http://www.greatdanepro.com:80/Just%20Colors/index.htm
Stop for a minute to think how different our world would be like if we saw only in black and white.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Muslim Heritage in America
MUSLIM HERITAGE?
http://doylepruitt.com /blogs/blog1.php/2011/03/01/muslim-heritage
http://doylepruitt.com/blogs/blog1.php/2011/03/01/muslim-heritage
On Mar 1, 2011 In From the Desk of Doyle Pruitt, National Politics, Planning for the Future
This was mailed to me by a friend and it is something the entire country should be aware of. It spells out the truth about Islamic heritage in the United States. Nothing has been contributed to this country by the Muslims in the entire history of the United States.
During his Cairo speech, Barack Obama during his Cairo speech, said, “I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America’s story.”
AN AMERICAN CITIZEN’S RESPONSE:
Dear Mr. Obama:
Were those Muslims that were in America when the Pilgrims first landed? Funny, I thought they were by Native American Indians.
Were those Muslims that celebrated the first Thanksgiving Day? Sorry again, those were Pilgrims and Native American Indians.
Can you show me one Muslim signature on the United States Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or the Bill of Rights? I don’t think so. Did Muslims fight for this country’s freedom from England? No.
Did Muslims fight during the Civil War to free the slaves in America? No, they did not. In fact, Muslims to this day are still the largest traffickers in human slavery. Your own half brother, a devout Muslim, still advocates slavery himself, even though Muslims of Arabic descent refers to black Muslims as “pug nosed slaves.” Says a lot of what the Muslim world really thinks of your family’s “rich Islamic heritage,” doesn’t it Mr. Obama?
Where were Muslims during the Civil Rights era of this country? Not present. There are no pictures or media accounts of Muslims walking side by side with Martin Luther King, Jr. or helping to advance the cause of Civil Rights.
Where were the Muslims during this country’s Woman’s Suffrage era? Again, not present. In fact, devout Muslims demand that women are subservient to men in the Islamic culture. So much so, that often they are beaten for not wearing the ‘hajib’ or for talking to a man who is not a direct family member or their husband. Yep, the Muslims are all for women’s rights, aren’t they?
Where were Muslims during World War II? They were aligned with Adolf Hitler. The Muslim grand mufti himself met with Adolf Hitler, reviewed the troops and accepted support from the Nazi’s in killing Jews.
Finally, Mr. Obama, where were Muslims on Sept. 11th, 2001? If they weren’t flying planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon or a field in Pennsylvania killing nearly 3,000 people on our own soil, they were rejoicing in the Middle East. No one can dispute the pictures shown from all parts of the Muslim world celebrating on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and other cable news networks that day. Strangely, the very “moderate” Muslims who’s asses you bent over backwards to kiss in Cairo, Egypt on June 4th were stone cold silent post 9-11. To many Americans, their silence has meant approval for the acts of that day.
And THAT, Mr. Obama, is the “rich heritage” Muslims have here in America.
Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot to mention the Barbary Pirates. They were Muslim.
And now we can add November 5, 2009 – the slaughter of American soldiers at Fort Hood by a Muslim major who is a doctor and a psychiatrist who was supposed to be counseling soldiers returning from battle in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That, Mr. Obama is the “Muslim heritage” in America.
http://doylepruitt.com /blogs/blog1.php/2011/03/01/muslim-heritage
http://doylepruitt.com/blogs/blog1.php/2011/03/01/muslim-heritage
On Mar 1, 2011 In From the Desk of Doyle Pruitt, National Politics, Planning for the Future
This was mailed to me by a friend and it is something the entire country should be aware of. It spells out the truth about Islamic heritage in the United States. Nothing has been contributed to this country by the Muslims in the entire history of the United States.
During his Cairo speech, Barack Obama during his Cairo speech, said, “I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America’s story.”
AN AMERICAN CITIZEN’S RESPONSE:
Dear Mr. Obama:
Were those Muslims that were in America when the Pilgrims first landed? Funny, I thought they were by Native American Indians.
Were those Muslims that celebrated the first Thanksgiving Day? Sorry again, those were Pilgrims and Native American Indians.
Can you show me one Muslim signature on the United States Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or the Bill of Rights? I don’t think so. Did Muslims fight for this country’s freedom from England? No.
Did Muslims fight during the Civil War to free the slaves in America? No, they did not. In fact, Muslims to this day are still the largest traffickers in human slavery. Your own half brother, a devout Muslim, still advocates slavery himself, even though Muslims of Arabic descent refers to black Muslims as “pug nosed slaves.” Says a lot of what the Muslim world really thinks of your family’s “rich Islamic heritage,” doesn’t it Mr. Obama?
Where were Muslims during the Civil Rights era of this country? Not present. There are no pictures or media accounts of Muslims walking side by side with Martin Luther King, Jr. or helping to advance the cause of Civil Rights.
Where were the Muslims during this country’s Woman’s Suffrage era? Again, not present. In fact, devout Muslims demand that women are subservient to men in the Islamic culture. So much so, that often they are beaten for not wearing the ‘hajib’ or for talking to a man who is not a direct family member or their husband. Yep, the Muslims are all for women’s rights, aren’t they?
Where were Muslims during World War II? They were aligned with Adolf Hitler. The Muslim grand mufti himself met with Adolf Hitler, reviewed the troops and accepted support from the Nazi’s in killing Jews.
Finally, Mr. Obama, where were Muslims on Sept. 11th, 2001? If they weren’t flying planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon or a field in Pennsylvania killing nearly 3,000 people on our own soil, they were rejoicing in the Middle East. No one can dispute the pictures shown from all parts of the Muslim world celebrating on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and other cable news networks that day. Strangely, the very “moderate” Muslims who’s asses you bent over backwards to kiss in Cairo, Egypt on June 4th were stone cold silent post 9-11. To many Americans, their silence has meant approval for the acts of that day.
And THAT, Mr. Obama, is the “rich heritage” Muslims have here in America.
Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot to mention the Barbary Pirates. They were Muslim.
And now we can add November 5, 2009 – the slaughter of American soldiers at Fort Hood by a Muslim major who is a doctor and a psychiatrist who was supposed to be counseling soldiers returning from battle in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That, Mr. Obama is the “Muslim heritage” in America.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Yosemite Nature Notes - Episode 14 - Horsetail Fall
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyoa-QfeGho
Uploaded by yosemitenationalpark on Mar 1, 2011
Horsetail Fall is a small, ephemeral waterfall that flows over the eastern edge of El Capitan in Yosemite Valley. For two weeks in February, the setting sun striking the waterfall creates a deep orange glow that resembles Yosemite's historic "Firefall."
Monday, March 7, 2011
Progressive Education and Bad Philosophy Corrupted The People and Undermined U.S. Constitution
Progressive "Education" & the Conditioning of the American People
By Publius Huldah Sunday, March 6, 2011
Throughout human history, the prevailing belief system changes from time to time & place to place; most people unthinkingly absorb whatever happens to be the prevailing dogma of their time & place. Here, I will show the radical differences between the philosophy of our Founding Era and the philosophy of today. And when I have done so, you will understand why our Country is declining and what you can do about it. In a nutshell, the Enlightenment philosophy of our Founding Era, which was based on Reason and the recognition of the existence of Fixed Principles, was taken away from us; and replaced with the subjective philosophies of Pragmatism & Existentialism, both of which reject Reason and deny the existence of Objective Truth & Fixed Principles. These are now the prevailing dogma of our Time; and unless we promptly repudiate them, we will fall.
google_protectAndRun("ads_core.google_render_ad", google_handleError, google_render_ad);
Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, & John Jay (authors of The Federalist Papers), and others at the Federal Convention of 1787, embodied the best aspects of The Age of Enlightenment. They were well educated, exquisitely knowledgeable in statecraft & political philosophy, embraced the concepts of Objective Reality & Fixed Principles, knew Logic, and could think. George Washington, a man renowned for his Moral Character, which was based on Judeo-Christian ideals, presided over the Convention.
The Fruit of the Philosophy, Religion, & well-trained Minds of our Framers was a Constitution which ordained and established a Federation of States which united only for THE LIMITED PURPOSES enumerated in the Constitution: national defense, international commerce & relations; and domestically, the creation of an uniform commercial system: Weights & measures, patents & copyrights, a monetary system based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, and mail delivery. 1
Progressive “Education” & the Conditioning of the American People
But during the 19th Century, Progressives took control of public schools & teachers’ colleges. They then conditioned teachers and children to abandon our Founders’ Enlightenment philosophy of Reason, Fixed Principles, & Judeo-Christian ideals; and to accept a new ideology which replaced Reason with “feelings” and denied the existence of an Objective Reality & Fixed Principles. They thus primed the objects of their conditioning to accept whatever attitudes the Progressives chose to instill in them. And the objects of this conditioning did not - do not - know what was done to them!
Samuel L. Blumenfeld explains the two opposing philosophies of education:
the “progressives”...viewed public education primarily as a tool for social and cultural reform to be achieved through the remaking of human nature; and the traditionalists ...viewed education, public or private, primarily as a development of an individual’s intellectual skills in combination with moral instruction based on Judeo-Christian ideals. [“Is Public Education Necessary?”, Ch. 12]
Thanks to the traditional education they received, our Framers knew history, political philosophy & statecraft, Logic, Judeo-Christian moral ideals, and could think!
Thanks to progressive “education”, Americans have been so dumbed-down that they can’t read, 2 know nothing, and can’t think. After the Progressives ripped moral instruction based on Judeo-Christian ideals out of the public schools, and replaced it with the view that morality is a matter of subjective personal opinion or group consensus, 3 we became an amoral people who kill babies, reject altogether the concept of personal responsibility, insist on a claimed “right” to live at other peoples’ expense, and believe that the only guide for our conduct is our own likes, dislikes, & “feelings”: “I like it” or “I don’t like it”; “I feel like it” or “I don’t feel like it”. We became so shallow and morally blind that we elect fools & tyrants to high office. Thanks to “self-esteem” classes, we believe that our views & “feelings” on subjects of which we have no knowledge whatsoever are as important as anybody else’s.
With our untrained & empty minds and instilled amorality, we were rendered incapable of resisting the conditioning of the Progressives. And this, Folks, has been the purpose of public “education” ever since the Progressives took it over.
2000 years of Western Philosophy on Metaphysics & Epistemology 4 in One Paragraph
So! In Western Civilization, we had the Age of Faith (There is an Objective Reality & Truth 5 and they are revealed in the Bible & Works of Creation); the Enlightenment (There is an objective Reality & Truth and we discover it by use of Reason); the Age of Romanticism (“Truth” is found in your emotions & feelings); and now, Pragmatism & Existentialism (There is no Objective Reality; “Truth” is a concept which has no meaning; there are no fixed principles, there is only “opinion” and one man’s “opinion” is as good as another’s).
Pragmatism & Existentialism
During the late 19th century, the philosophy of Pragmatism (William James, Charles Saunders Peirce, John Dewey) arose. It rejected the concept of an Objective Reality with its Timeless Truths. Instead of concerning oneself with the question of whether something is “True”, the pragmatist asks, “What difference will it make in my life whether I believe it or don’t believe it?” So one looks to the “utility” of believing it or not believing it. If it has a good result for me, it is “true”. If it has a bad result for me, it is not “true”. What is “true” for me may not be “true” for you, so an idea can be “true” for some and not “true” for others. Furthermore, what is “true” for me today may not be “true” for me tomorrow, so “truth” evolves.
Do you see? They tossed the concept of Objective Truth - Objective Reality - Fixed Principles & Standards - out the window.
Pragmatism morphed into Existentialism (Jean-Paul Sartre). Existentialism rejects an objective basis for life in favor of a subjective basis: 6 Humans are merely biological organisms living meaningless lives, making “choices” on the basis of no criteria whatsoever other than their own likes or dislikes. Since there is no basis for any external Principles or Standards to which we must conform, people are free to do whatever they want.
Again, it was the Colleges of Education and the public schools which were the vehicles for dumbing-down the American People and conditioning them to reject the Philosophy of our Founders, and to accept the pragmatist & existentialist mind-set.
A friend recalls an incident which happened around 1960 in English class in an American public high school. The students read a story. The teacher asked each student to say what the story meant to him. Whatever a student said was praised by the teacher. But my friend said, “It doesn’t matter what it means to me. What matters is what the author says.” The teacher was most displeased with that remark.
Do you see? Under the pretext of teaching literature, the teacher indoctrinated her students into rejecting the concept of Objective Reality & Fixed Principles, and accepting a subjective world-view devoid of objective meaning. The teacher most likely had no idea what she was doing - she was just following her teacher’s manual. She was thus one of the millions of useful idiots who graduate from our Colleges of Education and set about assisting in the destruction of the minds & morals of the American People. 7
Do those of you above a certain age remember hearing over & over in your public schools, “There is no black or white, there is only gray.” “What’s true for me may not be true for you”. “If it works, it’s right.” “What does it mean to you?” And when one is facing a moral decision, one is asked, “How do you feel about it?” One’s “feelings” are set up as the criterion for making moral decisions! There is no appeal to objective standards of Right & Wrong. That was ripped out of the public schools by the Progressives. And we are mystified by the high crime rates among our children? 8
Most Americans are now existentialists, even though they never heard of John Paul Sartre. We see our own “likes”, “dislikes”, & “feelings” as the only standard. We just want to “feel good”. That our personal likes & dislikes are irrelevant when they conflict with objective Standards of Good & Bad, Right & Wrong, is unthinkable. I’ll illustrate: It is painful, but we have no time left to pussy-foot:
Standards of Conduct: What’s Right By Objective Standards? Or, What do I like?
Talk to an obese person about what he eats: He will most likely say something like, “I’ll eat what I like.” He thus follows a subjective standard: his likes & his dislikes. Because he is an existentialist (though doesn’t know it), he rejects the idea that there is an objective standard by which one can decide what to eat and what to avoid: That of health - Is the food healthy? Or unhealthy? And if you tell him of this objective standard, he’ll say, “I don’t care - I’ll eat what I like.” The essence of the existentialist mind-set is that the existentialist sees no reason why he should set anything above his own “feelings”, likes, or dislikes.
There was a stay-at-home Mom. When her young children were hungry, she tossed them a box of crackers or cookies, or took them to a fast food joint.. Why? Because she didn’t like to cook. That she had a DUTY to provide her children with healthy food, never entered her mind. She didn’t “like” cooking, she “felt like” going to the mall instead, and that was the end of the matter.
Couch potatoes don’t exercise because they “hate” exercise. They reject the objective fact of Reality that exercise is necessary to be healthy.
Pragmatism, Existentialism & Federal Judges
So! With the rise of Pragmatism & its conception of evolving and subjective “truth”, American lawyers abandoned the concept of Law as a body of fixed principles (set forth in The Declaration, The Constitution, Blackstone’s Commentaries, Natural Law &/or the Bible), and embraced the concept of an “evolving” law and an “evolving” Constitution which means whatever they - the judges - say it means! Remember! To the pragmatist, “truth” evolves. 9
So THIS is the philosophical basis for judges on the supreme Court tossing out The Federalist Papers as the objective standard of the meaning of The Constitution; and substituting their own opinions. When they were in school, they were conditioned to reject the concept of Objective & Fixed Standards, and to accept Pragmatism & Existentialism; and I bet you few (if any) of them ever thought it through. They did not resist the conditioning - they just accepted what their Manipulators instilled in them.
We teeter on the brink of disaster. YOU must rise to the occasion. Our Country & our Posterity depend on YOUR repudiating the destructive philosophies your conditioners foisted on you; and reclaiming the rational Enlightenment philosophy & Judeo-Christian morality of our Framers. We can not save our children unless we close the public schools. 10 Education must be privatized, and we better do it now. PH
Endnotes:
1 Our Constitution follows the Biblical model: a civil government with defined powers which is subject to - under - the Law. Civil government is not the source of Law! The law comes from a higher authority: God is the source of Law in the Bible; The Declaration of Independence & The Constitution are the Source of Law in our Country. Acts of the three branches of the federal government are lawful or unlawful depending on whether they are consistent with the Declaration & authorized by The Constitution. These are the standard of what is “lawful” - NOT the fiat of the brain-washed judges who sit on our courts.
Lex, Rex by Rev. Samuel Rutherford (1644), is a masterwork of which modern American pastors are ignorant. Rev. Rutherford proves that civil authorities have legitimacy ONLY to the extent they obey The Law. We see all around us the results of our pastors’ ignorance of these Biblical teachings.
2 Two/thirds of Wisconsin 8th graders can’t read proficiently! Yet their teachers are screaming for more benefits to be paid for by the taxpayers, while lying about being sick. With the public schools, we have financed our own destruction. And most Americans who can read, are unable to read The Federalist Papers. Yet The Federalist is essential for a correct understanding of the objective (genuine) meaning of our Constitution & they were published in Newspapers in 1787-88!
3 “Values clarification” is the version of “moral guidance” foisted in the public schools on our children since the 1960’s. Public school teachers are telling children that they are “...free to choose ethical and moral behavior that resonates with them.” They thus “liberate” children from “authoritarian” teachings on morality.
4 “Metaphysics” deals with the nature of Reality; “Epistemology”, with theories of Knowledge. The Ayn Rand Institute has an excellent lexicon for philosophical terms. Rand was a non-theist; PH is a Christian theist. Hence, there are some differences. But both see “Natural Law” (Physics, Mathematics, Logic, Morality, Politics, etc.) as woven into the Fabric of Reality. Both see the Universe as governed by LAW; and that the duty of man is to learn & to obey these Laws.
Thus, the Great Divide is between those who accept the concept of Divine or “Natural Law”; and those, such as Progressives, Pragmatists, & Existentialists, who reject it. They deny the existence of any standard other than their own “feelings”, likes & dislikes.
5 “objective reality” means this: “Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.” In other words, things are the way they are regardless of what you like, don’t like, agree with or don’t agree with.
6 “subjectivism” is “...the belief that reality is not a firm absolute, but a fluid, plastic, indeterminate realm which can be altered, in whole or in part, by the consciousness of the perceiver—i.e., by his feelings, wishes or whims. It is the doctrine which holds that man—an entity of a specific nature, dealing with a universe of a specific nature—can, somehow, live, act and achieve his goals apart from and/or in contradiction to the facts of reality, i.e., apart from and/or in contradiction to his own nature and the nature of the universe…”
7 In “The Abolition of Man”, C.S. Lewis illustrates how the concept of “objective value” was ripped out of the hearts of British school children by their teachers. He also discusses the “Natural Law” and how it has been universally recognized. His book is only 113 pages, double-spaced, & one of the most important books ever written. Read it. Outline it. Tell all in your spheres of influence.
8 But at least we can take comfort in the knowledge that our children are not being taught in public schools such things as, “thou shalt not kill”, “thou shalt not steal”, “thou shalt not bear false witness”, “thou shalt not covet”, and other such “authoritarian” & offensive rubbish.
9 In “The Second American Revolution”, attorney John W. Whitehead (Rutherford Institute) writes of this. This is a valuable book which shows how bad philosophy corrupted our judges.
10 Glen Beck and others are showing that under the pretext of teaching reading, progressive “educators” are now telling our children the Lie that our Constitution institutes socialism! PH
Publius Huldah Publius Huldah Most recent columns
Publius Huldah is a retired lawyer who lives in Tennessee USA. She writes on the U.S. Constitution and posts her papers at publiushuldah.wordpress.com Before getting a law degree, she got a degree in philosophy where she specialized in political philosophy and epistemology (theories of knowledge). Using primarily The Federalist Papers, which were written during 1787-1788 by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison & John Jay, in order to explain the proposed Constitution to the American People and induce them to ratify it, Publius Huldah explains the true & original meaning of the U.S. Constitution. She also shows how modern day judges on the U.S. federal courts have completely abandoned the U.S. Constitution and have substituted their own personal views and opinions for The Constitution.
Publius can be reached at: mailto:Publiushuldah@twlakes.net?bcc=letters@canadafreepress.com
By Publius Huldah Sunday, March 6, 2011
Throughout human history, the prevailing belief system changes from time to time & place to place; most people unthinkingly absorb whatever happens to be the prevailing dogma of their time & place. Here, I will show the radical differences between the philosophy of our Founding Era and the philosophy of today. And when I have done so, you will understand why our Country is declining and what you can do about it. In a nutshell, the Enlightenment philosophy of our Founding Era, which was based on Reason and the recognition of the existence of Fixed Principles, was taken away from us; and replaced with the subjective philosophies of Pragmatism & Existentialism, both of which reject Reason and deny the existence of Objective Truth & Fixed Principles. These are now the prevailing dogma of our Time; and unless we promptly repudiate them, we will fall.
google_protectAndRun("ads_core.google_render_ad", google_handleError, google_render_ad);
Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, & John Jay (authors of The Federalist Papers), and others at the Federal Convention of 1787, embodied the best aspects of The Age of Enlightenment. They were well educated, exquisitely knowledgeable in statecraft & political philosophy, embraced the concepts of Objective Reality & Fixed Principles, knew Logic, and could think. George Washington, a man renowned for his Moral Character, which was based on Judeo-Christian ideals, presided over the Convention.
The Fruit of the Philosophy, Religion, & well-trained Minds of our Framers was a Constitution which ordained and established a Federation of States which united only for THE LIMITED PURPOSES enumerated in the Constitution: national defense, international commerce & relations; and domestically, the creation of an uniform commercial system: Weights & measures, patents & copyrights, a monetary system based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, and mail delivery. 1
Progressive “Education” & the Conditioning of the American People
But during the 19th Century, Progressives took control of public schools & teachers’ colleges. They then conditioned teachers and children to abandon our Founders’ Enlightenment philosophy of Reason, Fixed Principles, & Judeo-Christian ideals; and to accept a new ideology which replaced Reason with “feelings” and denied the existence of an Objective Reality & Fixed Principles. They thus primed the objects of their conditioning to accept whatever attitudes the Progressives chose to instill in them. And the objects of this conditioning did not - do not - know what was done to them!
Samuel L. Blumenfeld explains the two opposing philosophies of education:
the “progressives”...viewed public education primarily as a tool for social and cultural reform to be achieved through the remaking of human nature; and the traditionalists ...viewed education, public or private, primarily as a development of an individual’s intellectual skills in combination with moral instruction based on Judeo-Christian ideals. [“Is Public Education Necessary?”, Ch. 12]
Thanks to the traditional education they received, our Framers knew history, political philosophy & statecraft, Logic, Judeo-Christian moral ideals, and could think!
Thanks to progressive “education”, Americans have been so dumbed-down that they can’t read, 2 know nothing, and can’t think. After the Progressives ripped moral instruction based on Judeo-Christian ideals out of the public schools, and replaced it with the view that morality is a matter of subjective personal opinion or group consensus, 3 we became an amoral people who kill babies, reject altogether the concept of personal responsibility, insist on a claimed “right” to live at other peoples’ expense, and believe that the only guide for our conduct is our own likes, dislikes, & “feelings”: “I like it” or “I don’t like it”; “I feel like it” or “I don’t feel like it”. We became so shallow and morally blind that we elect fools & tyrants to high office. Thanks to “self-esteem” classes, we believe that our views & “feelings” on subjects of which we have no knowledge whatsoever are as important as anybody else’s.
With our untrained & empty minds and instilled amorality, we were rendered incapable of resisting the conditioning of the Progressives. And this, Folks, has been the purpose of public “education” ever since the Progressives took it over.
2000 years of Western Philosophy on Metaphysics & Epistemology 4 in One Paragraph
So! In Western Civilization, we had the Age of Faith (There is an Objective Reality & Truth 5 and they are revealed in the Bible & Works of Creation); the Enlightenment (There is an objective Reality & Truth and we discover it by use of Reason); the Age of Romanticism (“Truth” is found in your emotions & feelings); and now, Pragmatism & Existentialism (There is no Objective Reality; “Truth” is a concept which has no meaning; there are no fixed principles, there is only “opinion” and one man’s “opinion” is as good as another’s).
Pragmatism & Existentialism
During the late 19th century, the philosophy of Pragmatism (William James, Charles Saunders Peirce, John Dewey) arose. It rejected the concept of an Objective Reality with its Timeless Truths. Instead of concerning oneself with the question of whether something is “True”, the pragmatist asks, “What difference will it make in my life whether I believe it or don’t believe it?” So one looks to the “utility” of believing it or not believing it. If it has a good result for me, it is “true”. If it has a bad result for me, it is not “true”. What is “true” for me may not be “true” for you, so an idea can be “true” for some and not “true” for others. Furthermore, what is “true” for me today may not be “true” for me tomorrow, so “truth” evolves.
Do you see? They tossed the concept of Objective Truth - Objective Reality - Fixed Principles & Standards - out the window.
Pragmatism morphed into Existentialism (Jean-Paul Sartre). Existentialism rejects an objective basis for life in favor of a subjective basis: 6 Humans are merely biological organisms living meaningless lives, making “choices” on the basis of no criteria whatsoever other than their own likes or dislikes. Since there is no basis for any external Principles or Standards to which we must conform, people are free to do whatever they want.
Again, it was the Colleges of Education and the public schools which were the vehicles for dumbing-down the American People and conditioning them to reject the Philosophy of our Founders, and to accept the pragmatist & existentialist mind-set.
A friend recalls an incident which happened around 1960 in English class in an American public high school. The students read a story. The teacher asked each student to say what the story meant to him. Whatever a student said was praised by the teacher. But my friend said, “It doesn’t matter what it means to me. What matters is what the author says.” The teacher was most displeased with that remark.
Do you see? Under the pretext of teaching literature, the teacher indoctrinated her students into rejecting the concept of Objective Reality & Fixed Principles, and accepting a subjective world-view devoid of objective meaning. The teacher most likely had no idea what she was doing - she was just following her teacher’s manual. She was thus one of the millions of useful idiots who graduate from our Colleges of Education and set about assisting in the destruction of the minds & morals of the American People. 7
Do those of you above a certain age remember hearing over & over in your public schools, “There is no black or white, there is only gray.” “What’s true for me may not be true for you”. “If it works, it’s right.” “What does it mean to you?” And when one is facing a moral decision, one is asked, “How do you feel about it?” One’s “feelings” are set up as the criterion for making moral decisions! There is no appeal to objective standards of Right & Wrong. That was ripped out of the public schools by the Progressives. And we are mystified by the high crime rates among our children? 8
Most Americans are now existentialists, even though they never heard of John Paul Sartre. We see our own “likes”, “dislikes”, & “feelings” as the only standard. We just want to “feel good”. That our personal likes & dislikes are irrelevant when they conflict with objective Standards of Good & Bad, Right & Wrong, is unthinkable. I’ll illustrate: It is painful, but we have no time left to pussy-foot:
Standards of Conduct: What’s Right By Objective Standards? Or, What do I like?
Talk to an obese person about what he eats: He will most likely say something like, “I’ll eat what I like.” He thus follows a subjective standard: his likes & his dislikes. Because he is an existentialist (though doesn’t know it), he rejects the idea that there is an objective standard by which one can decide what to eat and what to avoid: That of health - Is the food healthy? Or unhealthy? And if you tell him of this objective standard, he’ll say, “I don’t care - I’ll eat what I like.” The essence of the existentialist mind-set is that the existentialist sees no reason why he should set anything above his own “feelings”, likes, or dislikes.
There was a stay-at-home Mom. When her young children were hungry, she tossed them a box of crackers or cookies, or took them to a fast food joint.. Why? Because she didn’t like to cook. That she had a DUTY to provide her children with healthy food, never entered her mind. She didn’t “like” cooking, she “felt like” going to the mall instead, and that was the end of the matter.
Couch potatoes don’t exercise because they “hate” exercise. They reject the objective fact of Reality that exercise is necessary to be healthy.
Pragmatism, Existentialism & Federal Judges
So! With the rise of Pragmatism & its conception of evolving and subjective “truth”, American lawyers abandoned the concept of Law as a body of fixed principles (set forth in The Declaration, The Constitution, Blackstone’s Commentaries, Natural Law &/or the Bible), and embraced the concept of an “evolving” law and an “evolving” Constitution which means whatever they - the judges - say it means! Remember! To the pragmatist, “truth” evolves. 9
So THIS is the philosophical basis for judges on the supreme Court tossing out The Federalist Papers as the objective standard of the meaning of The Constitution; and substituting their own opinions. When they were in school, they were conditioned to reject the concept of Objective & Fixed Standards, and to accept Pragmatism & Existentialism; and I bet you few (if any) of them ever thought it through. They did not resist the conditioning - they just accepted what their Manipulators instilled in them.
We teeter on the brink of disaster. YOU must rise to the occasion. Our Country & our Posterity depend on YOUR repudiating the destructive philosophies your conditioners foisted on you; and reclaiming the rational Enlightenment philosophy & Judeo-Christian morality of our Framers. We can not save our children unless we close the public schools. 10 Education must be privatized, and we better do it now. PH
Endnotes:
1 Our Constitution follows the Biblical model: a civil government with defined powers which is subject to - under - the Law. Civil government is not the source of Law! The law comes from a higher authority: God is the source of Law in the Bible; The Declaration of Independence & The Constitution are the Source of Law in our Country. Acts of the three branches of the federal government are lawful or unlawful depending on whether they are consistent with the Declaration & authorized by The Constitution. These are the standard of what is “lawful” - NOT the fiat of the brain-washed judges who sit on our courts.
Lex, Rex by Rev. Samuel Rutherford (1644), is a masterwork of which modern American pastors are ignorant. Rev. Rutherford proves that civil authorities have legitimacy ONLY to the extent they obey The Law. We see all around us the results of our pastors’ ignorance of these Biblical teachings.
2 Two/thirds of Wisconsin 8th graders can’t read proficiently! Yet their teachers are screaming for more benefits to be paid for by the taxpayers, while lying about being sick. With the public schools, we have financed our own destruction. And most Americans who can read, are unable to read The Federalist Papers. Yet The Federalist is essential for a correct understanding of the objective (genuine) meaning of our Constitution & they were published in Newspapers in 1787-88!
3 “Values clarification” is the version of “moral guidance” foisted in the public schools on our children since the 1960’s. Public school teachers are telling children that they are “...free to choose ethical and moral behavior that resonates with them.” They thus “liberate” children from “authoritarian” teachings on morality.
4 “Metaphysics” deals with the nature of Reality; “Epistemology”, with theories of Knowledge. The Ayn Rand Institute has an excellent lexicon for philosophical terms. Rand was a non-theist; PH is a Christian theist. Hence, there are some differences. But both see “Natural Law” (Physics, Mathematics, Logic, Morality, Politics, etc.) as woven into the Fabric of Reality. Both see the Universe as governed by LAW; and that the duty of man is to learn & to obey these Laws.
Thus, the Great Divide is between those who accept the concept of Divine or “Natural Law”; and those, such as Progressives, Pragmatists, & Existentialists, who reject it. They deny the existence of any standard other than their own “feelings”, likes & dislikes.
5 “objective reality” means this: “Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.” In other words, things are the way they are regardless of what you like, don’t like, agree with or don’t agree with.
6 “subjectivism” is “...the belief that reality is not a firm absolute, but a fluid, plastic, indeterminate realm which can be altered, in whole or in part, by the consciousness of the perceiver—i.e., by his feelings, wishes or whims. It is the doctrine which holds that man—an entity of a specific nature, dealing with a universe of a specific nature—can, somehow, live, act and achieve his goals apart from and/or in contradiction to the facts of reality, i.e., apart from and/or in contradiction to his own nature and the nature of the universe…”
7 In “The Abolition of Man”, C.S. Lewis illustrates how the concept of “objective value” was ripped out of the hearts of British school children by their teachers. He also discusses the “Natural Law” and how it has been universally recognized. His book is only 113 pages, double-spaced, & one of the most important books ever written. Read it. Outline it. Tell all in your spheres of influence.
8 But at least we can take comfort in the knowledge that our children are not being taught in public schools such things as, “thou shalt not kill”, “thou shalt not steal”, “thou shalt not bear false witness”, “thou shalt not covet”, and other such “authoritarian” & offensive rubbish.
9 In “The Second American Revolution”, attorney John W. Whitehead (Rutherford Institute) writes of this. This is a valuable book which shows how bad philosophy corrupted our judges.
10 Glen Beck and others are showing that under the pretext of teaching reading, progressive “educators” are now telling our children the Lie that our Constitution institutes socialism! PH
Publius Huldah Publius Huldah Most recent columns
Publius Huldah is a retired lawyer who lives in Tennessee USA. She writes on the U.S. Constitution and posts her papers at publiushuldah.wordpress.com Before getting a law degree, she got a degree in philosophy where she specialized in political philosophy and epistemology (theories of knowledge). Using primarily The Federalist Papers, which were written during 1787-1788 by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison & John Jay, in order to explain the proposed Constitution to the American People and induce them to ratify it, Publius Huldah explains the true & original meaning of the U.S. Constitution. She also shows how modern day judges on the U.S. federal courts have completely abandoned the U.S. Constitution and have substituted their own personal views and opinions for The Constitution.
Publius can be reached at: mailto:Publiushuldah@twlakes.net?bcc=letters@canadafreepress.com
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Can US Founder’s Natural Law Help Defeat Obama’s Socialist “Change”
Do We Choose the "Security" of Dishonest Tyrants, Or Real Liberty for Freeborn People?
Can US Founder’s Natural Law Help Defeat Obama’s Socialist “Change” ?
By Kelly O'Connell Sunday, March 6, 2011
An alarming fact patriotic Americans must accept is leftists fighting for “Hope ‘n Change” are actually determined to steal as much liberty from others as possible. The current “Change” mandate has already been exposed as simplistic socialism. But in the midst of unsettling changes and alarming power grabs by our elected officials, as we see our traditional rights and freedoms being sent down the commode as so much effluent, is there anything to be done?
In fact, to win back our freedoms all we need do is hearken back to our Founders & Framers, those intrepid visionary leaders, who laid down the template which we now stray from at our peril. The key to fighting back successfully is reincarnating the Natural Law foundations of our Revolution, which declared bad law to be no law at all, and evil leadership to be simple tyranny. This article discusses this theme of hearkening back to America’s Natural Law foundations to save the USA.
I. Introducing Modern Leftism in America
Ironically, despite the USA winning the Cold War against Marxists a scant generation ago, we are now closer to a socialist coup than perhaps any time in history. How this occurred bears retelling. As America waged war with outside enemies, like Korea and Vietnam, from within we were being cannibalized through our media, entertainment industry and educational system.
Suffice it to say Marxists like John Dewey, ideological founder of modern education, burrowed their way into academia, smuggling in Marxist progressive doctrines. These theories so undermined our traditional, classically-oriented school system that the fight was over before it began. Universities and public schools were riddled with increasing numbers of Marxist true-believers who were more evangelical than most church attenders could ever dream to be.
An example of this infiltration is found in the American arrival of the Frankfurt School, infamous German Marxists who helped deliver a bloodless coup of Political Correctness half a century later. Having already wholly ingested the PC movement, Americans now seem helpless to resist it. But would that change if every Conservative and independent were enlightened to the fact that Political Correctness is cultural Marxism meant to rip our hearts and brains out, leaving us morally defenseless?
In fact, Natural Law has much to say against these immoral and lawless movements which can only debase human society and collapse the greatest of empires from within.
II. Natural Law: Our Foundation & Refuge From Tyranny
A. Perpetual Roots of Natural Law
Debating the essential nature of law is a time-honored undertaking. Natural Law will always be attractive for ethically minded thinkers who believe justice is an inherently moral process. Two Basic schools of legal thought exist, represented by Aquinas versus Hobbes. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) believed law was tied into an understanding of God and His standards, to be worked out by man in his society. The atheistic Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) believed the state creates and justifies its own laws, without reference to any outside standard.
1. Thomas Hobbes
Hobbes believed life so chaotic the state had to take a strong stand against rebels, offering judgment without remorse, or risk falling into anarchy. This meant that law was justified simply because the state (Leviathan) had produced it. While succinct, Hobbes’ theory leaves no alternative against tyranny. The state’s actions are justified, without exception, because it has ultimate authority in all human realms. This position was assumed by all Marxist countries. For example, while an appeals court existed in the USSR, they never reversed a single case presented to them for review.
2. Thomas Aquinas
Aquinas represents the classic Western view of Natural law which posits in every single human interaction, there is always a higher authority over any human ruling, decision or law. This “Natural Law” is a recurring ideal in the history of the West. It may be the most powerful idea ever unleashed in the realm of government and law. The basic formula of the Natural Law would be that a moral order is omnipresent in the world which represents a “most just” response in any possible scenario.
For example, to murder an innocent child is no less evil simply because this act was done on some tiny rocky island in the middle of the Pacific, unclaimed by any country. But a legal theory that rejects a “law above the law” might find such an act deplorable, but not technically illegal. Such was the problem in Nazi Germany after WWII when the acts of killing Jews was legally, but clearly wrong. Interestingly, the same group that met in San Francisco to debate the Nuremberg Trials then formed the United Nations.
Aquinas mentions four kinds of law:
1. Eternal law. God governs the universe through physical laws, moral laws, & revealed religious laws. Eternal law is all of these.
2. Natural law (moral law). This part of eternal law that applies to human choices and can be known by our natural reason.
3. Human law (civil law). We create our own laws, in order to apply the natural law to the specific circumstances of our society.
4. Divine law (biblical law). In the Bible, God reveals special law guiding us to our supernatural end of eternal happiness with Him.
B. A Rational Definition of Natural Law
The generation of Founders was one of the most brilliant societies ever assembled, and their legal theory was wholly influenced by Natural Law principles. For example, British legal commentator William Blackstone was the largest influence on legal principles upon the Founders, and a diehard supporter of Natural Law jurisprudence. He standardized the law, making it understandable to generations of colonists. Blackstone had various quotes about Natural Law which help us understand the Founders view.
First, Natural Law has a divine element, according to Blackstone:
Thus when the Supreme Being formed the universe, and created matter out of nothing, he impressed certain principles upon that matter, from which it can never depart, and without which it would cease to be… This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are in validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original…. Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation [Bible], depend on all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.
Natural Law is moral and reasonable, according to preeminent Natural Law scholar Thomas Aquinas. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes Aquinas’ providential view of law and rationality:
For Aquinas, there are two key features of the natural law, features the acknowledgment of which structures his discussion of the natural law in the Summa Theologiae. The first is that, when we focus on God’s role as the giver of the natural law, the natural law is just one aspect of divine providence; and so the theory of natural law is from that perspective just one part among others of the theory of divine providence. The second is that, when we focus on the human’s role as recipient of the natural law, the natural law constitutes the principles of practical rationality, those principles by which human action is to be judged as reasonable or unreasonable; and so the theory of natural law is from that perspective the preeminent part of the theory of practical rationality.
Natural Law uses common sense, according to Christopher Wolfe in his Natural Law Liberalism. He claims the “natural” part of Natural Law does not correspond to the basest animal instincts, but to the contrary, goes to the highest potential of humans. He writes: “Man, a rational creature, on the other hand…must undertake deliberation and choice to achieve his ends.” The Dictionary of the History of Ideas also stresses the background of Aristotelian and Thomistic thought which helped to create the great highlights of Protestant Natural Law found in such writers as Hooker.
According to Blackstone, and agreeing with John Locke, Natural Law defends individual rights of Life, Liberty & Property:
There are 3 primary personal rights: Personal security. The right consists in a person’s legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation. Personal liberty. This personal liberty consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation, or removing one’s person to whatsoever place one’s own inclination may direct; without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due course of law. Right of private property: law of the land. This right consists in the free use, enjoyment, and disposal by man of all acquisitions, without any control or diminution, save only by the laws of the land.
And Natural Law is a theory seeking to forge a connection between law and morality. John Finnis, in his seminal Natural Law And Natural Rights stresses this connection in his highly influential work.
Natural Law Defining “Law”
According to Natural Law theory - rules, statutes, or laws which are inherently unjust or immoral are not true law, and therefore no one is under compunction to follow them. Augustine wrote, “An unjust law is no law at all,” in On Free Choice Of The Will, Book 1, ¬ß 5. This ancient definition well reveals how the early Church deeply influenced the Natural Law tradition.
Natural Law Defining “Leadership”
C. Tyrants Are Not Leaders
Intriguing is the medieval Christian and classical stance against tyrants, being those leaders who become dictators. Aquinas believed a leader who had devolved into a dictator could be justly resisted since he had lost authority, according to Robert George in St. Thomas Aquinas and the Natural Law Tradition: Contemporary Perspectives, edited by Goyette, etc. This is the same logic the Founders used to resist King George III’s tyranny.
D. Natural Law Allows Right of Principled Resistance
A long history resides in the Natural Rights tradition of resisting tyrants, going back into ancient Israel and Rome. Aquinas wrote on this, but the unambiguous champion of a right, or even duty, of principled resistance is John Locke. He wrote in his Second Treatise on Government,
That subjects, or foreigners attempting by force on the properties of any people, may be resisted with force, is agreed on all hands. But that magistrates doing the same thing, may be resisted, hath of late been denied: as if those who had the greatest privileges and advantages by the law, had thereby a power to break those laws, by which alone they were set in a better place than their brethren.
Of course the Founders also believed in principled resistance, proved by Jefferson’s statement “Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.” His opening of the Declaration of Independence still rings out to us:
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Of course, Jefferson goes even farther on the right to resist:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty & the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, & to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles & organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety & Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light & transient causes; & accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses & usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, & to provide new Guards for their future security.
III. Where Do We Go From Here: Modern Slavery or Classical Liberalism?
America represents an experiment in the creation of a Natural Law kingdom not of kings, but of the rule of law, or as Samuel Rutherford stated - Lex Rex - law as king. Further, our idea of Natural Rights is simply an expression of the notion that all men have inalienable rights from God that no country or potentate may take away without creating a tyranny.
Consider the Natural Law which is the law above law which always comes to mind when we see an injustice. We know it exists because when it is enforced happiness reigns, but when it is extinguished, misery results. Its elements include law by divine providence, expressed in revelation. This law is universal, and can be applied properly when rational mindset augments revelation. It protects our most fundamental principles, being rights to Life, Liberty and Property. And the law is always moral, as it seeks the ends of justice - to do the good and eschew evil.
Conclusion
Now, consider how a Natural Law jurist would apply it to our current problems:
Rule of Law: Our rule of law is trampled when the Justice Department insists on turning a blind eye towards voter fraud in the name of protecting a special group. But without a Rule of Law coming before individual interests, justice cannot be established, by definition.
Consent of the Governed: Our entire theory of our government is based upon Consent of the Governed. To deny this is to establish a de facto tyranny. But with the current administration defying the clear will of the people on nearly every new law, have they not already forfeited legitimacy?
Socialism: Wealth redistribution does not work to grow economies. Worse, it’s based upon theft.
Government as God: Government which represents the people has therefore no innate right to rule them as a God. The only authority leaders can ever have is that loaned to them by the people.
Education: John Dewey is America’s Einstein of education. He was also a Marxist and his theories have destroyed public education by removing God and radically dumbing-down curriculum.
Sovereignty: If the UN begins to make decisions for America, how does this affect our future?
Now, can the Natural Law help us make any principled progress against the debasing of our Republic?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly O'Connell Bio
Kelly O'Connell Most recent columns Most recent columns
Kelly O’Connell is an author and attorney. He was born on the West Coast, raised in Las Vegas, and matriculated from the University of Oregon. After laboring for the Reformed Church in Galway, Ireland, he returned to America and attended law school in Virginia, where he earned a JD and a Master’s degree in Government. He spent a stint working as a researcher and writer of academic articles at a Miami law school, focusing on ancient law and society. He has also been employed as a university Speech & Debate professor. He then returned West and worked as an assistant district attorney. Kelly is now is a private practitioner with a small law practice in New Mexico.
Kelly can be reached at: hibernian1@gmail.com
Can US Founder’s Natural Law Help Defeat Obama’s Socialist “Change” ?
By Kelly O'Connell Sunday, March 6, 2011
An alarming fact patriotic Americans must accept is leftists fighting for “Hope ‘n Change” are actually determined to steal as much liberty from others as possible. The current “Change” mandate has already been exposed as simplistic socialism. But in the midst of unsettling changes and alarming power grabs by our elected officials, as we see our traditional rights and freedoms being sent down the commode as so much effluent, is there anything to be done?
In fact, to win back our freedoms all we need do is hearken back to our Founders & Framers, those intrepid visionary leaders, who laid down the template which we now stray from at our peril. The key to fighting back successfully is reincarnating the Natural Law foundations of our Revolution, which declared bad law to be no law at all, and evil leadership to be simple tyranny. This article discusses this theme of hearkening back to America’s Natural Law foundations to save the USA.
I. Introducing Modern Leftism in America
Ironically, despite the USA winning the Cold War against Marxists a scant generation ago, we are now closer to a socialist coup than perhaps any time in history. How this occurred bears retelling. As America waged war with outside enemies, like Korea and Vietnam, from within we were being cannibalized through our media, entertainment industry and educational system.
Suffice it to say Marxists like John Dewey, ideological founder of modern education, burrowed their way into academia, smuggling in Marxist progressive doctrines. These theories so undermined our traditional, classically-oriented school system that the fight was over before it began. Universities and public schools were riddled with increasing numbers of Marxist true-believers who were more evangelical than most church attenders could ever dream to be.
An example of this infiltration is found in the American arrival of the Frankfurt School, infamous German Marxists who helped deliver a bloodless coup of Political Correctness half a century later. Having already wholly ingested the PC movement, Americans now seem helpless to resist it. But would that change if every Conservative and independent were enlightened to the fact that Political Correctness is cultural Marxism meant to rip our hearts and brains out, leaving us morally defenseless?
In fact, Natural Law has much to say against these immoral and lawless movements which can only debase human society and collapse the greatest of empires from within.
II. Natural Law: Our Foundation & Refuge From Tyranny
A. Perpetual Roots of Natural Law
Debating the essential nature of law is a time-honored undertaking. Natural Law will always be attractive for ethically minded thinkers who believe justice is an inherently moral process. Two Basic schools of legal thought exist, represented by Aquinas versus Hobbes. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) believed law was tied into an understanding of God and His standards, to be worked out by man in his society. The atheistic Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) believed the state creates and justifies its own laws, without reference to any outside standard.
1. Thomas Hobbes
Hobbes believed life so chaotic the state had to take a strong stand against rebels, offering judgment without remorse, or risk falling into anarchy. This meant that law was justified simply because the state (Leviathan) had produced it. While succinct, Hobbes’ theory leaves no alternative against tyranny. The state’s actions are justified, without exception, because it has ultimate authority in all human realms. This position was assumed by all Marxist countries. For example, while an appeals court existed in the USSR, they never reversed a single case presented to them for review.
2. Thomas Aquinas
Aquinas represents the classic Western view of Natural law which posits in every single human interaction, there is always a higher authority over any human ruling, decision or law. This “Natural Law” is a recurring ideal in the history of the West. It may be the most powerful idea ever unleashed in the realm of government and law. The basic formula of the Natural Law would be that a moral order is omnipresent in the world which represents a “most just” response in any possible scenario.
For example, to murder an innocent child is no less evil simply because this act was done on some tiny rocky island in the middle of the Pacific, unclaimed by any country. But a legal theory that rejects a “law above the law” might find such an act deplorable, but not technically illegal. Such was the problem in Nazi Germany after WWII when the acts of killing Jews was legally, but clearly wrong. Interestingly, the same group that met in San Francisco to debate the Nuremberg Trials then formed the United Nations.
Aquinas mentions four kinds of law:
1. Eternal law. God governs the universe through physical laws, moral laws, & revealed religious laws. Eternal law is all of these.
2. Natural law (moral law). This part of eternal law that applies to human choices and can be known by our natural reason.
3. Human law (civil law). We create our own laws, in order to apply the natural law to the specific circumstances of our society.
4. Divine law (biblical law). In the Bible, God reveals special law guiding us to our supernatural end of eternal happiness with Him.
B. A Rational Definition of Natural Law
The generation of Founders was one of the most brilliant societies ever assembled, and their legal theory was wholly influenced by Natural Law principles. For example, British legal commentator William Blackstone was the largest influence on legal principles upon the Founders, and a diehard supporter of Natural Law jurisprudence. He standardized the law, making it understandable to generations of colonists. Blackstone had various quotes about Natural Law which help us understand the Founders view.
First, Natural Law has a divine element, according to Blackstone:
Thus when the Supreme Being formed the universe, and created matter out of nothing, he impressed certain principles upon that matter, from which it can never depart, and without which it would cease to be… This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are in validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original…. Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation [Bible], depend on all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.
Natural Law is moral and reasonable, according to preeminent Natural Law scholar Thomas Aquinas. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes Aquinas’ providential view of law and rationality:
For Aquinas, there are two key features of the natural law, features the acknowledgment of which structures his discussion of the natural law in the Summa Theologiae. The first is that, when we focus on God’s role as the giver of the natural law, the natural law is just one aspect of divine providence; and so the theory of natural law is from that perspective just one part among others of the theory of divine providence. The second is that, when we focus on the human’s role as recipient of the natural law, the natural law constitutes the principles of practical rationality, those principles by which human action is to be judged as reasonable or unreasonable; and so the theory of natural law is from that perspective the preeminent part of the theory of practical rationality.
Natural Law uses common sense, according to Christopher Wolfe in his Natural Law Liberalism. He claims the “natural” part of Natural Law does not correspond to the basest animal instincts, but to the contrary, goes to the highest potential of humans. He writes: “Man, a rational creature, on the other hand…must undertake deliberation and choice to achieve his ends.” The Dictionary of the History of Ideas also stresses the background of Aristotelian and Thomistic thought which helped to create the great highlights of Protestant Natural Law found in such writers as Hooker.
According to Blackstone, and agreeing with John Locke, Natural Law defends individual rights of Life, Liberty & Property:
There are 3 primary personal rights: Personal security. The right consists in a person’s legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation. Personal liberty. This personal liberty consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation, or removing one’s person to whatsoever place one’s own inclination may direct; without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due course of law. Right of private property: law of the land. This right consists in the free use, enjoyment, and disposal by man of all acquisitions, without any control or diminution, save only by the laws of the land.
And Natural Law is a theory seeking to forge a connection between law and morality. John Finnis, in his seminal Natural Law And Natural Rights stresses this connection in his highly influential work.
Natural Law Defining “Law”
According to Natural Law theory - rules, statutes, or laws which are inherently unjust or immoral are not true law, and therefore no one is under compunction to follow them. Augustine wrote, “An unjust law is no law at all,” in On Free Choice Of The Will, Book 1, ¬ß 5. This ancient definition well reveals how the early Church deeply influenced the Natural Law tradition.
Natural Law Defining “Leadership”
C. Tyrants Are Not Leaders
Intriguing is the medieval Christian and classical stance against tyrants, being those leaders who become dictators. Aquinas believed a leader who had devolved into a dictator could be justly resisted since he had lost authority, according to Robert George in St. Thomas Aquinas and the Natural Law Tradition: Contemporary Perspectives, edited by Goyette, etc. This is the same logic the Founders used to resist King George III’s tyranny.
D. Natural Law Allows Right of Principled Resistance
A long history resides in the Natural Rights tradition of resisting tyrants, going back into ancient Israel and Rome. Aquinas wrote on this, but the unambiguous champion of a right, or even duty, of principled resistance is John Locke. He wrote in his Second Treatise on Government,
That subjects, or foreigners attempting by force on the properties of any people, may be resisted with force, is agreed on all hands. But that magistrates doing the same thing, may be resisted, hath of late been denied: as if those who had the greatest privileges and advantages by the law, had thereby a power to break those laws, by which alone they were set in a better place than their brethren.
Of course the Founders also believed in principled resistance, proved by Jefferson’s statement “Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.” His opening of the Declaration of Independence still rings out to us:
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Of course, Jefferson goes even farther on the right to resist:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty & the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, & to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles & organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety & Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light & transient causes; & accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses & usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, & to provide new Guards for their future security.
III. Where Do We Go From Here: Modern Slavery or Classical Liberalism?
America represents an experiment in the creation of a Natural Law kingdom not of kings, but of the rule of law, or as Samuel Rutherford stated - Lex Rex - law as king. Further, our idea of Natural Rights is simply an expression of the notion that all men have inalienable rights from God that no country or potentate may take away without creating a tyranny.
Consider the Natural Law which is the law above law which always comes to mind when we see an injustice. We know it exists because when it is enforced happiness reigns, but when it is extinguished, misery results. Its elements include law by divine providence, expressed in revelation. This law is universal, and can be applied properly when rational mindset augments revelation. It protects our most fundamental principles, being rights to Life, Liberty and Property. And the law is always moral, as it seeks the ends of justice - to do the good and eschew evil.
Conclusion
Now, consider how a Natural Law jurist would apply it to our current problems:
Rule of Law: Our rule of law is trampled when the Justice Department insists on turning a blind eye towards voter fraud in the name of protecting a special group. But without a Rule of Law coming before individual interests, justice cannot be established, by definition.
Consent of the Governed: Our entire theory of our government is based upon Consent of the Governed. To deny this is to establish a de facto tyranny. But with the current administration defying the clear will of the people on nearly every new law, have they not already forfeited legitimacy?
Socialism: Wealth redistribution does not work to grow economies. Worse, it’s based upon theft.
Government as God: Government which represents the people has therefore no innate right to rule them as a God. The only authority leaders can ever have is that loaned to them by the people.
Education: John Dewey is America’s Einstein of education. He was also a Marxist and his theories have destroyed public education by removing God and radically dumbing-down curriculum.
Sovereignty: If the UN begins to make decisions for America, how does this affect our future?
Now, can the Natural Law help us make any principled progress against the debasing of our Republic?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly O'Connell Bio
Kelly O'Connell Most recent columns Most recent columns
Kelly O’Connell is an author and attorney. He was born on the West Coast, raised in Las Vegas, and matriculated from the University of Oregon. After laboring for the Reformed Church in Galway, Ireland, he returned to America and attended law school in Virginia, where he earned a JD and a Master’s degree in Government. He spent a stint working as a researcher and writer of academic articles at a Miami law school, focusing on ancient law and society. He has also been employed as a university Speech & Debate professor. He then returned West and worked as an assistant district attorney. Kelly is now is a private practitioner with a small law practice in New Mexico.
Kelly can be reached at: hibernian1@gmail.com
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Muslim Men and Non-Muslim Women
Melissa Bender, Jessie Bender, Pakistani Mohammad Khan, Marriage, Rapes, Assaults
Muslim Men and Non-Muslim Women
By Daniel Greenfield Saturday, March 5, 2011
When American mother Melissa Bender married Pakistani Mohammad Khan, she brought three children from a previous marriage into the relationship. Today the children are in protective custody after police discovered that her 13-year-old daughter, Jessie Bender, wasn’t taken away by a predator, but that the predator had been right in her own house.
Mohammad Khan was planning to take Melissa and Jessie to Pakistan, where the 13-year-old girl feared she would be forced into an arranged marriage. Instead she bravely went on the run and the police department appears to be doing the right thing. For now.
Had Mohammad Khan taken her to Pakistan and married her off, it would have been almost impossible for the child to escape again. Particularly from a rural area. She would have been repeatedly raped by her “husband”, beaten by her in-laws and turned into a slave. And Khan would have likely profited from the exchange. Khan didn’t just marry a middle aged woman, he married a woman with at least one girl at home. And in Pakistan that translates into a salable commodity.
Last year the British Home Secretary warned about grooming of English girls by Pakistani men.
Last month, Mohammed Liaqat and Abid Saddique, were jailed for a series of rapes and sexual assaults on young girls as young as 12.
Atma Singh, from the Sikh Community Action Network, said: “Well done to Jack Straw for being 100 percent honest and saying what many people already know – that there are pockets of youngsters in the Pakistani Muslim community who treat girls from other communities as sexual objects.”
Mohammed Shafiq, director of the Muslim youth group the Ramadan Foundation said 53 out of the last 65 convictions for grooming had involved British Pakistanis.
“The reality is that there is an issue,” he said. “There is a perception that these white girls have lesser morals and lesser values than women from Pakistani heritage.
“It’s abhorrent and there needs to be debate.”
These are not quotes from the BNP or the EDL. These come from the inside. And it’s time Americans thought seriously about what they are importing into this country.
Let’s look at how women are treated in Pakistan. In many tribal areas, rape is a punishment meted out by tribal elders. Rape convictions are virtually impossible to achieve.
Here are apolitical stories from Western women living in major cities in Pakistan.
YES I believe you would be in danger if you dressed in a skimpy way. Flashy, skimpy clothes tell men that you are a loose woman, available to all. If you are raped or attacked, the men will say you brought it on yourself by the way you dressed.
It will also bring ‘shame’ on your husband and his family and may create large problems with the in-laws.
One of my friends was reprimanded for wearing capri length pajama pants and a t-shirt around the house at night. Her mother in law said it brought shame on the family.
If you’re living independently, wear whatever you want inside, but I’d suggest always answering the door in full length pants, a short sleeve shirt and a scarf. If you don’t, it is as if you are inviting men to have sexual relations with you.
Many Pakistani men already believe that Western women are loose and are all whores. Prepare to be groped in public by passing men, whether you dress conservatively or not.
That’s it. In Pakistani Muslim culture not wearing a hijab is asking to be raped. Wear a t-shirt in your own house and you’re setting yourself up for an honor killing. And even if you dress conservatively, you’ll still be molested in public on a regular basis.
What does that mean again? Here is one woman’s story from Pakistan. Be warned it is graphic, but it’s also a reflection of what daily life is like in a culture with no respect for women as human beings.
The situation is worse for non-Muslim women, particularly indigenous Christians and Western travelers, who are held to be less than human.
Do you think that magically changes when Ahmed or Mohammed moves to London or New York? It doesn’t. He only learns to be more discreet when outside his own community, otherwise the shaitan damned infidel yahood police will get him in trouble. His attitude doesn’t change. Only his tactics do.
A Pakistani immigrant in Brooklyn blackmailed his friend’s teenage daughters into having sex with him by threatening to tell their traditionalist parents they were being intimate with their boyfriends, law-enforcement sources revealed yesterday.
In one instance, Mohammad Naseer allegedly threatened to kill one of the Pakistani girls if she didn’t sleep with him.
“If you don’t do what I want, I will tell your father that you had sex with your boyfriend and if your father does not kill you, I will kill you. No one will find your body,” he threatened, according to court documents.
Pakistani men are prominent in lists of sexual assaults over and over again. In Australia, the Ashfield gang rapes by four Pakistani brothers (whose father perjured himself in court to give them an alibi), their defense was that being Pakistani Muslims gave them the right to rape.
The eldest of four Pakistani gang rapist brothers has admitted lying at trial and apologised to his victims but said he thought he had a right to rape the “promiscuous” teenage girls.
MSK, 27, told the NSW Supreme Court yesterday that this was because the girls did not wear headscarves, were drinking alcohol and were unaccompanied when they went to his Ashfield home.
Here’s a direct quote from the rapist himself, which should give you a terrifying understanding of how Pakistani men think
“She don’t know us, I don’t know her, like she was not related to us and she was not wearing any purdah … like she was not … covered her face, she was not wearing any headscarf and she started drinking with us and she was singing.
His cultural assumption was that a girl whose face is not covered, who sings and drinks has no rights whatsoever. It’s not an unusual assumption. If it was, then Western women wouldn’t have to be afraid of visiting Pakistan.
The legal system in this case and in every case misses the point. MSK is not a rapist, he’s a Pakistani Muslim. In Pakistan rape is not a crime against a person, but against property. The father or the husband’s property. His honor. Pakistani immigrants do not recognize the same notion of equal human rights that Westerners do. You can send them to jail for rape, but you can’t force them to think like the citizens of the free world do.
The values don’t change. They’re embedded in the Koran. Mohammed married Aisha when she was 6. Half Jessie’s age. A girl who reaches puberty is widely considered marriageable in the Muslim world. MSK is confused, the way most Americans would be if they visited a foreign country and in some unclear way offended their hosts. To MSK this is a cultural misunderstanding. And so it is to most Muslim Pakistani men.
Now think about a 13 year old American girl being taken into a home with a stepfather like that. And think about all the little girls who don’t run away from home. Who do go to Pakistan. How many are they? We’ll never know. But one thing we can be sure of, their numbers is growing.
Jessie Bender was meant to be an American Aisha. Instead thanks to her own courage, and a legal system that appears to be doing the right thing, she may now have the chance to grow up, fall in love and be a free human being. That elementary right which we take for granted and that no woman living in the Muslim world ever can.
How academic is this, let’s take a brief trip from Pakistan to Egypt, home of the joyful Democratic revolution, where 98 percent of foreign women complained of being sexually harassed on a daily basis.
Let’s step back and look at those numbers for a moment. Nearly every single foreign woman who visits Egypt can expect to be sexually harassed… every single day that she is there. Where does that kind of attitude come from?
Remember Sheikh Qaradawi, who heads the Muslim Brotherhood, and is preparing to be Egypt’s Ayatollah Khomeini. The man who has managed to get more followers into Tahrir Square that any individual of the so-called leaders who the media promises us will lead Egypt to democracy, thinks that way.
Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim cleric currently on a controversial visit to Britain, believes that female rape victims should be punished if dressed “immodestly” when assaulted.
One question asked: “Are raped women punished in Islam?” A panel, headed by Mr al-Qaradawi, replied: “To be absolved from guilt, the raped woman must have shown some sort of good conduct . . . Islam addresses women to maintain their modesty, as not to open the door for evil.
“The Koran calls upon Muslim women in general to preserve their dignity and modesty, just to save themselves from any harassment.
This is the exact same rationalization used by MRK in court. It’s a universally common view throughout the Muslim world. (Now imagine how wonderful Egypt will be for women under Qaradawi. David Stein at Counter Contempt asks whether his views influenced the rape of Lara Logan.)
And Qaradawi concedes that the reason for the Burka and the Hijab and all the rest of that garbage is so that women do their part to keep from being raped. That’s what Islamic modesty really is. A sign that reads, “I’m a decent Muslim woman, I belong to my father or my husband, please don’t rape me.”
That is what Jessie narrowly escaped in Pakistan, but it’s coming here too. It is here. In Canada, Australia, England, France and everywhere else.
This is the undeniable reality that the left refuses to acknowledge.
When a group of prominent women in Israel put out a letter urging Jewish girls not to marry Muslim men, cries of racism went up.
“There are quite a few Arab workers who give themselves Hebrew names. Yusef turns into Yosef, Samir turns into Sami, and Awabad turns into Ami. They ask to be close to you, try to find favor with you, and give you all the attention in world, they are actually here knowing to act with courtesy, acting as if they really care for you, say a good word, but their behavior is only temporary. The moment you are in their hands, in their village, under their control, everything changes.”
“Your life will never go back to the way it was, and the attention you so desired will turn into curses, beatings, and humiliations,”
But frankly how can even the left argue with this assessment?
“It’s known that girls who go out with Arabs are beaten, these girls are in danger. . . . There is a violent social trend and everyone ignores it,” said the head of the group, Anat Gopstein, in a radio interview Wednesday morning.
But of course liberal clergy like Gilad Kariv shrieked, “Israeli society is falling into a deep, dark pit of racism and xenophobia”.
Is there anyone who still doesn’t know it? And if women are treated just as well in the Muslim world, then why do 98 percent of foreign women in Egypt report being abused on a daily basis. There is no answer to the truth.
When Jewish women do marry Arab men, they often end up being trapped in villages, abused and degraded.
Galit met Rami Kadera, an Arab from Gaza, ten years ago when he was employed as a waiter in a wedding hall. She was just sixteen — “I knew he was an Arab but all my friends were meeting Arabs”— and thought he had Israeli citizenship and would be allowed to live in Israel. When he eventually took her and their four children back to Gaza after being forced to leave Israel, where he had been working illegally, she thought it was for a short visit, never imagining she would be taken hostage by her own husband. Instead, she found herself trapped, stripped of her documents, and routinely beaten and tortured.
...Her mother arranged to pay for the cab, and the relative made contact with the Israeli soldiers at the Erez checkpoint, explaining that an Israeli woman and three children would be passing through. When she arrived back in Israel, she was covered with bruises and weighed under a hundred pounds.
Sometimes they can be rescued by organizations like Yad L’Achim, but often they and their children descend into a life of permanent slavery.
Phyllis Chesler has lived this life when she moved to Afghanistan and speaks with an insight that few others can muster.
I have talked to many American mothers who have traveled to the Muslim world to meet their husbands’ families who soon find that they cannot leave. Their passports may be taken away. They have no local resources to protect them.
Long ago, this happened to me in Kabul, Afghanistan.
He lied. One thing that Westerners find hard to believe is the ease with which many traditional Arabs and Muslims both exaggerate or lie. Think about how effective Islamist propaganda has been in the West. Then, think of how this capacity might play out in a domestic setting.
Talk to most Arab and Muslim men and you will find that the slightest departure from their being in control means that they have been victimized and must avenge their lost honor. Thus, Yazmin’s attempt to remove Sadiq’s “property” (their daughter) means that Yazmin will tarnish Sadiq’s honor. If Sadiq is like other Arab, Muslim men, he will say and do anything to avoid this.
Anything. That is the source of the honor-killing.
Finally to close with an Islamic Valentine’s Day message from Western Rifle Shooters
But what if that hot new child bride is not in the mood to satisfy your male needs? Those teenagers (and preteens) can be quite a handful, as we all know. Well, she’d better get in the mood, if she doesn’t want a good thrashing! Our holy books are very clear on this. But what if she still won’t receive your overtures when you want to lay a little loving on her? You have even beaten her black and blue (except on her face), but to no avail. She’s lost that loving feeling, or maybe she never had it in the first place. Some teenage brides are just like that.
Men, this part is great, you will just love it. And this goes for any of your wives, from your oldest to your youngest. Just divorce them, by saying “I divorce thee!” That’s it! No lawyers, no paperwork, no alimony. After this legally-binding divorce occurs she’s thrown out on the street, penniless and rejected by society. The witch will soon be begging on a corner. She’s not exactly a pretty sight, but lucky for us men we don’t have to see her, since she’s just a lump in a burqa, squatting on the sidewalk with only her begging cup showing. Her pitiful example will also do wonders to encourage your other wives to please you better.
Isn’t that great, men? Truly, the one true religion of peace is perfect for us.
Read it all.
Samurai Mohel has his own list of reasons like
3. Don’t have daughters. If you do, first their clitoris will be cut off, and then their head if they ever dishonor the family by acting like teenage girls.
4. All your husband has to do to divorce you is recite a sentence in Arabic three times. He can also email it you or text it to you.
5. If you move to an Arab village and get raped, your rapists can accuse you of adultery. You can’t accuse them of rape.
6. Your mandatory body garment also doubles as a shroud when your husband decides to dispose of you.
On to an issue regarding yesterday’s article. A number of sites have linked to the story on the Shariah 4 America plan to put a burka on the Statue of Liberty, before demolishing it and replacing it with a minaret. Some have begun to retract the story as a parody.
Confusion has arisen because there are two Shariah4America websites.
One is Shariah4America.com, the authentic site, whose contact phone number is the same as that for the Islamic Thinkers Society, a New York City based Islamist group, which is linked to Revolution Muslim and the UK’s Al-Muhajiroun, formerly led by Anjem Choudary before being banned there. Anjem Choudary was due to protest in front of the White House before canceling his plans. The plan to deface the Statue of Liberty is on this site.
However Sharia4America (note the spelling) is a semi-parody site by Reza Soltani of MuslimsDebate, an Iranian-American from California, who calls himself a Muslim reformer and opposes the imposition of Sharia Law on America. These are two fundamentally different sites.
FOX News reported this correctly, but because of the similar website spellings there has been some confusion. The Islamic Thinkers Society is also known to be deliberately provocative, outrageous and confrontational in order to court publicity. (See more on this at Atlas Shrugs.)
Islamic Thinkers Society rallies have featured posters such as “Exterminate the Zionist Roaches”, “Throw the Jew Down the Well” and the Holocaust was a Hoax. They have also desecrated the American flag. The proposals on the site are not out of line in that context.
Meanwhile Boker Tov Boulder notes that many of the Hamas 54 congressmen are still around and tied to anti-Israel group J Street’s hate fest.
Even though it’s funded by George Soros, J Street insists on calling itself pro-Israel, even though the conference featured panels such as
“Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions in 2011: Who’s Afraid of the BDS?”
One of the most controversial trends in organizing around Middle East peace efforts is the use of boycotts, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) as a campaign tactic. Our panelists will discuss their views on BDS’s efficacy as a means to end the occupation and move towards final-status talks, and the ways BDS may influence campaigns for peace in the United States and the region.
Are all the congresscritters signing on to this aware that they’re endorsing a conference where calls for boycotting Israel are being promoted?
Lisa Graas at Newsreal has an ugly story that foreshadows the beginning of a new campaign for the ethnic cleansing of Egyptian Christians.
While the Left glories in the “Demubarakization of Egypt,” the Obama administration continues in silence on the atrocities being committed against the Coptic Christians who are the indigenous people of Egypt. Copts in southern Egypt are protesting the murder of a priest by Islamists shouting “Allahu Akbar.” The Egyptian military is busying itself in attacking monasteries by knocking down walls and launching RGB attacks.
Now, the Muslim Governor of Minya, has ordered a community center for handicapped children to be demolished unless protection money is paid, and ten new homes built by Copts are to be torn down unless a mosque is built, though no Muslims live there. The Obama administration’s policies regarding Israel/Gaza and Egypt/Copts appears to be exactly backward.
Puts that Ground Zero Mosque to be built in a place where no Muslims live in a whole new context, doesn’t it.
And to connect the dots, Imam Rauf attended the J Street hatefest. Isn’t it funny how those dots all connect. It’s like we face a common enemy or something.
Daniel Greenfield Most recent columns
Daniel Greenfield is a New York City based writer and freelance commentator. “Daniel comments on political affairs with a special focus on the War on Terror and the rising threat to Western Civilization. He maintains a blog at Sultanknish.blogspot.com.
Daniel can be reached at: sultanknish@yahoo.com
Muslim Men and Non-Muslim Women
By Daniel Greenfield Saturday, March 5, 2011
When American mother Melissa Bender married Pakistani Mohammad Khan, she brought three children from a previous marriage into the relationship. Today the children are in protective custody after police discovered that her 13-year-old daughter, Jessie Bender, wasn’t taken away by a predator, but that the predator had been right in her own house.
Mohammad Khan was planning to take Melissa and Jessie to Pakistan, where the 13-year-old girl feared she would be forced into an arranged marriage. Instead she bravely went on the run and the police department appears to be doing the right thing. For now.
Had Mohammad Khan taken her to Pakistan and married her off, it would have been almost impossible for the child to escape again. Particularly from a rural area. She would have been repeatedly raped by her “husband”, beaten by her in-laws and turned into a slave. And Khan would have likely profited from the exchange. Khan didn’t just marry a middle aged woman, he married a woman with at least one girl at home. And in Pakistan that translates into a salable commodity.
Last year the British Home Secretary warned about grooming of English girls by Pakistani men.
Last month, Mohammed Liaqat and Abid Saddique, were jailed for a series of rapes and sexual assaults on young girls as young as 12.
Atma Singh, from the Sikh Community Action Network, said: “Well done to Jack Straw for being 100 percent honest and saying what many people already know – that there are pockets of youngsters in the Pakistani Muslim community who treat girls from other communities as sexual objects.”
Mohammed Shafiq, director of the Muslim youth group the Ramadan Foundation said 53 out of the last 65 convictions for grooming had involved British Pakistanis.
“The reality is that there is an issue,” he said. “There is a perception that these white girls have lesser morals and lesser values than women from Pakistani heritage.
“It’s abhorrent and there needs to be debate.”
These are not quotes from the BNP or the EDL. These come from the inside. And it’s time Americans thought seriously about what they are importing into this country.
Let’s look at how women are treated in Pakistan. In many tribal areas, rape is a punishment meted out by tribal elders. Rape convictions are virtually impossible to achieve.
Here are apolitical stories from Western women living in major cities in Pakistan.
YES I believe you would be in danger if you dressed in a skimpy way. Flashy, skimpy clothes tell men that you are a loose woman, available to all. If you are raped or attacked, the men will say you brought it on yourself by the way you dressed.
It will also bring ‘shame’ on your husband and his family and may create large problems with the in-laws.
One of my friends was reprimanded for wearing capri length pajama pants and a t-shirt around the house at night. Her mother in law said it brought shame on the family.
If you’re living independently, wear whatever you want inside, but I’d suggest always answering the door in full length pants, a short sleeve shirt and a scarf. If you don’t, it is as if you are inviting men to have sexual relations with you.
Many Pakistani men already believe that Western women are loose and are all whores. Prepare to be groped in public by passing men, whether you dress conservatively or not.
That’s it. In Pakistani Muslim culture not wearing a hijab is asking to be raped. Wear a t-shirt in your own house and you’re setting yourself up for an honor killing. And even if you dress conservatively, you’ll still be molested in public on a regular basis.
What does that mean again? Here is one woman’s story from Pakistan. Be warned it is graphic, but it’s also a reflection of what daily life is like in a culture with no respect for women as human beings.
The situation is worse for non-Muslim women, particularly indigenous Christians and Western travelers, who are held to be less than human.
Do you think that magically changes when Ahmed or Mohammed moves to London or New York? It doesn’t. He only learns to be more discreet when outside his own community, otherwise the shaitan damned infidel yahood police will get him in trouble. His attitude doesn’t change. Only his tactics do.
A Pakistani immigrant in Brooklyn blackmailed his friend’s teenage daughters into having sex with him by threatening to tell their traditionalist parents they were being intimate with their boyfriends, law-enforcement sources revealed yesterday.
In one instance, Mohammad Naseer allegedly threatened to kill one of the Pakistani girls if she didn’t sleep with him.
“If you don’t do what I want, I will tell your father that you had sex with your boyfriend and if your father does not kill you, I will kill you. No one will find your body,” he threatened, according to court documents.
Pakistani men are prominent in lists of sexual assaults over and over again. In Australia, the Ashfield gang rapes by four Pakistani brothers (whose father perjured himself in court to give them an alibi), their defense was that being Pakistani Muslims gave them the right to rape.
The eldest of four Pakistani gang rapist brothers has admitted lying at trial and apologised to his victims but said he thought he had a right to rape the “promiscuous” teenage girls.
MSK, 27, told the NSW Supreme Court yesterday that this was because the girls did not wear headscarves, were drinking alcohol and were unaccompanied when they went to his Ashfield home.
Here’s a direct quote from the rapist himself, which should give you a terrifying understanding of how Pakistani men think
“She don’t know us, I don’t know her, like she was not related to us and she was not wearing any purdah … like she was not … covered her face, she was not wearing any headscarf and she started drinking with us and she was singing.
His cultural assumption was that a girl whose face is not covered, who sings and drinks has no rights whatsoever. It’s not an unusual assumption. If it was, then Western women wouldn’t have to be afraid of visiting Pakistan.
The legal system in this case and in every case misses the point. MSK is not a rapist, he’s a Pakistani Muslim. In Pakistan rape is not a crime against a person, but against property. The father or the husband’s property. His honor. Pakistani immigrants do not recognize the same notion of equal human rights that Westerners do. You can send them to jail for rape, but you can’t force them to think like the citizens of the free world do.
The values don’t change. They’re embedded in the Koran. Mohammed married Aisha when she was 6. Half Jessie’s age. A girl who reaches puberty is widely considered marriageable in the Muslim world. MSK is confused, the way most Americans would be if they visited a foreign country and in some unclear way offended their hosts. To MSK this is a cultural misunderstanding. And so it is to most Muslim Pakistani men.
Now think about a 13 year old American girl being taken into a home with a stepfather like that. And think about all the little girls who don’t run away from home. Who do go to Pakistan. How many are they? We’ll never know. But one thing we can be sure of, their numbers is growing.
Jessie Bender was meant to be an American Aisha. Instead thanks to her own courage, and a legal system that appears to be doing the right thing, she may now have the chance to grow up, fall in love and be a free human being. That elementary right which we take for granted and that no woman living in the Muslim world ever can.
How academic is this, let’s take a brief trip from Pakistan to Egypt, home of the joyful Democratic revolution, where 98 percent of foreign women complained of being sexually harassed on a daily basis.
Let’s step back and look at those numbers for a moment. Nearly every single foreign woman who visits Egypt can expect to be sexually harassed… every single day that she is there. Where does that kind of attitude come from?
Remember Sheikh Qaradawi, who heads the Muslim Brotherhood, and is preparing to be Egypt’s Ayatollah Khomeini. The man who has managed to get more followers into Tahrir Square that any individual of the so-called leaders who the media promises us will lead Egypt to democracy, thinks that way.
Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim cleric currently on a controversial visit to Britain, believes that female rape victims should be punished if dressed “immodestly” when assaulted.
One question asked: “Are raped women punished in Islam?” A panel, headed by Mr al-Qaradawi, replied: “To be absolved from guilt, the raped woman must have shown some sort of good conduct . . . Islam addresses women to maintain their modesty, as not to open the door for evil.
“The Koran calls upon Muslim women in general to preserve their dignity and modesty, just to save themselves from any harassment.
This is the exact same rationalization used by MRK in court. It’s a universally common view throughout the Muslim world. (Now imagine how wonderful Egypt will be for women under Qaradawi. David Stein at Counter Contempt asks whether his views influenced the rape of Lara Logan.)
And Qaradawi concedes that the reason for the Burka and the Hijab and all the rest of that garbage is so that women do their part to keep from being raped. That’s what Islamic modesty really is. A sign that reads, “I’m a decent Muslim woman, I belong to my father or my husband, please don’t rape me.”
That is what Jessie narrowly escaped in Pakistan, but it’s coming here too. It is here. In Canada, Australia, England, France and everywhere else.
This is the undeniable reality that the left refuses to acknowledge.
When a group of prominent women in Israel put out a letter urging Jewish girls not to marry Muslim men, cries of racism went up.
“There are quite a few Arab workers who give themselves Hebrew names. Yusef turns into Yosef, Samir turns into Sami, and Awabad turns into Ami. They ask to be close to you, try to find favor with you, and give you all the attention in world, they are actually here knowing to act with courtesy, acting as if they really care for you, say a good word, but their behavior is only temporary. The moment you are in their hands, in their village, under their control, everything changes.”
“Your life will never go back to the way it was, and the attention you so desired will turn into curses, beatings, and humiliations,”
But frankly how can even the left argue with this assessment?
“It’s known that girls who go out with Arabs are beaten, these girls are in danger. . . . There is a violent social trend and everyone ignores it,” said the head of the group, Anat Gopstein, in a radio interview Wednesday morning.
But of course liberal clergy like Gilad Kariv shrieked, “Israeli society is falling into a deep, dark pit of racism and xenophobia”.
Is there anyone who still doesn’t know it? And if women are treated just as well in the Muslim world, then why do 98 percent of foreign women in Egypt report being abused on a daily basis. There is no answer to the truth.
When Jewish women do marry Arab men, they often end up being trapped in villages, abused and degraded.
Galit met Rami Kadera, an Arab from Gaza, ten years ago when he was employed as a waiter in a wedding hall. She was just sixteen — “I knew he was an Arab but all my friends were meeting Arabs”— and thought he had Israeli citizenship and would be allowed to live in Israel. When he eventually took her and their four children back to Gaza after being forced to leave Israel, where he had been working illegally, she thought it was for a short visit, never imagining she would be taken hostage by her own husband. Instead, she found herself trapped, stripped of her documents, and routinely beaten and tortured.
...Her mother arranged to pay for the cab, and the relative made contact with the Israeli soldiers at the Erez checkpoint, explaining that an Israeli woman and three children would be passing through. When she arrived back in Israel, she was covered with bruises and weighed under a hundred pounds.
Sometimes they can be rescued by organizations like Yad L’Achim, but often they and their children descend into a life of permanent slavery.
Phyllis Chesler has lived this life when she moved to Afghanistan and speaks with an insight that few others can muster.
I have talked to many American mothers who have traveled to the Muslim world to meet their husbands’ families who soon find that they cannot leave. Their passports may be taken away. They have no local resources to protect them.
Long ago, this happened to me in Kabul, Afghanistan.
He lied. One thing that Westerners find hard to believe is the ease with which many traditional Arabs and Muslims both exaggerate or lie. Think about how effective Islamist propaganda has been in the West. Then, think of how this capacity might play out in a domestic setting.
Talk to most Arab and Muslim men and you will find that the slightest departure from their being in control means that they have been victimized and must avenge their lost honor. Thus, Yazmin’s attempt to remove Sadiq’s “property” (their daughter) means that Yazmin will tarnish Sadiq’s honor. If Sadiq is like other Arab, Muslim men, he will say and do anything to avoid this.
Anything. That is the source of the honor-killing.
Finally to close with an Islamic Valentine’s Day message from Western Rifle Shooters
But what if that hot new child bride is not in the mood to satisfy your male needs? Those teenagers (and preteens) can be quite a handful, as we all know. Well, she’d better get in the mood, if she doesn’t want a good thrashing! Our holy books are very clear on this. But what if she still won’t receive your overtures when you want to lay a little loving on her? You have even beaten her black and blue (except on her face), but to no avail. She’s lost that loving feeling, or maybe she never had it in the first place. Some teenage brides are just like that.
Men, this part is great, you will just love it. And this goes for any of your wives, from your oldest to your youngest. Just divorce them, by saying “I divorce thee!” That’s it! No lawyers, no paperwork, no alimony. After this legally-binding divorce occurs she’s thrown out on the street, penniless and rejected by society. The witch will soon be begging on a corner. She’s not exactly a pretty sight, but lucky for us men we don’t have to see her, since she’s just a lump in a burqa, squatting on the sidewalk with only her begging cup showing. Her pitiful example will also do wonders to encourage your other wives to please you better.
Isn’t that great, men? Truly, the one true religion of peace is perfect for us.
Read it all.
Samurai Mohel has his own list of reasons like
3. Don’t have daughters. If you do, first their clitoris will be cut off, and then their head if they ever dishonor the family by acting like teenage girls.
4. All your husband has to do to divorce you is recite a sentence in Arabic three times. He can also email it you or text it to you.
5. If you move to an Arab village and get raped, your rapists can accuse you of adultery. You can’t accuse them of rape.
6. Your mandatory body garment also doubles as a shroud when your husband decides to dispose of you.
On to an issue regarding yesterday’s article. A number of sites have linked to the story on the Shariah 4 America plan to put a burka on the Statue of Liberty, before demolishing it and replacing it with a minaret. Some have begun to retract the story as a parody.
Confusion has arisen because there are two Shariah4America websites.
One is Shariah4America.com, the authentic site, whose contact phone number is the same as that for the Islamic Thinkers Society, a New York City based Islamist group, which is linked to Revolution Muslim and the UK’s Al-Muhajiroun, formerly led by Anjem Choudary before being banned there. Anjem Choudary was due to protest in front of the White House before canceling his plans. The plan to deface the Statue of Liberty is on this site.
However Sharia4America (note the spelling) is a semi-parody site by Reza Soltani of MuslimsDebate, an Iranian-American from California, who calls himself a Muslim reformer and opposes the imposition of Sharia Law on America. These are two fundamentally different sites.
FOX News reported this correctly, but because of the similar website spellings there has been some confusion. The Islamic Thinkers Society is also known to be deliberately provocative, outrageous and confrontational in order to court publicity. (See more on this at Atlas Shrugs.)
Islamic Thinkers Society rallies have featured posters such as “Exterminate the Zionist Roaches”, “Throw the Jew Down the Well” and the Holocaust was a Hoax. They have also desecrated the American flag. The proposals on the site are not out of line in that context.
Meanwhile Boker Tov Boulder notes that many of the Hamas 54 congressmen are still around and tied to anti-Israel group J Street’s hate fest.
Even though it’s funded by George Soros, J Street insists on calling itself pro-Israel, even though the conference featured panels such as
“Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions in 2011: Who’s Afraid of the BDS?”
One of the most controversial trends in organizing around Middle East peace efforts is the use of boycotts, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) as a campaign tactic. Our panelists will discuss their views on BDS’s efficacy as a means to end the occupation and move towards final-status talks, and the ways BDS may influence campaigns for peace in the United States and the region.
Are all the congresscritters signing on to this aware that they’re endorsing a conference where calls for boycotting Israel are being promoted?
Lisa Graas at Newsreal has an ugly story that foreshadows the beginning of a new campaign for the ethnic cleansing of Egyptian Christians.
While the Left glories in the “Demubarakization of Egypt,” the Obama administration continues in silence on the atrocities being committed against the Coptic Christians who are the indigenous people of Egypt. Copts in southern Egypt are protesting the murder of a priest by Islamists shouting “Allahu Akbar.” The Egyptian military is busying itself in attacking monasteries by knocking down walls and launching RGB attacks.
Now, the Muslim Governor of Minya, has ordered a community center for handicapped children to be demolished unless protection money is paid, and ten new homes built by Copts are to be torn down unless a mosque is built, though no Muslims live there. The Obama administration’s policies regarding Israel/Gaza and Egypt/Copts appears to be exactly backward.
Puts that Ground Zero Mosque to be built in a place where no Muslims live in a whole new context, doesn’t it.
And to connect the dots, Imam Rauf attended the J Street hatefest. Isn’t it funny how those dots all connect. It’s like we face a common enemy or something.
Daniel Greenfield Most recent columns
Daniel Greenfield is a New York City based writer and freelance commentator. “Daniel comments on political affairs with a special focus on the War on Terror and the rising threat to Western Civilization. He maintains a blog at Sultanknish.blogspot.com.
Daniel can be reached at: sultanknish@yahoo.com
Incandescent light bulbs
SC State Reps Have More Than Their Heads Screwed on Properly
According to Robert Romano of NETRIGHTDAILY.com two State Representatives in South Carolina want to get their heads screwed on right by allowing the people of their state to be able to continue to screw incandescent light bulbs into the lighting fixtures in their homes in that state.
These two screwy, in the most commendable way, legislators Bill Sandifer and Dwight Loftis, have authored and submitted a bill that would allow for the manufacture and purchase of incandescent bulbs in South Carolina. As Romero points out, these bulbs are currently subject to a federal ban that begins to take effect in January, 2012, just a mere nine months from now.
NetRightDaily’s reporter Romano explained what motivated the two State Representatives Sandifer and Loftis as told by Bill Wilson, the President of Americans for Limited Government when he said they “are taking the lead in protecting the rights of South Carolina consumers, who don’t want the federal government telling them which light bulbs they must use.”
“The basic concept of the bill” according to State Rep. Bill Sandifer, Chairman of the House Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee, “is to allow the citizens of South Carolina to be able to continue to buy incandescent bulbs.”
“It is my strong belief that the feds have overstepped the Tenth Amendment, and now are venturing into telling us what kinds of lighting we can have in our homes,” Sandifer added.
“But how can the federal government ban light bulbs?’ asked Romano, “They are trying to use again as they have so often done, the Commerce Clause. But I have a real problem with Big Brother intruding in how I live in my home,” Sandifer declared.
Explaining what the bill does, Representative Loftis said “it provides for the option of an entity manufacturing these bulbs in South Carolina to be sold in South Carolina”.
Wilson explained, “since the bulbs would be made entirely in South Carolina and sold in South Carolina, the federal government has no power to regulate it under the Interstate Commerce Clause.” Romano’s report went on saying there would be more hearings in the subcommittee before coming to a final vote in the full committee. Chairman Sandifer was hopeful for a full house
approval of the bill.
After regaining control of Congress in 2006 a piece of legislation passed by the Congressional majority of Democrats in 2007 called Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 which requires that all general-purpose light bulbs be more energy efficient than the existing incandescent bulbs starting on January 01, 2012 on a graduated basis beginning with 100 watt bulbs and ending with 40 watt bulbs in 2014.
It seems like that legislation was enacted just this past year it is still so fresh in people’s minds along with the unpopularity of its requirements. Except for a few chronic worry-warts I know that would be happy to ban almost any activity we humans take for granted, just about everyone else I speak with would prefer to keep the old reliable bulb Thomas Edison brought to us over a century ago.
The “Greenies” as environmentalists are often known, might be happy with their coup of replacing incandescent with the ‘compact fluorescent lamps but our modern day rival China is ecstatic over this new ruling, as they have gained the lion’s share of the market for CFLs as they are commonly known.
So the Democrats once again proved their leadership in moving jobs away from American citizens and blessing foreigners with their largesse, reminiscent of the job shift from American citizens to foreign illegal aliens for the sake of gaining more votes, illegal in many cases, right here at home.
So OK, maybe they’re better for us in terms of environmental issues; but much of the opposition to these bulbs do not agree with that assessment. And the cost factor is also being argued in some circles that the excessive extra cost can, in some instances, never be recovered through cheaper operating costs. Time will settle that issue.
But these new corkscrew looking bulbs may be MUCH more dangerous to our health and the environment as the heavy content of mercury poses long-term additional risks and the very costs of necessary burdensome methods of exact clean-up of broken bulbs is onerous, particularly indoors where nearly all of the breakage will be concentrated. Another time-will-tell issue. But can we wait to find out?
One more complaint with these bulbs is the inability to provide a dimmable bulb which is very popular in many households. It is believed that this will be worked out in due time; but as stated above, can we wait to find out?
Robert Romano furnished these closing remarks by Dwight Loftis, one of the South Carolina Representative authors of the bill who blasted the federal ban on incandescent light bulbs, saying, “On the one hand, the feds say we need to do something about cleaning up the environment, and on the other hand, they impose requirements that we use this particular light bulb that has hazards with the disposal of it.” The new fluorescent bulbs are laced with mercury, raising concerns over the costs of proper disposal and over mercury seepage back into the environment.
“All in all, it’s just something that the feds really I think have no business in regulating,” Loftis said, saying that the supposed cost savings from using the bulbs simply will not be there for consumers.”
I agree. Why in the world would we Americans want to mandate a foreign product of highly questionable merits, and of higher costs along with attendant loss of jobs going to other countries?
Are all those negatives worth seeing Democrats get more votes to perpetuate their terms in office? Good luck to the two South Carolina solons and may their zeal spread rapidly to other states if the Republicans in Congress can’t repeal this bad piece of legislation.
According to Robert Romano of NETRIGHTDAILY.com two State Representatives in South Carolina want to get their heads screwed on right by allowing the people of their state to be able to continue to screw incandescent light bulbs into the lighting fixtures in their homes in that state.
These two screwy, in the most commendable way, legislators Bill Sandifer and Dwight Loftis, have authored and submitted a bill that would allow for the manufacture and purchase of incandescent bulbs in South Carolina. As Romero points out, these bulbs are currently subject to a federal ban that begins to take effect in January, 2012, just a mere nine months from now.
NetRightDaily’s reporter Romano explained what motivated the two State Representatives Sandifer and Loftis as told by Bill Wilson, the President of Americans for Limited Government when he said they “are taking the lead in protecting the rights of South Carolina consumers, who don’t want the federal government telling them which light bulbs they must use.”
“The basic concept of the bill” according to State Rep. Bill Sandifer, Chairman of the House Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee, “is to allow the citizens of South Carolina to be able to continue to buy incandescent bulbs.”
“It is my strong belief that the feds have overstepped the Tenth Amendment, and now are venturing into telling us what kinds of lighting we can have in our homes,” Sandifer added.
“But how can the federal government ban light bulbs?’ asked Romano, “They are trying to use again as they have so often done, the Commerce Clause. But I have a real problem with Big Brother intruding in how I live in my home,” Sandifer declared.
Explaining what the bill does, Representative Loftis said “it provides for the option of an entity manufacturing these bulbs in South Carolina to be sold in South Carolina”.
Wilson explained, “since the bulbs would be made entirely in South Carolina and sold in South Carolina, the federal government has no power to regulate it under the Interstate Commerce Clause.” Romano’s report went on saying there would be more hearings in the subcommittee before coming to a final vote in the full committee. Chairman Sandifer was hopeful for a full house
approval of the bill.
After regaining control of Congress in 2006 a piece of legislation passed by the Congressional majority of Democrats in 2007 called Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 which requires that all general-purpose light bulbs be more energy efficient than the existing incandescent bulbs starting on January 01, 2012 on a graduated basis beginning with 100 watt bulbs and ending with 40 watt bulbs in 2014.
It seems like that legislation was enacted just this past year it is still so fresh in people’s minds along with the unpopularity of its requirements. Except for a few chronic worry-warts I know that would be happy to ban almost any activity we humans take for granted, just about everyone else I speak with would prefer to keep the old reliable bulb Thomas Edison brought to us over a century ago.
The “Greenies” as environmentalists are often known, might be happy with their coup of replacing incandescent with the ‘compact fluorescent lamps but our modern day rival China is ecstatic over this new ruling, as they have gained the lion’s share of the market for CFLs as they are commonly known.
So the Democrats once again proved their leadership in moving jobs away from American citizens and blessing foreigners with their largesse, reminiscent of the job shift from American citizens to foreign illegal aliens for the sake of gaining more votes, illegal in many cases, right here at home.
So OK, maybe they’re better for us in terms of environmental issues; but much of the opposition to these bulbs do not agree with that assessment. And the cost factor is also being argued in some circles that the excessive extra cost can, in some instances, never be recovered through cheaper operating costs. Time will settle that issue.
But these new corkscrew looking bulbs may be MUCH more dangerous to our health and the environment as the heavy content of mercury poses long-term additional risks and the very costs of necessary burdensome methods of exact clean-up of broken bulbs is onerous, particularly indoors where nearly all of the breakage will be concentrated. Another time-will-tell issue. But can we wait to find out?
One more complaint with these bulbs is the inability to provide a dimmable bulb which is very popular in many households. It is believed that this will be worked out in due time; but as stated above, can we wait to find out?
Robert Romano furnished these closing remarks by Dwight Loftis, one of the South Carolina Representative authors of the bill who blasted the federal ban on incandescent light bulbs, saying, “On the one hand, the feds say we need to do something about cleaning up the environment, and on the other hand, they impose requirements that we use this particular light bulb that has hazards with the disposal of it.” The new fluorescent bulbs are laced with mercury, raising concerns over the costs of proper disposal and over mercury seepage back into the environment.
“All in all, it’s just something that the feds really I think have no business in regulating,” Loftis said, saying that the supposed cost savings from using the bulbs simply will not be there for consumers.”
I agree. Why in the world would we Americans want to mandate a foreign product of highly questionable merits, and of higher costs along with attendant loss of jobs going to other countries?
Are all those negatives worth seeing Democrats get more votes to perpetuate their terms in office? Good luck to the two South Carolina solons and may their zeal spread rapidly to other states if the Republicans in Congress can’t repeal this bad piece of legislation.