Saturday Sounds

Seeing as how until recently I've been a long time gone...

What's so hard about this?

Recipe for disaster: wage half-hearted wars around the world, while allowing violently seditious 'preaching' at home...

The unusual feature of the case is the move against religious institutions, the mosques and schools associated with them. I have been saying ever since 9/11 that this would prove to be an extremely messy problem, albeit an urgent one. Radical mosques, whether (as in this case) Shi’ite or (as in the many more numerous Saudi-sponsored) Sunni ones are frequently centers of jihadi indoctrination. The case of Major Hasan demonstrates this, as he was in close contact with imams of such mosques, as were some of the 9/11 terrorists. Not all mosques produce terrorists, it has been said, but terrorists frequent mosques, and, as in the case of the assassin of Daniel Pearl, otherwise normal people have turned to jihad because they were inspired by books and sermons from radical mosques.

Yet we have traditionally insisted that even such incendiary texts and sermons are “protected speech,” protected by the First Amendment guarantees of free speech and free religion.

Why is that? I guarantee any Christian congregation that called for a 'holy war' (a contradiction if there ever was one) would be investigated, raided and/or shut down immediately. What makes Islamic houses of worship different? What point is there in killing jihadists by the thousands when we allow the recruitment of their replacements in our own back yard?

Idealists can claim all they want that 'all viewpoints are equal.' But some are simply incompatible. Radical Islam is incompatible with western liberalism. The sooner we acknowledge that, and take action against those inciting a fifth column at home, the better.

What a laugh

Talk about your selective reading...

Representatives for ACORN sued the federal government Thursday morning in an attempt to regain the millions of dollars in funding the community organizing group lost after filmmakers videotaped its workers offering advice on how to commit tax fraud and various other felonies.

The suit charges Congress with violating the Constitution when it passed legislation in September that specifically targeted ACORN to lose federal housing, education and transportation funds.

That qualifies the legislation as bills of attainder, according to the Center for Constitutional Rights, which filed the suit on behalf of ACORN. A bill of attainder punishes a person or group without the benefit of a trial, and is illegal under Article 1 of the Constitution.

I would LOVE to be the judge in this case. All I'd need to do is deny standing to sue until ACORN showed me the part of the Constitution that authorizes Congress to provide taxpayer funds to private advocacy groups. If it's not constitutional in the first place (which it isn't), how can it be unconstitutional to stop?

It takes a citizenry

Since 9/11, each Veterans Day and Memorial Day has been observed with a renewed vigor. That's all to the good. As I've written before, though, some expressions of appreciation for the armed forces almost cross the line into a kind of worship.

The armed forces exist to prevent the encroachment of others into our nation's sovereignty. In that sense, they keep the country "free" of foreign interference. But they cannot, alone, make the nation 'free.'

It does no good for those in uniform to defend the Constitution against foreign enemies, when at home people are willing to sell that birthright for short term gain. It does no good for the military to keep strongmen abroad at bay, when Americans invite them to power at home, hoping they'll solve all the problems. It does no good for soldiers to be disciplined and vigilant in their watch, when the citizens they protect are neither.

The best the military can do is create the space within which Americans get to decide what sort of nation they want to be... and then hope they choose wisely.

Some people never learn

Found this at Instapundit, and thought it worth passing along:

“Twenty years ago, the Berlin Wall came down and with it communist rule in Central Europe. Within little more than two years, the Soviet Union ceased to exist and the transition from communist dictatorship to free market democracy began in much of the former socialist commonwealth. . . . In spite of its monumental failure to bring social peace and material abundance, socialism is enjoying something of a renaissance. From Venezuela to Bolivia to South Africa, government ministers espouse the supposed virtues of socialism. Even in the West, some policies are taking government intervention in the economy to levels unseen in decades. Given the renewed interest in alternatives to capitalism, it is perhaps appropriate to recall the last time that socialism was tried with real gusto.”

And I like Glenn Reynolds' parting shot:
"Socialism is an opportunistic infection of the body politic. It occurs when defenses are low."

The problem is, that recurring infection leaves a lot of scars on the body politic. Not to mention bodies themselves. You would think the painful experiences of history would help build up an immunity to the idea of governmental utopia. But you would be wrong.

Halfway perfect

The Saints are 8-0 for the first time ever. Uncharted territory, this is.

I've long said New Orleans plays best when they're underdogs and when I can't watch the game. There's a Monday night game coming up, and I'll have the first chance to watch them this season. I may have to forego that for the sake of keeping the streak alive.

We fans make the sacrifices that we must...

(WHO DAT?)

Some Sunday singing

Lyrics here

False choices

Perhaps there's a bit more than just hyperbole when the Democrats call Republicans "fascists," and the Republicans call the Democrats "commies." Considering how useless and destructive all four groups are, why don't we see about starting over?

"It is obvious what the fraudulent issue of fascism versus communism accomplishes: it sets up, as opposites, two variants of the same political system; it eliminates the possibility of considering capitalism; it switches the choice of 'Freedom or dictatorship?' into 'Which kind of dictatorship?' -- thus establishing dictatorship as an inevitable fact and offering only a choice of rulers. The choice -- according to the proponents of that fraud -- is: a dictatorship of the rich (fascism) or a dictatorship of the poor (communism). That fraud collapsed in the 1940's, in the aftermath of World War II. It is too obvious, too easily demonstrable that fascism and communism are not two opposites, but two rival gangs fighting over the same territory -- that both are variants of statism, based on the collectivist principle that man is the rightless slave of the state -- that both are socialistic, in theory, in practice, and in the explicit statements of their leaders -- that under both systems, the poor are enslaved and the rich are expropriated in favor of a ruling clique -- that fascism is not the product of the political 'right,' but of the 'left' -- that the basic issue is not 'rich versus poor,' but man versus the state, or: individual rights versus totalitarian government -- which means: capitalism versus socialism."
--Philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

It's interesting to see how widely quoted Rand is these days. I have to confess, I've never read any of her work other than excerpts like the one above. From what little I know, her following had some cult-like tendencies all its own, just like the more carelessly enthusiastic of the Ron Paul supporters in last year's campaign. It isn't about the person, it's about the principle. Truth is truth, even when the messenger is flawed (as all messengers, excepting Christ, inevitably are). That's why you "never judge the -ism by the -ist."