was necessary to properly scrutinize Obama’s past for anything of a suspicious nature. An example of this is when then President-Elect Obama distanced himself from United Church of Christ minister Jeremiah Wright after it was revealed that Wright (who is the minister of the Congregationalist Church the President attended in Chicago) told his congregation that they should Goddamn America and that the U.S. Government was behind the 9/11 attacks.

During the interview O’Brien became defensive and belittling towards Pollack. He brought to light questionable issues related to Bell’s past including a legal doctrine he culminated known as Critical Race Theory (CRT). When Pollack asked O’Brien to explain CRT she stated:

Critical race theory looks into the intersection of race and politics and the law and as a legal academic who would study this and write about it, [Bell] would advance the theory about what exactly happened when the law was examined in terms of racial politics.

Soledad O’Brien had a Emory University Professor Dorothy Brown on her program the next day to explain what Critical Race Theory is. However, Brown’s explanation did not match what she actually wrote about CRT. Citing a Rightsphere post on the subject, The Daily Caller points out that Brown explains Critical Race Theory in her book Fighting Racism in the Twenty First Century as follows:

Although CRT does not employ a single methodology, it seeks to highlight the ways in which the law is not neutral and objective, but designed to support White supremacy and the subordination of people of color.

When Joel Pollack explained that Critical Race Theory is all about white supremacy that holds that civil rights laws are ineffective, that racial equality is impossible, because the legal and Constitutional in America is white supremacist. Soledad O’Brien cut him down saying: [CRT] has nothing to do with that stuff. However, if you look at the above explanation by Professor Brown and compare it to what Pollack said Pollack’s explanation is ultimately correct.

A 1993 article from The New Republic reveals that Bell’s point of view was very controversial, even for the The New Republic reporter. The reporter observed that Derrick Bell’s bottom line is: if it comforts whites, it’s bad; if it comforts blacks–i.e., Farrakhan–it’s good.

A 1987 interview in The New York Times reveals further how much emphasis Bell used collective guilt in order to make his point:

Even liberal white scholars have to imagine oppression, and have to imagine that they are not oppressors. Black people have stories and experiences that provide the basis not only for their lives but for their scholarship.” Does he then consider it impossible for white scholars to understand and to teach on this issue? ”It’s not that they can’t, but they do face barriers to their ability to explain the reality of racism in America.

Derrick Bell’s overall theory is essentially tearing down the very system that Civil Rights leaders tried to work from within to implement change and (in theory) start over. In other words, scrap Western Civilization because group rights demand it as a matter of justice. Bell’s writings are definitely grounded in Marxism and what he is doing is something complimentary to the efforts of The Frankfurt School which was a Marxist-oriented school of social theory and philosophy founded during the 1930′s in Frankfurt Germany. This school of thought migrated to Columbia University in New York mainly due to Hitler’s rise to power in which most of the participants were Jewish and all were Communists. Rather than focus on philosophy and social theory, however, Bell’s vantage point was legal theory.

I did not like the manner in which Pollack presented himself. The Left and it’s allies in the media try to make those on The Right out to be racists, conspiracy theorists, or sensationalists and that’s what Soledad and some on the discussion panel tried to do. I did not like the tone of Pollack’s voice and his overall presentation was (in my view) weak. On the other hand, his efforts were not fruitless since the interview raised the issue about not only the radicals Obama associated with in his youth but also the idiotic things being taught in colleges and universities thanks to Leftist influence.

If Pollack asserted that the bombshell was not just Obama’s association with Derrick Bell but also how his Critical Race Theory is a group-oriented theory that looks at people in terms of groups rather than individuals I think he would have been able to shut down O’Brien and other leftists who participated in the panel discussion. Group rights is racism in which racism is another form of collectivism. In theory, decisions made based on it is based soley on the group of people in which the race of the group is primarily taken when decisions are made because it is assumed that the group singled out has been wronged in the past. Therefore, special considerations or reparations must be made to compensate for sins of the past.

In reality, group rights pits people of different sexes, races or creeds against each other in order to see which group will hold the reins of power or seek to get what they feel they are entitled to at someone else’s expense. The ultimate end of such conflict is wiping out any semblance of individuality in favor of the needs of the group. In terms of Derrick Bell he was clearly in favor of tearing down white people in order to achieve racial equality for black people even if it meant destroying Western Civilization and the institutions erected around it (in this case the legal system) to do so.

Fortunately, the issue of Critical Race Theory and how O’Brien treated Pollack has gone viral and O’Brien has ended up with egg on her face. There was not much of anything that made the video notable but the fact that Pollack was proven right about CRT despite O’Brien and other panelist’s attempts to smear him, lie about Critical Race Theory and belittle his efforts goes to show not only how the Left has double standards in terms of what constitutes racism but how their tactics really are a way to avoid engagement when it comes to ideas.

Leave a comment
March 16, 2012

The Nazi Influences of Islamic Terror

My father’s side of my family lived in Italy when Benito Mussolini was dictator. When Il Duce‘s regime was on the verge of collapse Hitler sent troops into Italy making the country’s government a puppet to Nazi Germany. While growing up my father told my brother and I of numerous atrocities Nazi soldiers committed against the people of my dad’s southern Italian hometown. As it turns out once Hitler’s Germany fell, Nazism’s influence did not end up in the dustbin of history where it belonged. Instead Nazism migrated to the Middle East thanks, in large part, to a little known Muslim cleric named Muhammed Amin al-Husseini who not only contributed to the radicalization of Muslims but also to the Holocaust itself.

Future of Freedom Foundation President Jacob Hornberger is right to scold FDR and Churchill for refusing to allow Jews to migrate out of Nazi Germany in order to settle in England and the United States. However, his fundamental mistake is attributing both leader’s refusal to allow Jewish migration from Germany and it’s occupied territories as a primary reason for the Holocaust. While immoral, FDR and Churchill’s refusal to accept European Jews in Nazi captivity was not the sole reason for Hitler carrying out his Final Solution. It is highly unlikely Hitler would have released the Jews he imprisoned and Muhammed Amin al-Husseini may have played a central role in Hitler’s change of plans regarding incarcerated Jews. Husseini’s influence was significant at the time. He was awarded the rank of General in the Nazi SS by Heinrich Himmler himself and convinced Fascist leaders in other European countries (possibly including Hitler) to cancel plans of forced repatriation of their Jewish populations in which European Jews were redirected to concentration camps.

Prior to his activities in Nazi Germany Husseini was appointed Grand Mufti of Palestine by the British government to be a liaison to regional Muslims so they would not become violent and to help reinforce or communicate British policies to them. However, after being charged with inciting riots among Muslims and while sought for arrest by British troops for his encouraging violence, Husseini escaped to Syria continuing his anti-British activities even going so far as to instigate a coup in Iraq that involved Saddam Hussein’s uncle Kairallah Talfah. Husseini eventually traveled to Europe in which he was not only able to meet with Benito Mussolini but also with Adolf Hitler.

In exchange for guarantees of a Muslim state in the Middle East Husseini agreed to help German Nazis in their cause since their goals were similar. Germany was in need of troops in which the country suffered serious losses during the war especially after Hitler’s failed attempt to conquer Russia. Husseini subsequently recruited Balkan and Soviet Muslims for membership in regiments of the Nazi SS. He not only encouraged efforts by European Fascist leaders to slaughter Jews in captivity and recruited Muslims for the Nazi German armed forces but Husseini also went so far as to go on radio programs funded by the German government. The radio broadcasts were transmitted to the Middle East urging Muslims to kill Jews and rebel against the British because to do so pleases Allah. In one broadcast Husseini said:

Arise, Oh Sons of Arabia! Fight for your sacred rights. Slaughter Jews wherever you find them. Their spilled blood pleases Allah, our history and our religion. That will save our honor.

When the Nazis were defeated Muhammad al-Husseini escaped to Egypt where he was given a hero’s welcome. He continued his activism and in 1946 he resumed his activism working closely with the Nazi sympathizing Young Egypt group and at one point helped raise money for the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Support for Nazism among Muslims was not only limited to Husseini. Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna was a Nazi sympathizer, so was Syrian Ba’ath Party founder Sami al-Joundi who openly lauded Nazism and helped contribute to the translating Nazi literature (including Mein Kampf) into Arabic. Gamal Abdel Nasser and his friend and fellow future Egyptian President Anwar Sadat both supported Hitler’s efforts and were members of Young Egypt too. In an open letter to Adolf Hitler whom he assumed was still alive that was published in a local Egyptian periodical September 18, 1953, Sadat is quoted as saying:

My dear Hitler,

I congratulate you from the bottom of my heart. Even if you appear to have been defeated, in reality you are the victor. You succeeded in creating dissensions between Churchill, the old man, and his allies, the Sons of Satan.

Germany will win because her existence is necessary to preserve the world balance. Germany will be reborn in spite of the Western and Eastern powers. There will be no peace unless Germany once again becomes what she was.

Egypt’s dirty little secret is that quite a few Nazis took up refuge there. Many continued pro-Nazi/anti-Semitic activities including (but not limited to) training the Egyptian military and local police forces. Joseph Goebbels confidant Johann Von Leers, for example, arrived in Egypt in the 1950′s and was appointed information minister by Gamal Abdel Nasser in which Von Leers primarily managed anti-Israel propaganda. In 2009 Simon Weisenthal Nazi hunters discovered that Austrian-born concentration camp doctor Aribert Heim (known as the Butcher of Mauthausen) resided in Cairo until his death in 1960 in which both Heim and Von Leers converted to Islam.

An internet search for pictures of Hamas and Hezbollah rallies reveals both group’s military members saluting in a Nazi-style manner. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and other anti-Semitic propaganda have been produced and broadcast as live re-enactments on Gaza TV stations. Pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories are published and sold openly not only in Gaza, but also in Syria, Libya under Ghaddafi and Iraq under Saddam Hussein. All of this is the result of the efforts of one man who also contributed to Muslim radicalization which, in turn, results in Islamic terrorism against the United States, Europe, and Israel.

Husseini is ultimately responsible not only for the perpetuation of anti-Semitism and conspiracy theories among the Middle East’s Muslim population but also for helping further the resurgence of jihadism in Islam. The activities of two other groups the Wahhabis in the Sunni sect and the Muslim Brotherhood among the Sunnis and Shi’ites help support Islamic jihad too. As a result of both group’s efforts along with Husseini’s influence, leaders and clerics in the Middle East who purport jihadism are able to easily identify and select Muslims ripe to be manipulated into being terrorists. More recently, thanks to the internet some can be radicalized just by watching a couple of YouTube videos which is what happened to Times Square car bomber Faisal Shahzad.

A recent British television documentary about Husseini points out that Muslims in the region were initially wronged by the English government issuing the Balfour Declaration after the English assured regional Arabs they would have their own countries. In my opinion, the U.K. occupation of the region itself was a mistake. Ultimately the English ended up giving Palestinian Muslims just about everything they wanted including curbing Jewish migration. But, as the film points out, Husseini made a conscious, informed choice to conduct his abominable activities ultimately grounded in his hatred and anger which were sanctioned by his devout religious beliefs.

It is because of the influence of people such as Husseini, groups like the Wahhabis and Muslim Brotherhood who are enabled from the financing both groups receive from regimes like Iran and Saudi Arabia, the bloody history of Islam and the religion’s scripture makes it abundantly clear that the reason for Islamic terrorism is due to their religion as well as influences imported from Nazi Germany. The Quran and the Hadith are to be read together as they direct the ummah to go to war against and kill infidels (i.e. non-Muslims) if they refuse to convert or submit to dhimmitude. Let me stress that not everyone who converts to Islam or is a Muslim is a terrorist or a Fascist. However, if you want to understand the root cause of Muslim aggression you need look no further than Islam’s holy texts and the influence of people like Muhammad Amin al-Husseini.

Like I indicated earlier, my family saw numerous people in their hometown in Italy arrested, tortured and even executed by Nazi German soldiers. If Islamist regimes and groups they support are successful in conquering Western Civilization imagine what my family went through and people like ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali experienced will be done on a grand scale. Nazism’s influence shifted to the Middle East thanks to a man PLO leader Yasser Arafat (al-Husseini’s nephew) called a hero. The reason for the popularity of Nazism in Islamic culture is due in large part to the authoritarian inclinations of both philosophies in addition to the ardent anti-Semitism that is the basis for Nazism and Islam’s books sanction. The evil and conspiratorial views Hitler espoused and heavily promoted by Husseini prevail in much of the Arab world today and, unfortunately, such points of view can be seen in leftist and (in some cases) libertarian literature including both camp’s social and intellectual circles.

The intermingling of Nazism, Communism, and Islam results in the perpetration of a victimization mythology as well. From the Nazi perspective Muslims are victims of exploitation at the hands of the Jews. To the Communist, Muslims are victims of oppression or exploitation at the hands of the wealthy capitalist. The majority of wealthy capitalists, of course, being Jews and it is no surprise that anti-Semitism is rooted heavily in leftist thought as much as it is in Nazi philosophy. All three philosophies encompass a totalitarian vision of a world where the individual’s will is subordinated to a collective consciousness be it the state or Allah.

I will never understand libertarians whose philosophy supports retaliation against unprovoked attacks against individuals and countries that do so yet ignore the reality that Islamists are at war with the West due to the mandates of their religion. Libertarians insist that Islamic terrorism and violence is the result of U.S. foreign policy despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. But if they are individualists why are libertarians siding with groups, like Hamas? Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad not only seek to destroy Israel by any means necessary, kill it’s Jewish population and take the Islamic view to subordinate mankind to Islam by force or deception all of which is sanctioned by their faith. It makes no sense for libertarians to champion the cause of Gaza Palestinians since they are in the situation they are in because of Hamas and not Israel. It is high time for libertarians to face the truth they continuously claim they want to know. The fact is Islam and its Nazi influences (not U.S. foreign policy) is the sole reason for terrorism on the part of Muslims. If they do not wake up, libertarians will be no better than the Nazi and even Communist enablers of Islamists and regimes that support them since they made the demise of Western Civilization possible.

The United States went to war against Nazism before and it is doing so again. The lessons of the past and the events of today surrounding Islamic terror and the influences it draws from makes conflict with Islamist groups and regimes that support them not only legitimate in terms of retaliatory force but ever more evident if not outright urgent if Western Civilization is to survive. Libertarians would do well to keep the points I have raised in mind since as a result of the facts outlined in this essay they can no longer claim that events like what happened on September 11, 2001 and recent events involving homegrown jihadism are the result of U.S. foreign policy.

Leave a comment
March 14, 2012

Santorum’s one-two punch

The final results are in and congratulations to Rick Santorum for winning the Republican primaries in Mississippi and Alabama. Despite this setback, Newt Gingrich has pledged to press on and, in a way, I think he should. As a result of these wins, Rick Santorum can no longer claim that Gingrich siphons votes away from him and Newt’s persistence helps to define him as opposed to Romney and Santorum.

Both Romney and Santorum offer too many things in their past for Obama to pick from to use against them. Rick Santorum because of his cultural conservatism, support of ear marks, as well as his endorsing Arlen Specter for re-election in 2006. Mitt Romney for his support of higher taxes, stricter gun control laws, cap and trade legislation for Massachusetts, and Massachusetts health care law (a.k.a. Romneycare) that President Obama and Congressional Democrats admitted they modeled their health care law that Romney himself urged Democrats to pass then later lied denying that he did.

In addition to being the most intelligent, Newt Gingrich is the candidate with the least amount of baggage out of all of his Republican rivals and has shown himself to be a consistent, forceful spokesman and effective debater. So much so that his statements have also gotten under the skin of President Obama. He recently made the President react defensively as exampled by Obama’s Energy Secretary Steven Chu backing off his initial statement that he wanted gas prices to go higher. The fact that Newt Gingrich came in second in both primaries demonstrates he still has appeal and the fact that both Newt and Santorum were the top two vote getters Tuesday demonstrates the conservative base of the party does not want Mitt Romney to be the Republican nominee but are split on the kind of conservative they want. Santorum is an outspoken social conservative while Gingirch is drawing support GOP economic conservatives, foreign policy hawks and libertarians.

In addition to the fact that he has raised more money, has more delegates, and has more endorsements than Santorum, the best and only reason that Newt should stay in is that he is far and away a much better qualified candidate than his rivals. Hopefully, his pick up of delegates as he continues his campaign will be enough for Gingrich to clinch the nomination, force either Romney or Santorum to make concessions to Newt if Satorum or Romney urge him to pull out or result in an open/brokered Republican convention in June.

It will continue to be a long road for the Republican nomination but, ultimately, I think the fire each of the candidates experiences on the campaign trail will make them better Chief Executives down the road. None the less, neither of the top three candidates has a clear path to the nomination and that is ample reason for Gingrich to remain.

Leave a comment
March 13, 2012

Confession of a Right Wing Secularist

I am sure it will be a quandry for some as to why the author of these blog posts has opted to register and vote Republican rather than Democrat or even Libertarian. While I am an Objectivist (which is an atheistic philosophy), despite my registration, I make up my own mind as to whom I will vote for. I was a Libertarian for 12 years but in recent years my leanings have been for the Republican Party. Aside from the party’s anti-abortion, anti-stem cell research and pro-intelligent design stances, I find the GOP to be a good fit because it stands for economic and personal freedom even though it may not do so consistently.

Being an atheist does not automatically make one a socialist or a Communist. Like Ayn Rand I am as much a defender of capitalism as much as I am a defender of secularism. Conservatives have demonized secularism as something indicative of the left. However, what secularism is is the acknowledgement that the church and state are to remain seperate in terms of public policy leaving the individual free to pursue his or her course of action including in the realm of religion.

Rand rightly understood that religion and capitalism are incompatible and while some of the New Atheists are beginning to realize that free markets are necessary, they still subscribe to certain altruistic beliefs that the religious do. For example, some atheists subscribe to the left’s second cause celebre environmentalism (i.e. sacrifice of man to nature) or to a similar belief that is in Christianity that one has to help their fellow man whether they deserve it or not.

There is also the threat of fundamentalist Islam too in which what the U.S. saw on September 11th, 2001 was an extension of the true beliefs in the religion itself. Unfortunately and in the strictest sense, Muslims are required to make war upon non-Muslims until and unless they convert to Islam. Christians and Jews that do not are to be forced to pay a poll tax to the caliphate and considered second class citizens. Atheists (like myself) are to be executed. By and large it is Republican candidates that have the best record on national defense and national security issues. I wish I did not have to resort to tactical voting but until and unless things change Republican candidates will be the first whom I will consider siding with when casting ballots.

The Right in the United States went through a major change during the Woodrow Wilson years. Traditionally the Democratic Party was the party that upheld Jeffersonian ideals of limited government and individual liberty. With Woodrow Wilson’s candidacy Socialists migrated into the Democratic Party and the lock they and their ideas had on the Democrats was solidified with F.D.R. With socialism replacing classical liberalism in the Democratic Party, the Republicans started to pick up on the ideas of liberty where many libertarians on the Right made common cause with conservatives to unite in coalition under the Republican banner.

The Right in this country has taken a very freedom-oriented outlook in politics and economics and is not afraid to face reality when it comes to it. That is where my politics and point of view is from.

Leave a comment
March 7, 2012

Newt Gingrich is our best chance

In Eastern and Western philosophy there are two forces usually at work against one another which (it is assumed) helps bring balance to the world. In Asian philosophy it is the conflict between Yin and Yang. In Chrisitianity the conflict is between the ideas of Thomas Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo while in secular philosophy the conflict is between the outlook of Aristotle and Plato.

In her book The Future and it’s Enemnies, Virginia Postrel outlines the confict between the dynamists and the stasists. Dynamists embace a world of choice and competition which includes economic prosperity, technological progress and cultural innovation. Stasists, on the other hand, envision a society that upholds the status quo, while embacing the values of a simpler past and authoritarian rule.

The Republican race has boiled down to 4 people. Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul fall into the dynamist category while Romney and Santorum are stasists. Gingrich and Paul embrace a positive future of economic progress and spontaneous order where individuals are free to pursue their own course of happiness. Out of the two Paul fails miserably in the realm of foreign policy and the roots of Islamic terror by wrongly blaming U.S. military and clandestine activities in the Middle East as being the cause of events like September 11, 2001. Gingrich has not only (rightly) taken Paul to task for his idiocy but supported and defended free and open markets in his speeches and statements, he has boldly defended Israel, condemned radical Islam along with speaking the truth about Sharia Law. He has been uncompromisingly hawkish asserting the best and only methods to deal with Islamic terrorism and regimes that support it (like Iran) is to use military force against the enemy to ensure our survival.

The fact remains that Western civilization is embroiled in a struggle for it’s very survival against enemies (Islam and the left) openly hostile to secularism and capitalism along with the freedoms open societies embrace. Israel, for example, is surrounded by theocratic dictatorships, and groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah and their leftists allies work diligently to undermine her in the court of public opinion. Their delegitimization campaign is only part of an effort that will result in a second Holocaust of the country’s Jewish population while obliterating the only country in the Middle East that is a prosperous, secular island of sanity which makes Islamist countries look bad. With Israel gone it will give Islamists will have less of a hurdle to convince their followers to join them in their quest to destroy Western infidels since by doing will have a far off faceless enemy to demonize.

It is a mistake to elect candidates who will appease our enemies or embrace semblances of pragmatism or altruism since they will not adequately defend the values that have made America and Western civilization great. Romney and Santorum are both stasists in that they both embrace subjecting the individual to the collective will. Romney demonstrates this in the form of his pragmatism. As Governor of Massachusetts Romney supported tax increases, increased gun restrictions and additional economic controls while Santorum reels against American individualism using his faith as the centerpiece of his campaign. Santorum rationalizes prohibitions on personal individual choice such as supporting restrictions on abortion and opposition to stem cell research and sees capitalism as a means to an end out of altruistic sacrifice.

Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul both favor socially conservative policies but these are not the main focus of their campaigns. The fact that Ron Paul will not admit that he signed off on the racist and anti-Semitic newsletters that bare his name and his blame America first mantra in the realm of foreign policy automatically disqualifies him in my mind. I also question the libertarian label he is given. While his stance on the drug war, spending and income tax are notable while serving in Congress on many occasions he sought to remove federal court jurisdiction to hear abortion and gay marriage cases. If Paul is a libertarian he would not seek to remove an individual’s ability to seek redress in federal courts from state-level liberty-violating laws. Newt Gingrich has a worldview much broader than Paul’s. His recent support of states (like Washington) legalizing gay marriage by referendum or via state legislatures rather than by court decision shows he is respects individual liberty even though he may disagree with someone’s personal conduct.

Newt has the backbone, know-how, and wisdom to actually reverse the policies enacted by Barack Obama (another stasist) and adequately debate and take the President to task on the campaign trail. None of the allegations brought against him regarding his former marriages and his activities as Speaker have been able to stick because Gingrich has openly and honestly addressed them. I would have liked to have seen Texas Governor Rick Perry get the G.O.P. nomination, but he did miserably in Republican debates and his campaign fell apart at the seams over time. Fortunately, Perry endorsed Gingrich and I am glad that all of my preconceived notions about Gingrich have been proven unfounded. Two other individuals I like (Sarah Palin and Herman Cain) have endorsed Newt as well which hopefully means the influence of the Tea Party in Republican politics will continue for quite sometime.

I proudly voted for Newt Gingrich during the Arizona Primary on February 28th and urge you to do so in your state’s primary as well. With Super Tuesday over, unfortunately there isn’t a clear front runner. Mitt Romney’s recent wins are the result of a scorched Earth policy of outspending his opponents and negative campaigning. This is not a good strategy for the General Election should he go head-to-head with Obama since the demographics of such a contest radically change making it harder for Romney to adapt.

Each candidate must be measured not just how they will perform in the White House but also how well they will be able to undermine Obama in the debates and at the polls. If given the Republican nomination during the General Election the candidate must also play the role of a Paul Revere to alert voters as to what is at stake should Obama be re-elected. If The Annointed One is given a second term as a Lame Duck President any restraints Obama put on himself before and after the shellacking he took in 2010 will come off as he will reveal himself as the true communist that he is.

Newt Gingrich is an honest, principled, and articulate candidate and is best equipped not only to undo the damage done by Obama if elected but also adequately take the President to task in debates. He has a very good record of accomplishment of balancing budgets while Speaker of the House including party building in Georgia and nationally that the G.O.P. would benefit from along with a breadth of knowledge that would make Thomas Jefferson proud. Newt wants to liberate the country and not necessarily rule it. Gingrich operates along the lines of Ayn Rand’s principles and is a man of action. It will take a dynamist to defeat a stasist at the polls and Gingrich offers the best chance to not only defeat Obama but restore America as a dynamist haven once again.

Leave a comment
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 51 other followers