There was no room for The Alternative in last week’s Chronicle. So I had another shot at a column I really was not too proud of. This makes more sense but it only opens up the possibilities of a nation with a truly limited government. The real beneficiaries would be normal people who furnish time and labor for the public good in return for an honest exchange.
The intended or unintended consequences would be a country so strong that national defense would be grown organically as a byproduct of freedom. It would be pretty far fetched to claim Kissinger’s idea of national defense isn’t just a cash cow for outdated cold-warriors. I hope to get some feedback on this. It is a discussion that is sorely needed above and beyond simply ensuring the safety of ourselves and our loved ones.
They are bad, Now what?
From a redneck with a Styrofoam cup to the fine crystal and linen napkin crowd, the verdict is in. Muslims are bad and we must fear them. We must fear them to the same extent the Germans feared the Jews. We must hate them with a fever. We must destroy them before they destroy us.
This is the message I get from respected friends and talk show hucksters. It is consistent in its enthusiasm and also its shallowness.
For the good of the western world, this needs to be sorted out. I totally understand the animosity directed toward a religion that has the moral standards for which Muslims are universally known. So far, nobody has shown that the Koran does not direct devout Muslims to eliminate non-believers. It is a grave problem.
But in all the rhetoric of those who seem to believe nobody is listening to their warnings on Islam, I have yet to hear what they propose to do about it. Secretary Henry Kissinger said recently, “We have to know the objective at the start and develop a strategy to achieve it.” What is it, Henry? It is time for the strategy. Past time.
We don’t like what we see in Europe; no-go zones where police fear to tread and Sharia Law is in effect already. We who prefer the old English Common Law feel powerless to stop the onslaught of Sharia. We see the government chasing dope addicts, financing Tesla Motors, getting involved in civil wars halfway around the world and generally throwing a monkey wrench into every entrepreneurial endeavor that actually betters our world, while these lunatics see a border ripe for invasion.
No-go zones already exist here in the USA. Drug cartels run whole neighborhoods because our justice system has been so diluted with nanny-ism, trying to engineer society rather than simply protecting the decent people from the bad ones.
All the awful things we hear that the Islamists are doing are illegal here, and rightfully so. They have victims and we have law to deal with them. But when law has evolved to where it is used to restrict unpopular yet harmless behavior, when law is used to punish those who compete with political contributors or promote any business, when it replaces charity, when it replaces family, when it is protecting foreign governments, sending our president on million dollar vacations and even exploring Mars; when we are forced to buy someone else’s groceries, medical care or schooling; then it is open to any use directed by the vote instead of the law, The Constitution.
That means if believers in Sharia Law outnumber the rest of us then we’ll have adulterous women stoned to death, arms and heads chopped off and slavery. To complain about Muslims influencing our laws might feel good and righteous, but we brought it on ourselves. Democracy makes the law subject to the majority instead of a tool to ensure individual rights. We don’t have to look very far to see where the majority can be wrong.
The traditional role of law is to step in when society’s standards are violated. The United States is already in a tenuous position as a singular society, as evidenced by the repeated term, “multiculturalism.” That means the law is unenforceable, spread too thinly in an attempt to enforce the terms of too many cultures.
When I hear this constant drumbeat that Muslims are bad, without any direction given to deal with it, I have to think that these obviously intelligent people are avoiding constitutionally restrained government for a reason. Is it because the perpetrators of unlimited government benefit from that unlimited government to such an extent that they ignore the obvious solution in order to preserve the benefits they receive from that unlimited government?
What do these people who view themselves as an exclusive clique of enlightened ones have to gain from their incessant blabber that we are at war, rather than in a law enforcement crisis?
If we were really going to guard against the installation of Sharia Law we should simply enforce the laws we already have that contradict Sharia Law. In order to do that we would need the resources available upon elimination of the state as family and any other proactive guiding force. We would need to allow for uncompromised private property rights. For example, we would have to return air travel to a totally private business that has the right to defend itself and choose their customers.
As long as the precedent has been set that allows the law to violate our rights, as it does today, we are vulnerable to the installation of Sharia Law. If we don’t want that (I don’t), then we should start by eliminating the precedents that empower the courts with such liberal interpretations of the law. These broad powers handed to the federal government are damaging in two ways: They make defense of our nation unaffordable and they give the power to dominate to whoever has the best propaganda machine.
As for the tough talkers, there is nothing preventing them from conducting their own war. They can buy their own Styrofoam cups, linen napkins, fine crystal and plane tickets too.
If the police cannot effectively patrol our own inner cities and borders, what in the world are we doing in the Middle East trying to do what we are failing to do here?